The “Stick-and-Funding” Strategy in the Transnistrian Settlement

On February 26, in Tiraspol, the political representatives of the parties to the Transnistrian settlement process, Valeriu Chiveri and Vitaly Ignatiev, finally met. The very fact of this meeting can already be considered noteworthy, given that the previous talks in the same format took place back in early April of last year. In this sense, the nearly year-long pause in contacts perhaps most clearly illustrates how much the dialogue between Chisinau and Tiraspol has deteriorated. Nevertheless, the recent meeting demonstrated that the Transnistrian issue remains within the scope of diplomatic efforts. Moreover, judging by the activity of foreign actors who regularly visit both banks of the Dniester, it has not disappeared from the international political agenda either, continuing to attract heightened interest. In recent years, there have been increasing opinions that the “5+2” format has effectively become outdated due to the war in Ukraine and the deep crisis in international relations, which have paralyzed many diplomatic platforms. However, it would be premature to write it off entirely. History offers numerous examples where the overall disposition changed radically under external pressures, as diplomacy, unlike military confrontation, rarely closes doors permanently. In this context, a recent success of the Swiss OSCE Chairmanship can be seen as illustrative, having managed to gather almost the entire “5+2” participant group in Geneva to discuss issues related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The mere presence of representatives from countries involved in the Transnistrian process in one place suggests that contacts between Chisinau and Tiraspol could, in theory, take place within a broader format. Regarding the Tiraspol meeting, it should be noted that the prospect of even this kind of bilateral communication seemed highly unlikely until recently. Over the past year, political contacts had virtually come to a halt. In organizing these meetings, the parties were constantly exchanging mutual accusations, preconditions, and quarrels. Ultimately, Chiveri’s decision to come to Tiraspol became an unexpected signal that the parties are at least minimally ready to restore dialogue. As expected, the meeting passed without any major breakthroughs. At the same time, the rhetoric expressed was somewhat restrained and diplomatic. However, a closer look at the issues raised reveals that the Chisinau delegation tried to introduce several “innovations”. For example, there was an initiative to grant residents of the left bank access to the national 112 emergency system, as well as to transition Moldovan schools in the region to instruction in Romanian. Although both proposals appear humanitarian at first glance, they nonetheless carry a political undertone that goes straight to the roots of the conflict along the Dniester. One cannot fail to notice the steps taken by the authorities prior to the meeting, which were clearly linked to it. On February 25, Maia Sandu signed a decree revoking the Moldovan citizenship of nine individuals who had held or currently hold high positions within the political structures of the Transnistrian region. For the first time in the entire negotiation process, Chisinau exploited citizenship as a tool of political leverage. The following day, a legislative initiative was registered in parliament proposing the gradual elimination of tax incentives for economic operators from the eastern districts. Among other provisions, the bill envisages the creation of a special “Convergence Fund”, which would finance social and infrastructure projects on both banks of the Dniester. According to the authorities’ plan, the fund is to be financed through national and international contributions. Taken together, these measures created a specific political backdrop for the negotiations, signaling that Chisinau intends to increase pressure and change the game rules, and that the scenario of reintegration for Tiraspol is to become an unavoidable inevitability that, sooner or later, must be accepted. If we try to draw an interim conclusion, a few positive aspects can initially be highlighted from Chisinau’s strategic perspective. First, the central authorities have demonstrated a serious intent to step up their reintegration policy. The focus is placed not only on negotiations but also on new forms of political and economic influence over Tiraspol. Second, the revocation of citizenship from certain members of the left-bank elite can be seen as a tool of pressure on the region’s ruling groups, aimed at sowing seeds of uncertainty. Presumably, some of them may reconsider their positions and contemplate seeking compromises with Chisinau. It is also possible that the list of those stripped of citizenship will gradually expand, creating a kind of sanction mechanism. Third, Chisinau has decided to abolish tax privileges for Transnistrian businesses, even though this issue has long been a subject of debate. At the same time, the authorities are trying to combine economic pressure with a humanitarian component, as the funds generated from the cancellation of these benefits are intended to be directed toward social projects on the left bank. In this way, they apparently aim to preempt criticism from Tiraspol that the region is being exploited for resources alone. However, the interim results of the meeting also have a downside. One of the main miscalculations was Chisinau’s initial principled stance not to hold meetings solely on Transnistrian-controlled territory and to adhere to the principle of alternation. This position had long been presented as a key element of a tough negotiating line. In the end, however, our delegation agreed to visit not Bender, but Tiraspol, which can be seen as terms imposed by the Transnistrian administration. Who exactly influenced this change, international mediators or domestic political calculations, is now of secondary importance. From the perspective of external observers, this softening of position appears as a sign of weakness, especially against the backdrop of attempts to project the image that Chisinau intends to conduct future negotiations from a position of strength and new opportunities. The idea of creating a Convergence Fund deserves particular attention. The concept has long been discussed with the expert community and development partners, since it is evident that reintegration requires substantial funding, which Moldova simply does not possess. Initially, it was expected that international donors would play a key role in supplying resources to the fund. However, judging by officials’ statements, the fund will also receive contributions from major left-bank enterprises connected to a well-known Transnistrian holding. If this scheme is indeed implemented, it could indicate two things at once: serious difficulties in attracting international financing and possible informal agreements between Chisinau and segments of the Transnistrian economic elite. It is clear that the latter participants are not acting out of goodwill, yet such an arrangement should raise serious questions, including from law enforcement authorities. In the worst-case scenario, it could appear as if the central authorities are effectively borrowing resources from left-bank businesses to advance their own “soft power” in the region. For this reason, a significant degree of skepticism has already emerged among experts and civil society regarding the fund’s transparency. Ultimately, what took place is still difficult to view as an attempt to immediately resolve the accumulated problems. Rather, the recent meeting served as a demonstration of each side’s capabilities. Chisinau showed a readiness to increase pressure – political, legal, and economicб while Tiraspol, despite its own challenges, remains unwilling to yield under external pressure. As a result, the situation remains largely unchanged, and the settlement process has once again entered a standby pattern, awaiting new circumstances, shifts in the international environment, or internal developments that could open a window of opportunity for real progress.