28 Points for Moldova

In the active negotiations on ending the war in Ukraine, many Moldovan experts see a unique window of opportunity to include the issue of the Transnistrian settlement in the international package of agreements

The recent negotiations in Geneva, where the 28-point peace plan for Ukraine proposed by Donald Trump was reportedly being adjusted, have sparked a wave of expectations in our expert community. Against the backdrop of a potential formation of a new security architecture in Eastern Europe, the idea has emerged that right now Chisinau has a rare window of opportunity to include the issue of the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Transnistrian region in the international package of agreements. With growing diplomatic dynamics, such hopes appear understandable, especially for a state that has been trying for decades to resolve a frozen conflict on its territory. However, such excessive optimism may turn out to be an intellectual trap, especially for a not particularly experienced audience. If Moldova does indeed find itself at the center of major negotiations, then not only the topics desirable to it will be discussed, but also those that will require, so to speak, complex compromises and political will. The illusion that one can gain everything while conceding nothing is hardly consistent with how international politics actually works. Nevertheless, since a wide range of speculations has emerged suggesting that the United States might include the issue of the Transnistrian settlement in a Russian-Ukrainian agreement, we have also decided to consider what a 28-point plan, adapted specifically to the Moldovan context and, therefore, to the Transnistrian settlement, might look like. An approximate list could be as follows:

The resumption and modernization of the “5+2” negotiation format (Moldova-Transnistria; mediators: OSCE, Russia, Ukraine; observers: EU, USA) with clearly defined goals and obligations for all parties involved.
Preparation and signing of a framework memorandum on the stages, principles, and parameters of the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict.
Preparation of multilateral political and legal security guarantees (by the US, EU, Russia, and others), establishing “triggers” for a coordinated response in the event of violations of a comprehensive settlement agreement.
A ban on the permanent deployment of foreign troops and bases on the territory of Moldova and Transnistria (while preserving the international right to peacekeeping/peace mandates).
Agreement on a roadmap for the withdrawal/reconfiguration of the Russian military and peacekeeping contingent and for the control of ammunition stockpiles (including the facility in Cobasna), with international verification and clear timelines.
Establishment of an international monitoring mission to oversee the withdrawal of forces, the demilitarization of zones, and the implementation of security agreements.
A phased program for the restoration of full-fledged contacts and regular interaction between the banks of the Dniester, including the reestablishment of transport, economic, humanitarian, and educational ties.
Before signing a comprehensive political settlement of the conflict, conduct independent and transparent elections in Transnistria under international observation.
Hold local referendums on the administrative and political status of disputed localities located in the Security Zone.
Legal enshrinement of the protection of the rights of the Russian-speaking population in Moldova (education, media, use of the language in public authorities) in accordance with international standards.
Establish an international “Moldova-Transnistria Recovery and Economic Integration Fund” with contributions from the EU, the US, Russia, international financial institutions and donors, to invest in infrastructure, energy, education, IT clusters, and the agricultural sector on both banks of the Dniester.
Develop a plan for the integration of energy networks, diversification of supplies, modernization of gas and electricity infrastructure, and investment in renewable energy with international support.
Ensure unobstructed transit of people and goods, including agricultural and industrial products, along all routes passing through Transnistrian territory towards Ukraine.
Temporary economic incentives, tax preferences, and job creation for enterprises in Transnistria, along with vocational retraining programs and the promotion of private investment.
Develop a legal system for the protection of property rights, including mechanisms preventing mutual claims on industrial and other assets.
Joint infrastructure projects (bridges, roads, schools, hospitals) with the involvement of international donors, creating jobs and facilitating the rehabilitation of infrastructure and the social environment.
Agree on steps to strengthen the rule of law, judicial independence, and anti-corruption measures at the national and regional levels with the support of the EU, the World Bank, and the IMF.
Establish a humanitarian-legal mechanism ensuring full legal verification of all detainees in Transnistria, identifying cases of unlawful detention and politically motivated charges. Based on the findings of independent experts, ensure their release, restoration of civil rights, and provision of legal, medical, and social assistance.
Establish a joint Moldova-Transnistria commission on historical memory and reconciliation, composed of historians, human rights defenders, public figures, and representatives of international organizations.
Educational and cultural initiatives for reconciliation. Implement programs in schools and community institutions on interethnic dialogue, the study of the conflict’s history, tolerance, and multilingualism.
Establish an independent center for monitoring information security, train journalists, and introduce transparent rules for media financing. Launch joint information campaigns and projects to explain to the population the objectives and benefits of a peaceful settlement.
Cybersecurity and protection of critical infrastructure. Conduct joint exercises and share information on cyber threats, establish response hotlines, and implement an early warning system.
Environmental safety and rehabilitation of territories. Assess environmental damage, clean up areas with hazardous materials, secure international support for the cleanup of the Dniester River, and modernize wastewater treatment facilities.
Establish an International Council for the implementation of the agreement (guarantors: US, Russia, EU, OSCE, Ukraine).
Guarantee and incentive mechanisms. Clearly defined “red lines” and triggers in case of security violations, automatic suspension of assistance, inclusion of sanctions; with progress – phased economic and political incentives (preferences, access to additional funds).
Transparency, accountability, and measurement mechanisms. Regular public reports on implementation progress, with involvement of international auditors.
Preparation of constitutional reform, including amendments to fundamental legislative acts.
Signing of a comprehensive settlement agreement. Upon the establishment of the full settlement infrastructure, post-conflict monitoring mechanisms, and guarantee systems, a final document on a comprehensive political settlement is formalized.

Of course, the proposed list of 28 points will elicit different reactions from readers. For some, it may seem overly conciliatory, while for others, insufficiently specific. However, such differences in assessment are inevitable when dealing with a conflict that has persisted for more than three decades and is deeply embedded in the political, economic, and social life on both banks of the Dniester. It is important to understand that no settlement plan can ever fully align with the wishes of all interested parties. International diplomacy and political settlements always operate according to their own logic, where ideal scenarios are inherently impossible. The goal, therefore, is not to achieve the maximum, but a realistic outcome. Therefore, if our country truly wishes to take an active role in the future security architecture of Eastern Europe, it will inevitably have to base its approach not only on what it desires, but also on what is feasible. Any compromise, no matter how imperfect it may seem, represents a step forward compared to the deadlock in which we have been trapped for over three decades. And if we are genuinely committed to peace, stability, and sustainable development, then discussing realistic, not ideal, frameworks for settlement becomes not just useful, but essential.