Along the Dniester: A Gradual Descent into Instability

Yesterday, our media widely circulated a story about a Norwegian politician who decided to nominate our president for the Nobel Peace Prize. The justification was as simple as it was grandiose: Maia Sandu is allegedly at the forefront of a broad geopolitical confrontation and, quite literally, “defending Europe from Russia”. The irony is that, while supposedly standing on this notional “front line”, Sandu may well be asleep at a much closer and far less abstract front – the Transnistrian one. The paradox of the situation is that our authorities, much like they did until recently in the energy sector, continue to insist with striking confidence that stability prevails on the banks of the Dniester. Yet even for the average observer, the signs of a progressive erosion of the Transnistrian settlement are becoming increasingly obvious. The most telling of these is the effective freezing of direct contacts. Unfortunately, the general history of conflicts shows that the disappearance of dialogue gradually gives way to other instruments – first pressure and coercion, and then military force. For this reason, the prolonged absence of communication looks much more alarming than the usual exchange of accusatory statements between the two banks. Formally, of course, everyone continues to talk about their “commitment to negotiations”. Last week, Deputy Prime Minister for Reintegration Valeriu Chiveri announced preparations for a “1+1” meeting, specifying that its location and date are currently being discussed. At the same time, this was followed by a denial of statements by Tiraspol representative Vitaly Ignatiev that Chisinau had allegedly recently rejected the OSCE’s initiative to organize a meeting. Based on public explanations, it can be inferred that our officials are appealing to the rules and sequence of meetings on the right and left banks of the Dniester. As is well known, since 2023, Transnistrian negotiators have refused to come to Chisinau, citing the so-called “law on separatism” as their reason. Because of this, previous rounds of negotiations were held either at the OSCE mission office in Tiraspol or in Bender. Until a certain point, Chisinau accepted this as a compromise, but now it is proceeding from the need to abandon this practice. It is particularly telling that since his appointment, Chiveri has never spoken to Ignatiev, either in person or even by telephone. For such a protracted conflict, which for decades, even during the most difficult periods, was maintained at a minimum level of stability precisely because of constant contact, this situation is somewhat unprecedented. On the eve of a possible meeting, Chiveri effectively acknowledged a gaping divide in how Chisinau and Tiraspol perceive the logic and trajectory of the settlement process. At the same time, he articulated two fundamental demands which, it appears, will form the backbone of the authorities’ entire future line of dialogue with the Transnistrian administration. These are the preservation of the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, as well as the unwavering nature of the course toward European integration. From the standpoint of state-building, these principles are understandable and entirely justified. However, in the context of a real settlement process, they sound more like ultimatum-style conditions than an invitation to dialogue. Reintegration does indeed involve a wide range of nuances, from the political status of the left bank and security issues to economic arrangements. Yet if the space for compromise is constrained in advance in such a manner, any prospective negotiations risk turning, from the very outset, into a mere exchange of long-familiar and irreconcilable positions. The European Union, despite Chisinau’s fluctuating rhetoric alternating between the synchronization and desynchronization of the two processes (European integration and reintegration) has nonetheless sought to adhere to a more consistent line. Just last week, the Head of the EU Delegation once again emphasized that accession to the community and the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict should be mutually reinforcing. At the same time, Brussels is increasingly making it clear that responsibility for finding concrete solutions rests with Moldova itself, while integration into the common European space should be seen as a stimulus rather than a ready-made recipe. At the same time, Kyiv speaks far more bluntly and directly about the European Union’s role. Recently, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha stated that Brussels should play a decisive role in the ongoing process, while also emphasizing the inadmissibility of Russian military presence in Transnistria. In his view, this presence poses a risk not only to Moldova but also to Ukraine and the entire region. Crucially, he also made another unmistakable hint at Kyiv’s readiness to consider a request for military cooperation to practically ensure Moldova’s security. In other words, despite the enormous strain on its own armed forces, the neighboring state signals that it is, at least theoretically, prepared for a limited military operation on the left bank of the Dniester, followed by the transfer of the region under Chisinau’s political control. The fact that the Ukrainian diplomat’s statement was not accidental, but part of a deliberate political line, was further confirmed by the speech of MP Oleksiy Goncharenko at the PACE session. Referring to the left bank of the Dniester as “the elephant in the room”, he addressed Maia Sandu in a rather pointed manner, questioning the Moldovan authorities’ plans for resolving the Transnistrian issue. The president’s response, like all previous ones, was predictably soothing and, clearly, was unlikely to satisfy Ukraine’s partners, who view this matter not only as an issue of regional security but also as a genuine opportunity to strike a sensitive blow to Moscow by exploiting the vulnerability of the Russian forces stationed in Transnistria. If we put together all the statements and signals of recent weeks, the picture looks bleak, to be honest. Behind all this lexical activity on the part of most actors, alas, lies the degradation of security mechanisms and a total loss of trust and predictability in the situation. What looks dangerous is not only that Chisinau and Tiraspol are not showing any willingness to make a real compromise, but also that, against this backdrop, international players are behaving irresponsibly and aloofly, pursuing their own goals, which in no way contribute to the stabilization of the region as a whole. Against this backdrop, the recent visit of U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Smith appears almost like the only encouraging development. It is difficult to say whether the visit was planned in advance or was a reaction to the growing regional tension. Nevertheless, it is important to note Washington’s position, which he deemed necessary to present, including publicly. The key message: President Trump positions himself as a peacemaker, and his administration’s priority is to focus on regions where the US can leverage its influence to promote peace and unity. Another important point is that, according to Smith, the US believes that Chisinau and Tiraspol must determine for themselves how to end the conflict, with the White House advocating an exclusively peaceful solution in the context of regional security. This is, of course, not a ready-made plan, but rather a framework. For some, it may be harsh and not entirely acceptable, but within this given framework all participants, apparently, will have to move forward, refraining from making rash and ill-considered decisions. In a context of regional fragility, any incidental event can trigger disproportionately serious consequences. In this sense, the US arbitration stance regardless of one’s opinion of it may, at present, prove quite timely, serving as an attempt to bring the process back under control. The question remains whether all other actors are ready to follow the outlined lines, or whether the situation will continue drifting toward even greater unpredictability.