Indecisiveness

In the new geopolitical realities, Moldova needs to quickly decide where it sees itself in the next few decades, expert Sergiu Ceban believes

Sergiu CEBAN, RTA This year, two historical anniversaries fell on December at once, which are difficult to ignore. After all, our state’s modern history and the reconstruction of the entire post-Soviet region are connected to them. Of course, it’s the dissolution of the Soviet Union, formalized on December 8, 1991, and the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States on December 21 of the same year. For three decades, ruling parties, alliances and presidents have been actively rotating in our country, the foreign policy course has been adjusted in favor of geopolitical choices, which could not but affect the perception of the CIS, which is directly associated with Moscow. Nevertheless, despite the gradual distancing from the commonwealth, including to show solidarity with Kiev and Tbilisi, who defiantly left the organization, Chisinau, even under the current leadership, is in no hurry to act boldly. We know that for the Kremlin, participation in the CIS, a kind of “private club”, is politically indicative, therefore, counting on normal relations with Moscow, our authorities try to show “interest” by at least a nominal presence. While in Moscow, Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration Nicu Popescu confirmed the prospects of cooperation with the Commonwealth member states. In addition, Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilita and Speaker of Parliament Igor Grosu are trying to get involved in events held within the CIS at the highest political level. The 30th anniversary of the dissolution of the USSR, which, according to the personal conviction of the Russian president, is the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century, symbolically coincided with the “Putin ultimatum” to the collective West. It seems that it was by the regular anniversary that the Kremlin leader decided to end the post-Soviet period of disintegration and uncertainty, as well as to determine spheres of influence together with Washington and begin restoring geopolitical unity within the former Soviet borders. The greatest concern in Western capitals is caused by Russia’s unprecedented determination. Previously, its politicians tried to the last to look for diplomatic ways out of the most difficult situations, every time humbly accepting new sanctions. This time, judging by the same activity of the Russian military on the border with Ukraine, the likelihood that Moscow may resort to the use of some force measures has increased manifold. Our leadership tried to refrain from what was happening on the Russian-Ukrainian borders for a long time, but it seems that the advisers surrounding the president and the leaders of the Action and Solidarity party finally explained that it is unlikely to work out hiding behind Ukrainian colleagues. The threats voiced by Moscow are most likely a clear signal that it is ready to implement them in case Western partners do not agree with the proposal to redistribute control over the post-Soviet space. Our experts are also concerned, believing that Washington and the Kremlin are able to reach some kind of compromise in order to ease critical tension in their relations. Such a deal will undoubtedly have an extremely negative impact on the (geo)political prospects of the post-Soviet region, and may also put an end to the Euro-Atlantic plans of Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia, which the elites of these countries have elevated to the rank of practically state ideology. It is also obvious that in these new circumstances, one can hardly expect concessions from the Kremlin, which claims to not intend to retreat anymore. Such firmness of stances can be considered as a fundamental intention of the Russian side to obtain from the United States legal recognition of the current situation, as well as rights to the territories annexed and controlled by Moscow, including the eastern regions of Moldova and Ukraine. There is a strong feeling that at this crucial historical moment for the Eastern European space, the indecision and attempts of our leadership to continue to keep its fingers in every pie, both in the pro-Moscow CIS and the pro-European Eastern Partnership, and as a result nowhere, can ultimately cost us all a lot. Let’s be honest, the president and the parliamentary majority have almost fallen into the “geopolitical stretch”, apparently hoping that in the end external partners will help us out. After a series of frank and not too friendly statements by Maia Sandu towards the Kremlin, the other day the head of state decided to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction from the European Union and try to smooth out some rough edges in relations with Moscow. So, she hopefully said that the Moldovan-Russian dialogue is going on at different levels, and a number of visits and joint events are planned to solve pressing problems in relations between Moldova and Russia. At the same time, she stressed the interest of our country in expanding the export of Moldovan goods to the Russian Federation, ensuring the social protection of our migrants, activating the Transnistrian settlement and disposing of ammunition in warehouses in Cobasna. Also yesterday, the parliamentary commission on Foreign policy and European integration accelerated the process of appointing the ambassador to Moscow by approving the candidacy of Lilian Darii. Previously, the diplomat held the position of Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs in the government of Pavel Filip, and also worked as ambassador to Belgium, Luxembourg and Charge d’affaires with NATO. Many experts come to the conclusion that our political leaders, showing geopolitical indecision, are wasting the last grains of precious time and trying to sit on the sidelines, continuing to pretend that “Moldova is out of the game”. No, the countdown has already started, the hourglass has been turned over, and we actually have very little chance to make a clear, understandable and uncontested decision as soon as possible about where we see ourselves in the next few decades. Unconvincing arguments that our country is trying to act prudently, based on its neutral status, will eventually lead to the fact that we will be decided for without our knowledge and given not a choice, but a fact. Currently, only neighboring Ukraine is at the epicenter of geopolitical events and Washington and Moscow may force it to accept the corresponding strategic fate and the need for reconciliation with the Donbass on unfavorable Minsk terms. If our political elites do not show the courage and foresight to decide for themselves, we will eventually also be forced to submit to the conditions of the geopolitical compromise of the “senior” players. Although, the current government may just be trying to achieve this.