Will Moldova Be on the “Negotiating Menu”?

Sergiu CEBAN

The end of 2024 may be marked by attempts of the leading actors to achieve peace in Ukraine. In this case, Moldova’s future may become an element of a global compromise

The UN high-level week was held amid the global challenges in an increasingly fragile world. Developments in the Middle East illustrate that local and non-local conflicts continue to spark up in certain regions. Meanwhile, even the United States, with its long-standing status of the major international arbiter, not to mention other actors, has no particular vision of how to stop the world from rolling into a large-scale military confrontation. In this regard, the main focus is still on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, which is entering a new phase after the summer military campaign. For now, it is difficult to say with certainty whether this phase is the culmination, whether it will finally lead to negotiations. But in any case, as it has been repeatedly noted, the outcome of this war is crucial for Moldova, as it will affect the fate of the entire regional space. The U.S. role for Ukraine is not comparable to what other countries have contributed, and the prospects for ending the war depend on the stance the American establishment takes on the war. Therefore, the trip across the ocean was of strategic importance for Volodymyr Zelensky. The main goal was to ensure that the level of military support is maintained and, ideally, increased. In addition, it was necessary to keep the Ukrainian issue in the focus of the world community. To this end, before the Ukrainian president’s visit, the main media intrigue revolved around the authorization to use Western long-range missiles on Russian territory and Zelensky’s so-called “Victory Plan”. Together, these two factors could allegedly change the situation dramatically bringing everyone closer to starting peace talks from a position of strength. All week the “plan” details were vigorously disseminated by Western media, and it was hard to call it a prologue to peace, rather the opposite. So, it did not initially fit into the appeasement narratives cautiously voiced in Berlin and Paris, not to mention Trump and the China-led countries of the Global South. As a result, the Ukrainian leader’s voyage to the USA seems rather unsuccessful. First, the Ukrainian delegation managed to get caught up in a scandal and face accusations from the Republican Party for interfering in the election on the side of the Democratic candidate. As a result, Zelensky was not only denied a meeting in Congress, but also officially demanded to replace the Ukrainian ambassador. The meeting with President Joe Biden did not yield the expected results. With the exception of the $8 billion left over from the spring aid package and the planned air bombs, no concrete decisions were announced on the provision of long-range missiles, air defense systems or weapons to equip the 14 brigades. Moreover, no clear plans for long-term financial support for Ukraine followed. There is no money for Kyiv in the American budget for the next year, and after the electoral scandal, we cannot count on bipartisan support either. As for the “Victory Plan”, the White House has taken time to consider it, as it is obvious that the Ukrainians are actively stirring up this topic and trying, to put it mildly, to drive the outgoing U.S. administration in a tight spot. A frankly humiliating situation occurred when organizing a meeting between Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump. At first, both publicly exchanged barbs, but in the end, the head of Ukraine was forced to ask apologetically for an audience. After that, Trump agreed to receive him in his office. While talking to the press, Zelensky had to listen to clearly unpleasant statements of the U.S. presidential candidate, that the war must be ended as soon as possible, and it is senseless to do it without Russia’s participation. And the main point is that the agreement will have to be made, apparently, with Vladimir Putin, with whom, as Trump particularly emphasized, he is on good terms. It seems that in the deep American state there is a certain polarity in assessments of further actions. Among other things, this resulted in the fact that the elites of the Democratic Party had not expressed their unconditional loyalty to further active armed resistance of Ukraine, coming up only with general remarks. Consequently, it can be assumed that Kyiv is being prepared for something: perhaps it has been advised to reconsider its strategy with this cool reception. Therefore, we should not be surprised if we will soon see some fundamental decisions on the forms of military support for Ukraine in the Ramstein format, which will be held on 12 October and personally attended by Biden and other European leaders. All of this is complicated with the worsening situation on the front. The picture has changed a lot there compared to previous years, with the progressive advance of Russian troops coupled with the operational encirclement of Ukrainian garrisons in Vuhledar and near Nevelske. The various AFU groupings are gradually being cut to pieces, with a growing risk of losing an entire cascade of cities in Donbas. Only very strong optimists can expect that the Russian army will run down and shift to strategic defense, while the Ukrainian army will make a march to the borders of 1991. Western countries realize this, and will probably try every possible way to persuade Kyiv to abandon unattainable goals and adapt to more realistic objectives. For example, those that can be solved by political and diplomatic methods, where the U.S. and its allies have significant resources. But, of course, the Ukrainians will no longer be offered the Istanbul terms. The current situation implies significant territorial losses, accompanied by a huge number of casualties, destroyed economy and infrastructure. Unfortunately, any peace (truce) will be on principles worse than April 2022. Therefore, the main danger for the current leadership of Ukraine is that sooner or later questions will arise as to why the opportunity to reach an agreement was rejected, bringing the country to a much worse situation in every sense. As the U.S. presidential election approaches, the “party of peace” and the “party of war” are sure to bicker more and more, but the common goal is to keep Ukraine in Washington’s orbit of influence. In the meantime, an alternative conflict resolution platform called “Friends of Peace” has expectedly sprouted. A meeting in this format has already been held at the UN headquarters in New York, where, in addition to the Chinese delegation, representatives of Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Mexico, Zambia and 17 other states of the Global South participated. This is yet another example of the strategic failure of the Ukrainian President’s office, which has failed to attract a sufficient number of countries under the banner of the “Ukrainian peace formula”. Our ruling elites must surely sense a change in the direction of this great process. It is obvious that Moscow intends to negotiate first and foremost with the United States, not with Kyiv, and certainly not with us. For this reason, in his speech at the UN General Assembly, Dorin Recean complained to the world that “Kremlin doesn’t want us at the table. Kremlin wants us on the table.” Alas, this does not seem to be far from the truth, and Moldova’s fate will indeed be decided in one major “Ukrainian Package’”, and possibly in a broader “Post-Soviet Package”. And there are reasonable fears that the voice of Chisinau will not be heard, and the future of our country may also become an element of compromise between global players.