Opinion: “Dniester River Crisis Shows Ukraine’s Disregard for Moldova”

Christian RUSSU

The large-scale environmental disaster on the Dniester River has exposed not only the incompetence of the ruling PAS but also the weakness of the Moldovan state itself, which has proven incapable of effectively responding to contemporary challenges and is not taken seriously by its neighboring countries

According to environmental experts, the current pollution of our main water artery, the Dniester River, is the second most damaging disaster in the past 60 years and the first of its kind in the history of independent Moldova. In 1983, waste from a tailings reservoir at the Kalush-Holyn potash deposit in the Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast spilled into the river, poisoning it and causing large-scale consequences for two Soviet republics. While at that time, within the framework of a unified national economic system, measures were taken to mitigate the disaster, today the inability of two now sovereign states to effectively manage a cross-border environmental crisis has become fully apparent. Colleagues have already noted that in the first days after signs of contamination appeared in the Dniester River, officials from the ruling party performed at their best in terms of “combating disinformation” and self-promotion, and at their worst in terms of professional competence. Citizens who were the first to detect oily slicks on the river near Naslavcea on March 9 and raise the alarm were labeled as alarmists. Opposition politicians who expressed concern over the incident and took concrete steps were branded as accomplices of the aggressor, allegedly seeking to extract political gain from any situation. In their characteristic self-satisfied manner, both the Minister of Environment and the Speaker of Parliament publicly urged people not to meddle and not to spread rumors. As with the situation in the petroleum market, the authorities dismissively brushed aside opposition deputies’ proposals to stockpile drinking water. The “harmful advice” from the authorities, inspired by analogies from Soviet cartoons, actually prompted citizens to do precisely the opposite. A reasonable question arises: at what point would the government have taken notice of the incident if not for concerned citizens and the still partially uncensored media environment in the country? Ukraine officially responded to the pollution only on March 12, issuing a statement in which it blamed Russia for the attack on the Dniester Hydroelectric Power Station, which had occurred back on March 7. A week after the disaster first came to light, we observed a fundamental shift in the attitudes of the national authorities and the pro-government media. Instead of soothing reassurances, there came acknowledgment of the seriousness of the situation, recognition of the legitimacy of local authorities’ decisions in the north to shut off water intakes, and calls for assistance. There was also an important symbolic gesture: the official identification of the cause of the incident as Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Apparently, the authorities, represented by Maia Sandu, made this nod only a few days later, on March 15, partly in the expectation of eliciting greater transparency from Ukraine. Certain civil organizations in Moldova even appealed to the prosecutor’s office, demanding an investigation into the damage caused by Russia. In truth, the eastern neighbor did not appreciate these gestures and continued its policy of disregard. Ukraine’s authorities failed to provide timely information about the incident, its location, nature, and the quantity and type of pollutants involved. Local officials, once alerted, along with the mobilized National Army, were forced to deal with the unknown waste using a variety of improvised methods, including the construction of barriers from organic materials, hay, or straw. The lack of transparency from Ukraine cannot be attributed solely to martial law. Of course, civilians are prohibited from filming damaged infrastructure, but withholding information in a situation that could be used to accuse the “aggressor” is uncharacteristic of Ukrainian authorities, who have long mastered the tools of information warfare. It is likely that there is something they wish to conceal, as even representatives of the relevant agencies do not have complete information. Explanations from Iryna Ovcharenko were limited to monitoring the slicks, a task ordinary citizens could have performed, and the acknowledgment that there was more than one source of contamination, involving not only missile fuel, since pollution was simultaneously recorded in both Chernivtsi oblast and Odesa oblast. Paradoxically, even a week later, Moldovan officials still lacked information about the type and volume of substances that had entered the Dniester River, preventing them from ensuring even minimal effectiveness in their response measures. Samples of the petroleum products continuing to flow into the river were even sent to Romania in the hope of identifying the type of pollutant, which Ukraine had not disclosed. The realization that Kyiv did not see fit to take into account the concerns of Moldova’s leadership or the reputational risks for the PAS appears to have finally set in. Moldovan environmental experts were permitted, in a measured manner, to voice their grievances toward Ukraine, after which signals were also sent through diplomatic channels. The Russian Ambassador in Chisinau was summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to receive a formal protest note and hear claims, accompanied by the now-traditional presentation of evidence of unfriendly actions by Russia. However, the primary target of criticism was the Ukrainian Ambassador, who was compelled to step into the public sphere and provide explanations to the Moldovan public. Paun Rohovei showered Maia Sandu with thanks for her support of his country and assured an exceptional level of cooperation, yet he provided no clarity on the situation and in fact misrepresented the timeliness of Kyiv’s information to Chisinau, while simultaneously blaming Moldova for being unable to “anticipate the consequences”. His explanations not only failed to stop the spread of various accounts of the incident but actually intensified panic, with reports of “powerful explosions”, “rocket detonations”, and “cracks” at the Dniester Hydroelectric Power Station, through which missile fuel and other petroleum products allegedly entered the Dniester River. It is clear that Ukraine seeks to portray Russia’s attacks as maximally destructive in order to strengthen its own arguments. At the same time, it expects unconditional solidarity from its partners, regardless of the circumstances, while any deviation is met with accusations of supporting the aggressor. This approach has been familiar since the beginning of the war. However, in the current situation, the authorities and citizens of Moldova need, above all, clarity and an understanding of the prospects that they are effectively being denied. Moldova itself does not possess sufficient resources to cope with transboundary technological disasters. Moreover, our country is not perceived as a full-fledged actor in regional politics. This crisis demonstrated that interstate agreements, conventions, and other mechanisms of international law prove largely ineffective in such situations. It can be argued that no one could have handled this challenge better than the pro-European PAS authorities and Maia Sandu personally; had the Socialists or other opposition politicians been in power, Romania would not have come to our aid, and Ukraine would have likely ignored us entirely. However, such narratives only serve to heighten citizens’ sense of helplessness. The sense of insecurity, lack of prospects, and the authorities’ inability to defend the country’s interests on the external front will only contribute to the growth of unionist sentiments. One can be certain that Kyiv would not have tolerated such a dismissive attitude toward Bucharest as it has shown toward Chisinau during the current crisis. At the same time, the risks of technological disasters related to Ukraine have existed previously as well. In the Ivano-Frankivsk oblast, near Kalush, around 50 million cubic meters of potash production waste still remain in tailings ponds, which could enter the Dniester in the event of a dam failure. The condition of the protective structures there has raised serious concerns among environmentalists for more than a decade. Therefore, it is highly likely that, in the next crisis of a similar scale, Moldovan citizens will prefer to find themselves in a more secure position under the protection of a stronger neighbor.