Transnistria Remains a Point of International Focus

Sergiu CEBAN

Despite being “frozen”, the Transnistrian conflict remains a focal point for international actors, each following its own course but inevitably approaching a critical juncture. The situation may unfold in various ways, from escalation to the renewed diplomatic negotiations.

Last week, Bucharest hosted the IX Black Sea and Balkan Security Forum, bringing together representatives of governments, diplomatic missions, military, and experts from EU and NATO countries. Among the 50 thematic sections, one was dedicated to the situation in Transnistria, with the participation of Parliament Speaker Igor Grosu and Foreign Minister Mihai Popsoi. Nobody expected them to deliver any groundbreaking statements, and the Speaker indeed met those expectations. He stuck to standard rhetoric, saying t a foreign army is stationed in our country, and that the Left Bank and the Gagauz autonomy are being used as tools of destabilization. Nevertheless, the inclusion of the Transnistrian issue on the forum’s agenda clearly indicates that this matter continues to remain in the focus of Western politicians and experts – something that cannot be said about Moldova, where the issue is barely on the radar of pressing public concerns. This discrepancy in the perception of the frozen conflict primarily highlights the gap between the interests of international actors and the domestic political agenda in Chisinau. Admittedly, our editorial team has always considered it essential to keep a close watch on how the situation around this important issue is evolving at any given moment. As the start of EU accession talks draws nearer, many analysts and diplomats expect Brussels to assume a leading role as the key “initiator of Moldova’s reintegration”. Some believe that European institutions may go beyond mere “monitoring” functions and could propose their own roadmap, complete with financial guarantees and institutional support for the country’s reunification. However, opinions on the prospects of such an initiative vary. Some argue that the international context is more than favorable for the EU to assert its geopolitical agency, while others caution against provoking heightened Kremlin attention toward Moldova and suggest waiting for a resolution to the conflict in Ukraine. Ukraine, as our key neighbor and an evidently interested party, is currently acting in a rather peculiar manner. A striking example is the recent high-profile remarks by Ukrainian Ambassador Paun Rohovei, who stated that the “5+2” format is effectively dead, despite the fact that his country is in no hurry to officially withdraw from the group. All of this unfolds against the backdrop of recent Russian-Ukrainian talks in Istanbul, as well as statements from Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry about preparations for a presidential summit between the two nations. In addition, political signals are being reinforced by economic ones, though the latter are met with mixed reactions in Chisinau and have even sparked some irritation among our politicians. Firstly, there is the extension of protective tariffs on cement produced on the left bank of the Dniester. Secondly, the restoration of the high-voltage transmission line between Podilsk and the Moldova Steel Works, which has deepened the region’s energy dependence on Ukrainian supplies. Thirdly, there are plans to resume passenger rail service between Odesa and Chisinau via the Transnistrian section of the route. In doing so, Kyiv is holding back the political momentum of the settlement process while simultaneously balancing the overall situation through economic measures, thereby preserving its room for diplomatic maneuvering. It is evident that these steps are reinforcing Ukraine’s position as a key moderator in the Transnistrian settlement, allowing it to directly influence the dynamics of the process. The United States, for now, appears to place low priority on our region. The post of ambassador to Chisinau has remained vacant for over a year. However, the sudden replacement of the ambassador in Bucharest suggests that upcoming personnel changes could also affect the diplomatic mission in Moldova. Thus, the current administration’s strategy, including on the Transnistrian issue, may finally become clearer. For Chisinau, it is crucial to understand whether Washington views the Moldovan case as a distinct item on the regional agenda – or merely as part of a broader “Ukrainian deal”. Despite all the complexities, Moscow remains the most influential external actor in the Transnistrian region when it comes to ensuring its basic livelihood. Its primary concerns revolve around the potential recurrence of an energy crisis. According to the Russian assessment, the likelihood of an escalation as the next cold season approaches is significantly increasing due to rising energy demands. In such a scenario, much will indeed depend on the positions of Chisinau and Brussels, whether they choose to focus on bilateral negotiations or adopt a much tougher stance toward Tiraspol than they did last winter. In this context, it is worth paying close attention to the rhetoric of our authorities. While they had previously adopted a more or less cautious tone in public discourse regarding the left bank, they now appear to have shifted toward articulating a much firmer stance. Just yesterday, Prime Minister Dorin Recean openly referred to the Transnistrian administration as criminals. Such statements may be part of an upcoming election campaign, but they could also signal that Chisinau is serious about confronting the defiant region ahead of the decisive phase of EU accession talks, seeking to compel local elites to demonstrate loyalty to the country’s unified foreign policy course. Perhaps some are overwhelmed by emotion or strained by a demanding work schedule, but it is only logical to ask: how effective is this communication strategy with the Transnistrian leadership? Might it not risk derailing contacts with Tiraspol, which, by contrast, has recently shown restraint and a willingness to cooperate? Amid the harsh rhetoric coming from Chisinau and Kyiv, the left bank has indeed adopted a conciliatory and cautious stance. Just recently, in an interview with a Russian outlet, Vadim Krasnoselsky made several notable statements signaling stability along the borders and an absence of any provocations from Moldova against the peacekeeping mission. It appears that the local authorities are counting on Moscow, the EU, and the United States to prevent any radical escalation of the conflict and to preserve the fragile status quo for as long as possible. In this regard, the region clearly does not wish to become a source of destabilization or a trigger for international escalation. So, what’s the bottom-line? The European Union, while not currently displaying overt ambition, holds the potential to transition from a passive observer into a key coordinator of Moldova’s reintegration. Ukraine, for its part, is acting with greater assertiveness, demonstrating strategic flexibility by skillfully balancing the use of economic instruments with calibrated political rhetoric, thus maintaining its status as a significant player in the Transnistrian settlement process. The United States is in the midst of reassessing its role in regional affairs but has yet to articulate a clear strategic vision for the Balkans–Black Sea area. Russia, meanwhile, remains the principal guarantor of energy supplies to the left bank and continues to be an influential actor, exerting varying impact on the broader regional landscape. Thus, the Transnistrian issue, despite its “frozen” status, continues to occupy a prominent place on the radar of international actors, each of whom is following its own path, yet will sooner or later arrive at a crossroads. There is no shortage of possible scenarios ahead, ranging from conflict escalation to a reboot of diplomatic formats. The eventual outcome will depend not only on the political will of Chisinau and Tiraspol, but also on the extent to which external partners are prepared to view the situation along the Dniester not as a relic of the past, but as a key to stabilizing the regional security landscape.