Why Did PAS Demand a Declaration on Russian Troop Withdrawal?

Anton ŠVEC

In the midst of the energy crisis, the ruling regime continues to generate strange ideas. What is it - another demonstration of loyalty to partners in the West, an attempt to put pressure on Moscow and Tiraspol or a desire to play the geopolitical card before the parliamentary elections?  

After the closed session of the Supreme Security Council, Maia Sandu in an interview again raised the topic of the withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria. With this she conditioned the provision of financial assistance to the region in the context of the gas crisis, as well as the subsequent settlement of the conflict as a whole. Obviously, the money is planned to be obtained from Western sponsors, who apparently agreed to expand their allocations to Moldova in case the elites in Tiraspol refuse to cooperate with Moscow and subsequently come under the jurisdiction of the constitutional authorities. The current situation resembles a delayed start or “late ignition”. At the end of last year, Dorin Recean several times put forward the demand to withdraw the Russian military and property from the left bank of the Dniester as a precursor to the start of political negotiations with Tiraspol. It can be assumed that the plan of the authorities was that in the face of the energy, economic and humanitarian crisis Transnistria would not resist and would be ready to make any concessions, including accepting political capitulation to Chisinau, which accelerated the process of the EU integration. The reality is different. In spite of the lack of gas and heating, power cuts and the shutdown of industrial enterprises, Tiraspol does not intend to give up yet. Moreover, it has managed to agree with Moscow on the supply of so-called “humanitarian” gas from European markets. The scheme may work in the near future, which will allow the region to restart the economy and to resume public services to the population. In other words, it will return to a more or less familiar existence, albeit in worse conditions. Meanwhile, difficulties began to arise on the right bank in paying for expensive Romanian electricity, so that Tiraspol did not even have to threaten to stop the transit of Romanian electricity through the plant in Dnestrovsk. At the same time, the central authorities, realizing the unreliability of the current energy supply configuration and its high cost, are already thinking about ways to use the generating capacities of the MoldGRES again to cover the country’s needs. And this cannot be done at the moment without dialogue with the left bank leadership. Despite the fact that the crisis affected Transnistria much more severely than the right bank, the disposition in the settlement has not changed radically. But as if no one has corrected the “playbooks” of Maia Sandu and her team. The president still offers Western money to buy gas for the market and for humanitarian purposes, and in general in exchange for political concessions. This looks especially strange in view of Donald Trump’s decision to freeze for 90 days all US foreign financial aid programs and to review them “from the point of view of compliance with Washington’s interests and foreign policy”. The US has been an important donor for Moldova in recent years, so the authorities may soon feel “financial insufficiency”, especially given the unfavorable price situation on the energy market. In fact, the PAS regime has no money, and what it planned to buy with it is not yet for sale, as has been proven by the example of the last few days. In such a situation, it would be reasonable not to publicize the plan and leave it until better days. Especially since in the coming year the parties will face a variety of crises, including in the energy sector, when Chisinau’s proposal could be useful, at least to start a dialogue. Maia Sandu has rarely ever acted reasonably, so she and her team continued to insist on the solutions agreed with the West, ignoring the expected fallout of the main factor - the energy crisis and humanitarian catastrophe, and the fact that Tiraspol is not backing down. Hence the statements that Moscow is trying to prevent the emerging rapprochement between the two banks by cutting off gas supplies (from the outside it seems the opposite: that relations are worse than ever since the conflict). But the authorities are promoting the media agenda as if the circumstances did not change and there will be no need to negotiate with Transnistria about electricity in the foreseeable future. The parliamentary majority “was at back and call” and picked up Maia Sandu’s narrative about the withdrawal of troops with a vigor worthy of better use. There was even an idea of adopting a declaration in parliament demanding the elimination of Russia’s military presence and the reformatting of the peacekeeping mission on the Dniester. Who knows, this may be why the Moldovan delegation refused to visit peacekeeping posts before the New Year holidays and did not attend several JCC meetings in a row. However, there is nothing new in calling for the withdrawal of troops from the parliamentary rostrum. This has happened before: for example, in 2017, Plahotniuc secured the adoption of a resolution condemning the illegal presence of Russian troops in Transnistria. At the same time, the Constitutional Court published an interpretation that such presence contradicts the principle of neutrality laid down in the basic law, and the government adopted a statement against the peacekeeping mission. The “cherry on the cake” was the refusal to allow a representative Russian delegation travelling to Moldova to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the deployment of peacekeeping forces to the Security Zone. At the time, this provoked a sharp deterioration in relations with Russia. However, even such attempts to demonstrate geopolitical loyalty to the West did not help Plahotniuc - his regime was overthrown, and the Kremlin gave him almost a decisive “tripping” at that time. It is obvious that such a declaration today, as the opposition rightly points out, will have no practical consequences. And the next loyalty test of the PAS should have been organized closer to the expiry of the 90-day deadline for auditing the US State Department’s financial programs, in order to show ourselves in time. If it is necessary only to accuse political rivals of something before the parliamentary elections, then such a move looks frankly pathetic, although it is typical for the current government, which plays the “geopolitical card” at the first opportunity.