The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pridnestrovie answers the questions about the referendum, the negotiating process and the relaunch of the 5+2 format, the issue of importing medicines into Pridnestrovie, prospects for economic cooperation with the Russian Federation, and the situation with the shutdown of enterprises of Pridnestrovie due to Moldova’s actions.
Last week, the PMR Foreign Ministry proposed arrangement of a referendum on its territory regarding the attitude towards the European Union in order to obtain the real opinion of all Pridnestrovians. Why did Tiraspol put forward such an initiative?
The idea of our proposal is not just to mechanically open polling stations in Pridnestrovie. Our suggestion was aimed at setting the most transparent and fair conditions for all residents of Pridnestrovie to express their view. In recent years, the “European” topic includes a frenzy and numerous, often speculative declarations, also voiced from Brussels. Our proposal should be not only interesting for Europe, but also logically necessary in such circumstances.
Before actively reviewing the topic of choice, it is necessary to hear the free opinion of the people living on their territory and in their state. If democratic principles are a priority, the Pridnestrovian people have the right to expect their opinion to be understood and considered. This is a completely natural approach for our republic, since we have the extensive experience in holding referenda on crucial issues.
Moldova made its choice by cutting off our population from voting, and we drew the attention of the international community to it.
At the same time, the Moldovan side called Pridnestrovie’s proposal to open polling stations a “manipulation”…
A potential attempt to present voting of some our people in the referendum on October 20 as the view of all Pridnestrovians could indeed be considered manipulation. This, apparently, may be the “cunning” plan of the referendum’s initiators. I find it very telling how swiftly the office of the political representative from Moldova responded to our statement, refusing even to consider Pridnestrovie’s constructive proposal.
It seems that the Moldovan side was afraid of learning the true aspirations of Pridnestrovians. This fear is clear, as a free and inclusive vote by our people would render insignificant all the speculative assessments that Moldova systematically voices regarding Pridnestrovie and its people.
Why do you think Chisinau is sabotaging the dialogue with Pridnestrovie?
Regarding the sabotage of the dialogue, the Moldova proceeds from a rather primitive paradigm, attempting to achieve its political objectives by exploiting convenient international conditions and applying pressure in its relationship with Pridnestrovie. Experience has repeatedly shown that such an immature approach is flawed; it further deepens the ridge between our two peoples and states and results in a loss of time. No matter how long Chisinau tries to avoid the negotiating table, it will eventually be forced to return to it. Without dialogue, there will be no effective and sustainable resolution to the conflict. This shortsighted policy continues to drag on, eroding the atmosphere of trust and significantly complicating the entire process of the Moldovan-Pridnestrovian settlement. It is also dangerous because of the constant confrontational factors.
Do you consider the possibility to relaunch the 5+2 negotiation format? Or new formats are possible?
The leadership of Pridnestrovie raises the necessity to resume the work of the “Permanent Conference...” at every 5+2 session. Our opinion coincides with the Russian view to this regard. We have discussed it with the OSCE, Ukraine, the European Union, the United States, and Moldova. The platform has been artificially blocked since 2019. Given Chisinau’s refusal to hold high-level political meetings after 2020, it remains an important practical international tool for conflict resolution. Blocking the format poses a threat to peace, as lacking dialogue not only destroys mutual trust and provokes unilateral actions, but also prevents the implementation of a political mechanism to control the security situation.
I won’t hide that we regularly hear arguments about some alternatives to the 5+2 format, but none of them has any useful matter. If Chisinau were genuinely interested in a meaningful dialogue, we would see at least some positive dynamics in the interaction between political representatives of the sides or sectoral expert groups.
For example, in May of this year, during a regular round of negotiations with the Moldovan political representative, the Pridnestrovian side proposed signing the Declaration on Peaceful Approaches to Settlement. The response was a refusal. As we can see, even at this working level, Chisinau is not ready for consistent interaction. Accordingly, the main concern about the negotiations is not so much blocking the 5+2 format but rather the current political paradigm of Moldova.
Earlier, Pridnestrovie requested the OSCE assistance in lifting the restrictions on the supply of medicines to the region imposed by Chisinau. Have you received any feedback?
I can note the contribution of the OSCE Mission, which facilitates the meetings of expert group and maintains constant contact with the parties regarding medicine imports. It has also engaged an expert who shared specific recommendations for tackling this issue, but the Moldovan side has failed to implement them.
The Head of the OSCE Mission, as far as we know, raises this issue in her reports and addresses to the OSCE member states. The OSCE Mission also assisted us in unblocking the import of X-ray equipment into Pridnestrovie, which was purchased for the Republican Clinical Hospital from public funds.
At the same time, it is important to understand that the OSCE, as an international organization, is facing a systemic crisis. There are also negative examples of inadequate approaches and a complete lack of understanding of the situation by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. This significantly hampers mediation efforts. Under the current chairmanship, we mainly see well-meaning declarations but a lack of practical steps and proposals that could give momentum to the dialogue.
Is there currently a serious shortage of medications?
There is significantly dire situation as to the import of medicines, medical equipment and dietary supplements into the country. Chisinau has restricted the medication import from the traditional supply routes for Pridnestrovie under flimsy pretext. We are forced to purchase significantly more expensive medicines from the EU, which do not meet the needs of our treatment programs, harmonized with Russia, as well as programs aimed at specific diseases.
The mediators from the Russian Federation participate in meetings of political representatives and experts, where these issues are discussed. We have already initiated the next meeting of the designated groups on healthcare and, and now we are waiting for date coordination from the Moldovan side. Today, we need diplomatic assistance to encourage Moldova to reconsider its discrimination policies. Moreover, the experts have already conceived decisions supported by the OSCE. The implementation of the available proposals solely depends on the political will of the Moldovan government.
I would also like to note that Russia provides substantial assistance to Pridnestrovie in healthcare: partly this aid is free; high-tech medical care for Russian nationals from Pridnestrovie is provided under the contracts; advanced training courses are regularly held; telehealth has been implemented. Obviously, we are grateful for the cooperation and will further develop it.
Several Pridnestrovian plants and industrial enterprises were reported before as shot-down due to the Moldovan pressure. How challenging is the situation?
The shutdown of major industrial production due to Moldova’s unreasonable restrictions is causing in Pridnestrovie unemployment growth, a reduction in the tax base, and, consequently, a worsening budget deficit in Pridnestrovie. In addition, they are facing contract breaches, along with the related goodwill damage. Returning to traditional markets and restoring production capacity will be extremely difficult under such conditions.
Chisinau’s unjustified blockade policy should be revised in order to restore operation of the enterprises. It can solely be achieved through negotiations with active international mediation. However, the issue demands urgent solutions, and we call on all mediators to take a proactive stance and an initiative.
Pridnestrovie provides public support to the teams of affected enterprises despite limited resources, as the maintenance of many hundreds of families is at stake. Our people primarily suffer from the Chisinau’s pressure. It seems that this is why the Moldovan representatives fear hearing the opinion of the Pridnestrovian people.
Moldova previously introduced “a state of alert” in the energy sector due to possible restrictions on Russian gas supplies as a result of the events in the Kursk Region. Is Pridnestrovie currently developing a path forward if gas supplies through Ukraine are cut off?
Gas supplying is one of the main issues in the dialogue between Pridnestrovie, the Russian Federation and Moldova. They consider various scenarios. We believe the common interest, including Chisinau’s, which imports our electricity, is to ensure stable gas supplies over the upcoming years. There are different modalities for addressing this issue, and we are constantly engaging with Russia and other involved parties to avoid negative scenarios.
What vectors of economic cooperation with the Russian Federation are the most fascinating for Pridnestrovie now?
Pridnestrovie is interested in developing investment and trade-economic cooperation with Russia. We have a wide range of high-quality industrial and agricultural products that we can export to the Russian market, and we also have the interest in Russian-made goods. Unfortunately, the objective logistics challenges, as well as the Moldova’s restrictions, nowadays significantly reduce trading opportunities. We are extremely negative about decreased import of medicines from Russia due to the restrictive measures. We hope that as circumstances change, we will be able to restore previous trade ties, but for now, this remains a matter of the future.
