“In the Grip of Great Powers”: Are US-Russia Talks to Decide Moldova’s Fate?

Sergiu CEBAN

Moldova already feels the geopolitical revival, which like a tsunami covers the whole continent and can completely change the image of modern European states

For the third month in a row, the Transnistrian issue is among the main topics in our information space. This attention is explained, of course, by the acute energy crisis. It has revealed the vulnerability of both banks of the Dniester and many other aspects that were either carefully concealed from the public gaze, or for many years nobody cared about them. The episode in Copanca, where there were more supporters of the left bank than of the constitutional regime, is worth mentioning. It is not surprising that the emerging situation on the Dniester is in constant diplomatic focus, which proves the activity of international players in the Transnistrian settlement. The catalyst for this external revival is certainly not only the shortage of energy resources, but also world events that can trigger a major regrouping of forces and geopolitical balances in our region. Following an urgent visit to Moldova in early January by the Finnish Foreign Minister and OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Elina Valtonen, last week we received a visit from her special envoy, Thomas Lenk. It is clear that in such a fragile security situation in Eastern Europe, the organization is trying to keep up at speed and at least to some extent ensure control, so that things do not slip into a deep, difficult-to-manage crisis. Lenk talked to key officials in the capital: Prime Minister Dorin Recean and his deputies for reintegration and European integration. However, the outcome of these meetings resulted in only one tiny press release, without a chance to draw any conclusions. It is possible that the minimization of the output information is due to the fact that Chisinau has recently been involved in ridiculous episodes due to the uncoordinated actions of various state bodies. Tiraspol seemed to be very insistent on the resumption of the 5+2 format. And it is noteworthy that, in contrast to the principled position that dominated the previous few years, the new OSCE special envoy for the Transnistrian settlement did not say that this format had exhausted itself and was a thing of the past. It seems as if there are now some chances for the resumption of these negotiations, although this requires additional efforts and conditions. We can notice that not only the left bank, but also the right ban, have smelled the very geopolitical revival, which like a tsunami covers the entire continent. I am referring to the attempts of Washington and Moscow to restore relations and sign some kind of agreement on Ukraine or even on security in Europe as a whole. If a compromise on these issues is found, and this cannot be ruled out even with all the scale of bilateral contradictions, the future course of events could completely reshape the political face of modern European states. We can already feel the suspense of the looming global reshaping, which was clearly signaled on the margins of the Munich Conference. Therefore, it would be a big mistake to continue living as if nothing is happening, including for Chisinau. First of all, as it seems to us, we should take into account the main factor: being in close proximity to Ukraine makes us the most vulnerable from the point of view of the rapid determination of Moldova’s geopolitical status by major players without due consideration of our opinion. The way the events around Ukraine are developing cannot but cause alarm not only in Kyiv, but also in Chisinau. And if the Ukrainian leadership can still afford to resist, counting on the support of European partners (who are already starting to form an “anti-Trump movement in the EU”), in our case the possibilities for maneuver are much more modest. But Washington has considerably more instruments of external pressure on us. In any case, it is not the most rational strategy to hold on in fear. It would be more reasonable to take advantage of the opportunity and, on the contrary, to try to promote our own vision of Moldova’s historical destiny in the negotiations between the White House and the Kremlin. Otherwise, by continuing to take a passive and wait-and-see attitude, our leadership may end up waiting for a draft agreement with Tiraspol to be brought to it from the United States, with the right only to put missing commas and delete a few additional paragraphs. Certainly, it is extremely important for us that key external partners, such as Romania and the European Union, are invited to the negotiating table. However, the United States apparently does not yet see the EU in its current form in the diplomatic process. In addition, it seemed that we had set Brussels up very badly by offering to tie another grant aid to Tiraspol to political demands, which defiantly refused such an offer, calling it an “unacceptable ultimatum”. As a result, Chisinau achieved certain concessions from the left-bank administration, but the EU born unnecessary image costs. In addition, Bucharest is also unlikely to be involved in ending the Transnistrian conflict, judging by the recent statements of American representatives regarding the cancellation of the presidential elections. While neighboring politicians are preoccupied with the deepening internal political crisis, the Romanian expert community has already felt the wind of change blowing and signals that Moscow’s sphere of influence may extend beyond the Dniester and come close to the Prut. The ruling regime probably expects that in time the new White House administration will come to realize the complexity of the Transnistrian problem, the solution of which requires a more accurate approach. Parallels can be drawn with the Russian-Ukrainian war, which Trump promised to stop within 24 hours, immediately after his inauguration, and which was given six months for a final settlement. But after the new president’s team familiarized with the details, the ceasefire timeline alone was shifted by 100 days. We are not going to make any final conclusions and cannot say for sure that we should expect dramatic changes this year. Nevertheless, the probability of such changes is very high. Naturally, we have to wait to see how the US-Russian negotiations in Saudi Arabia will go, and whether sufficient common ground will be found to organize a summit of the two leaders to sign the relevant agreements. Based on one or another outcome of this diplomatic game, the EU, Ukraine and Moldova will have to define their attitude. The worst-case scenario for the current Moldovan authorities is if Moscow achieves its strategic goals, not only by consolidating its control over all occupied territories from Crimea to Donbass, but also by blocking further NATO expansion to the East. On such a victorious wave, the Russian Federation will clearly be eager to build on its diplomatic success. And it is easy to guess how the outcome of the Transnistrian issue will turn out then, and what exactly the final model of settlement will look like, given the Kremlin’s long-term regional interests.