Is Moldova Set to Be Sidelined in Major International Deals?

It is vitally important for Moldova to present a realistic vision of the security architecture and the Transnistrian settlement before Washington and Moscow shift their focus to the Dniester

In recent months, virtually the same political “alarm bell” has been ringing in Chisinau, since every time the Transnistrian issue came up, the hands invariably pointed to European integration. One might think this is logical, given that the two topics have been closely linked for years. However, in politics, “closely linked” does not mean “the same thing”. And the further we move away from the elections, the more clearly European partners make it known: the romantic period is over, and a time of pragmatism has come. Thus, the head of the EU delegation in Chisinau reminded that EU accession and conflict resolution are not identical processes, though interconnected. Brussels, of course, supports the Moldovan authorities’ course toward the country’s reunification, but this is not something that will be resolved in two years. It requires a much longer, bureaucratically intensive timeframe. However, it must be acknowledged that our authorities themselves are gradually becoming aware that they cannot hide indefinitely behind the backs of larger neighbors. Remaining in Ukraine’s geopolitical shadow created only an illusion of security while a storm of broad international confrontation raged nearby. But, one way or another, the tensions are gradually subsiding, and the attention of international actors is shifting to various regional hotspots. Therefore, Moldova will eventually have to step out of “shelter” and begin acting openly and proactively. And this is not merely rhetoric, but an urgent necessity. No matter how some politicians try to ignore the Transnistrian issue, it remains a connecting node: security, economy, energy, transport accessibility, territorial integrity, European integration – all are so tightly linked to the unresolved conflict that any movement pulls on multiple threads at once. This is understood not only in Chisinau but also in European capitals, which strive to stay informed about developments on the banks of the Dniester. This was confirmed by the recent visit of OSCE Special Representative Thomas Lenk, who spent three days in the region engaging with both sides and assessing the prospects ahead of the OSCE Council of Ministers meeting in Vienna. The formal reason for this “coordination check” is clear: electoral cycles have concluded, and Prime Minister Alexandru Munteanu publicly announced the preparation of a certain reintegration plan. Equally noteworthy is the fact that the United States and Russia have simultaneously decided to skip the Vienna meeting this year. Such coincidences in international politics are rarely accidental. This could, for instance, indicate that Washington and Moscow no longer regard the OSCE as a fully viable platform for compromises. Alternatively, they may prefer to discuss potential diplomatic deals in a more limited format for the time being, leaving Europe on the sidelines. Despite the fact that there are currently more questions than answers, our authorities should nonetheless keep a close watch on developments, as we could be drawn into someone else’s game at the most unexpected moment. Especially considering how actively American and Russian emissaries have been communicating on the Ukrainian issue in recent months. Of course, the frequency of contacts does not equate to rapid agreements, but the very fact of these interactions is already a serious signal. And, incidentally, not the most favorable one for countries like Moldova, which would prefer their geopolitical status to be discussed in multilateral international forums rather than behind closed doors. So, what are the starting conditions with which our new government enters this emerging diplomatic game? The recent weapons scandal has once again brought the issue of control over the Moldovan-Ukrainian state border, including its Transnistrian segment, into the spotlight. And we see an incredible coincidence: at this moment the EU Border Assistance Mission (EUBAM), which for twenty years had been monitoring the perimeter without detecting large-scale weapons or contraband flows, concluded its activities. And now, after two decades, the Romanian customs suddenly uncovers a dangerous trafficking operation. Although we have heard such statements repeatedly, both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for Reintegration have confirmed the development of either a strategy or a plan for the Transnistrian settlement. Valeriu Civeri hinted that there are too many “sensitive” nuances in this matter to discuss openly, yet the government will present the results of its work at an “appropriate moment”. We can venture to suggest that this will happen once some kind of negotiation format is launched. Speaking of formats, Chisinau continues to assert uncompromisingly that the “5+2” platform is no longer functional. On one hand, this is a realistic acknowledgment, given that two participants in the group are in a state of armed confrontation. On the other hand, it is quite dangerous. If the old format is dead and a new one has yet to be established, the negotiation vacuum will inevitably begin to be filled by major players relying on their well-practiced behind-the-scenes mechanisms. Is such a development in Moldova’s interest? Another important detail must be taken into account. According to Civeri’s statements, Chisinau is categorically opposed to having the Transnistrian settlement discussed as part of a broader Ukraine-Russia deal, which experts occasionally speculate about. The only scenario Chisinau allows is the withdrawal of Russian troops from the left bank of the Dniester within the framework of a future European security configuration. It sounds appealing, of course, but history shows that when the great powers sit at the table, small states face only two options: either to be heard in advance or to be confronted with decisions already made. Thus, it is absolutely vital for Moldova to sense the breath of a new era, which, banal as it may sound, is already practically at the doorstep. International players are seeking new points of compromise, and sometimes even new spheres of influence. If Ukraine, according to some analysts, is being nudged toward a deal that does not fully account for its interests, one should not expect Moldova to be treated with any greater consideration. Moreover, Chisinau’s capacity for diplomatic resistance is vastly lower than Kyiv’s. Should our authorities continue to act inertially and irrationally, they risk becoming precisely the side that obstructs major agreements. Therefore, it is essential for Moldova, even before Washington and Moscow shift their focus to the Dniester, to present its own realistic vision. In other words, it must move beyond worn-out slogans and propose a strategic framework for the settlement that can be “sold” both to foreign partners and to its own society. Now, more than ever, flexibility, a willingness to compromise, and a mature understanding of unfolding events are needed, as major players are delineating new contours of international politics. Failing to exercise such prudence risks transforming the hypothetical threat of becoming a mere object in a major deal into an almost inevitable scenario. The era of loud yet idle statements is rapidly coming to an end, as is the Ukrainian geopolitical shield behind which our politicians and elites have been hiding their inaction for several years. No matter how difficult it may be to acknowledge this new objective reality, geopolitics has indeed begun to move, bringing all the resulting consequences. Consequently, the Transnistrian settlement will increasingly be perceived not as a simple local issue attached to Moldova’s European integration. It is crucial to understand that this geopolitical knot will sooner or later end up on the table of influential international actors, who will seek solutions convenient to themselves. And at that moment, it would be wise not to find oneself a mere bystander in someone else’s scenario.