Moldova at the Forefront of (In)Security

The development of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict remains complicated and shows no signs of ending soon, but recent events may have a direct impact on Moldova

Russian and Ukrainian contact groups, after a brief delay and with minimal media exposure, resumed their meetings in Abu Dhabi in midweek. This time, the talks proceeded without the direct participation of the U.S. mediation team, with whom both Moscow and Kyiv nonetheless remain in constant contact. However, beyond the launch of negotiations at the military-technical level, the broader peace process continues to suffer from a lack of genuinely encouraging signals. First and foremost, Russia has resumed strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure: in the first days of February, thermal power plants, combined heat and power facilities, transmission assets, and even coal mines were hit. Notably, during the pause reportedly secured by a personal phone call from Donald Trump, no consultations between the parties were taking place. Subsequently, the U.S. president expressed full satisfaction that Moscow had honored its commitments that, incidentally, did not spare Ukraine or Moldova from a brief blackout over the past weekend. The reciprocal exchange of strikes indicates that neither Russia nor Ukraine is ready to halt hostilities, most likely because both sides understand that reaching a political settlement at this stage is impossible. At the height of the so-called energy truce, Volodymyr Zelensky stated unequivocally that Ukraine would not relinquish the territories it controls in Donbas without a fight, nor would it agree to the loss of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, thereby rejecting a number of the Kremlin’s key demands. Notably, discussions about holding presidential elections in Ukraine have all but disappeared (aside from Zelensky’s remark that he may wish to run for another term) despite Moscow’s demands on this issue, with Washington previously seeking to encourage Kyiv’s compliance by applying pressure through Ukraine’s anticorruption bodies. The leadership of the neighboring country continues to adhere to the logic of a long-term, technological war of attrition. A conceptually new vision based on management reform, automation, and comprehensive statistical accounting was outlined by Robert “Magyar” Brovdi, head of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ unmanned forces, who is clearly preparing for the struggle to continue for the next 3-5 and even 10 years. This approach is confirmed by changes in the staffing structure of the AFU and increased mobilization, as well as intensified negotiations with individual countries on the return of Ukrainian men who had previously left. Arms supplies to Ukraine also continue, taking into account the available capabilities of the so-called “coalition of the willing”. In this context, the words of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who visited the Ukrainian capital on Tuesday, draw particular attention. Despite maintaining good working relations with Trump, the head of the North Atlantic Alliance effectively voiced assessments that justify the continuation of the conflict. He did not merely call on Ukrainians to “stay strong”. In the Verkhovna Rada, he promised that after a peace agreement is signed, NATO forces would be deployed on Ukrainian territory – including air, naval, and ground units: “Once a peace agreement is reached, NATO forces will appear, aircraft will be in the sky, and support will be provided at sea… Every day we provide equipment to the Ukrainian armed forces so that you can defend yourselves today and deter any aggression tomorrow”. Such statements, even accounting for the audience, effectively nullify the efforts of Donald Trump’s team to broker a deal in the near term. By adding the issue of deploying Western troops in Ukraine, a key irritant for Moscow and one of the so-called “root causes of the conflict”, to a territorial question that currently has no acceptable solution, the prospects for diplomacy are further complicated. Even the most diplomatic Russian spokespeople have repeatedly emphasized that the Kremlin will not tolerate NATO forces on Ukrainian soil. With Mark Rutte taking such a demanding stance, the conflict is likely to continue, and Moscow will keep signaling that its actions are a response to Western provocation (no longer collective, given some defiance from Washington). Under any scenario – whether a technological intensification of hostilities or a pause in the conflict accompanied by the deployment of “willing coalition” forces – Moldova will be assigned a continually increasing role as a transit hub, one that will demand ever greater compromises regarding its constitutional principle of neutrality, through which Ukraine’s military supplies will pass. Thus, each of the possible scenarios will automatically lead to an intensification and new forms of confrontation between Chisinau and Moscow. At the same time, there is no clear understanding of the trajectory of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in the medium term. NATO structures, the European Union bureaucracy, and the regimes of individual EU countries are focused on preventing a deal along the lines agreed upon by Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, while at the same time preventing the US from distancing itself from European affairs and European security. Chisinau, which has shown political solidarity with Brussels, is forced to follow the same logic, especially as long as it suits Kyiv. In addition, continued instability near Moldova’s borders is a convenient excuse not only for attracting foreign aid, but also for “tightening the screws” within the country. The PAS regime uses geopolitical context to put pressure on the parliamentary and non-systemic opposition and to justify censorship and administrative mistakes. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine directly increases attention to Moldova, both in terms of its EU membership and the unirea option. In this context, the recently announced U.S. funding for strengthening national security appears quite timely. The $36.5 million for energy security, cybersecurity, and resilience, approved by the US State Department and Congress, will not play a key role. Yet the decision is a highly important symbolic gesture, around which, with the involvement of our ambassador in Washington, Vladislav Kulminski, the authorities can spin an entire PR strategy portraying the country as supposedly integrated into a unified security framework still administered with U.S. participation. At the very least, Chisinau and its partners in the EU will jointly maneuver to draw Trump into regional affairs and maintain American presence in Europe.