“A Double-Edged Ambassador”: Why Kulminski Is Acting Against Sandu?

During his stay in Moldova, the country’s ambassador to the United States, Vladislav Kulminski, made a series of diverse and highly categorical statements, some of which directly contradict the official positions voiced by the country’s leadership, including Maia Sandu

Every year, Moldova’s ambassadors gather in Chisinau to review the results of the past year and receive guidance for the future. This time was no exception: within the walls of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, diplomats listened to assessments of the international environment and took note of the priorities the state intends to defend on the external front. The centerpiece of the meeting was Maia Sandu’s address, in which she spelled out with utmost clarity the country’s line of “conduct” for 2026. According to her, amid an increasingly complex regional and global context and the intensification of hybrid threats, Moldova has only one realistic strategy for survival – accession to the European Union. Consequently, Sandu demanded “responsibility, unity, and determination” from Moldovan diplomacy in defending national interests and advancing the course toward European integration. For most ambassadors, that is where the story ended. As befits professionals, they carefully took note of what was said and returned to their foreign postings. It is clear that diplomacy, by its very nature, is a closed craft that does not tolerate excessive publicity. Any careless word uttered “on camera” can damage not only an individual envoy, but the country’s foreign policy as a whole. However, as it turned out, there are exceptions to this unwritten rule. That exception was Vladislav Kulminski, who was appointed ambassador to the United States relatively recently. His behavior during a short visit back home stood in stark contrast to the customary restraint of the diplomatic corps. At a certain point, the impression emerged that Kulminski had never fully shed his former role as a political commentator and media “talking head”, a constant presence in the public sphere and someone operating somewhere close to the centers of decision-making. Upon returning home, the ambassador literally went off the rails. He gave numerous interviews, made dozens of statements, and displayed a rare looseness for an active diplomat. It was as if his mandate and authority had been issued not in Chisinau, but in one of the mansions on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. The variety and bluntness of these statements inevitably drew the attention of experts and journalists. Moreover, some of them openly contradicted the official position of the authorities, notably that of Maia Sandu herself, whom, as is well known, no one dares to challenge. For example, Kulminski flatly ruled out the possibility of a so-called “two-stage” accession of Moldova to the European Union. He believes that our country cannot become an EU member without the Transnistrian region, neither legally nor practically. “Integration cannot happen up to the Dniester. That is out of the question. Impossible,” our ambassador in Washington declared, leaving no room for interpretation. These remarks came against the backdrop of Maia Sandu’s considerably more flexible rhetoric. She has repeatedly and publicly allowed for the possibility of an alternative “two-stage” EU accession scenario if reintegration proves impossible due to the presence of Russian troops on the left bank of the Dniester. In her assessment, this factor constitutes the main obstacle to conflict resolution and can directly affect the pace and format of EU integration. A similar point was made just a few weeks ago by Deputy Prime Minister Valeriu Chiveri: that the processes of EU integration and reintegration will likely need to be staggered over time, since the latter may take considerably longer. A reasonable question arises: what does this divergence in positions indicate? Clearly, there is no complete consensus within our political circles regarding the best way to proceed on this crucial issue. Against the backdrop of the ongoing war in Ukraine and the uncertainty surrounding the future security architecture in the region, pragmatic considerations are increasingly prevailing among our politicians and presidential advisors. In their calculations, EU accession is seen as an achievable and vital goal, whereas the status of the Transnistrian settlement is increasingly shifting into the realm of high-level international politics, where negotiation distances can be far longer. It is also unclear whether Chisinau will be allowed to participate at all in meaningful discussions about the region’s future, where key decisions are traditionally made without the involvement of smaller states. Kulminski’s categorical stance appears not merely as a personal opinion, but as a deliberate promotion of a different logic. Our ambassador to the U.S. has never concealed his closeness to the Joe Biden administration, as well as to the Democratic Party camp and the so-called “globalist elites”. Accordingly, such prominent media activity in Moldova can be seen as an attempt to convey to a broad audience in Chisinau certain messages from these U.S. political circles, which are currently in strong opposition to Donald Trump. The essence of their stance boils down to the following: Moldova must maintain a tough line toward Russia, insisting on the unconditional withdrawal of Russian troops from the left bank of the Dniester, even if this complicates or delays EU accession. In this proposed framework, European integration is not an end in itself, but a tool of leverage within the broader geopolitical confrontation. Thus, Kulminski, it seems, is openly challenging the current authorities, effectively positioning himself as the main channel for transmitting signals from Washington to Chisinau, not from the current administration, but from its political opponents preparing for a comeback. A telling example is the visit by Speaker Igor Grosu and Foreign Minister Mihai Popsoi to the United States. According to Kulminski himself, Secretary of State Marco Rubio refused to meet the Moldovan delegation at the last minute, dealing a serious blow to their image. Yet some time later, the ambassador posts a photo on social media with Rubio and his spouse, accompanied by a suggestive caption stating that he “had the honor of discussing bilateral relations between Moldova and the United States”. This gesture is hard to interpret otherwise than as a symbolic “slap in the face” to his own political leadership, demonstrating who actually has bipartisan access to the corridors of American power. There could be several reasons for Kulminski’s behavior. One of the most likely is that the Moldovan authorities have recently begun paying closer attention to the recommendations of the current White House occupants. In recent weeks, through statements from its acting chargé d’affaires, the U.S. has unambiguously pointed out to Moldova the risks of uncontrolled migration, issues of illegal employment, and the importance of preserving Moldovan identity, national traditions, and culture. Clearly, all these points fit neatly into Trump’s ideological framework. However, there is no doubt that there also exists a non-public level of communication between Washington and our politicians, where far more nuanced issues are discussed – issues whose public disclosure would not only be risky but politically fatal. Nevertheless, it is necessary to discuss these issues, since the window of opportunity for Moldova could close as quickly as it opened. One cannot rule out the possibility that a certain “offer” came from Washington, potentially allowing Trump to strike yet another major deal with the Kremlin on the “Moldovan issue”. Drawing parallels with the negotiations over Ukraine, it is quite possible that Washington expects maximum pragmatism and moderation in our ambitions. In this context, Kulminski’s positions, which he apparently conveys on behalf of the American Democrats, appear to be an attempt to disrupt, or at least complicate, such a scenario. Perhaps all of this is merely speculation on our part. Yet, too much in the behavior of what is supposedly our ambassador, both in the tone and substance of his statements, suggests that, deep within Moldovan and international politics, processes are indeed underway that could truly determine the fate of the country.