Vitaly Ignatiev gave an interview to RIA Novosti. The diplomat spoke about the current state of the negotiation process, the reasons behind its stagnation, and outlined possible ways to restore full-fledged dialogue at all levels, including the work of the ‘5+2’ format. The minister also touched upon topics such as cooperation between the law enforcement agencies of the two sides, the consequences of Moldova’s expulsion of three Russian diplomats, the role of the EU in the regional space, and the fate of the ammunition depots in Kolbasna.
- Recently, Chisinau and Tiraspol accused each other of disrupting meetings between political representatives and the Working Groups of the sides. How dangerous is the sabotage of negotiations at these levels and platforms, especially given that the ‘5+2’ format is currently not functioning?
- In recent years, the Republic of Moldova has been consistently expanding its practice of sabotaging the negotiation process. For the fifth year in a row, Moldova’s political leadership has been avoiding direct dialogue with the President of Pridnestrovie, and for the sixth year, it has been deliberately blocking the full-fledged work of the international ‘5+2’ format.
Since the beginning of this year, Chisinau has focused its efforts on undermining the remaining channels of communication, including working meetings of political representatives and sessions of specialized expert groups. In particular, my counterpart has repeatedly disrupted negotiations under far-fetched pretexts. Nevertheless, thanks to the efforts of the Pridnestrovian side, in cooperation with several international mediators, including the Russian Federation and the OSCE, we held the first meeting of chief negotiators this year on April 8.
Chisinau’s sabotage of the negotiations is not an isolated incident, but a consistent part of a long-term strategy to destabilize the negotiation process. The goal is to dismantle the internationally recognized dialogue platform, to gain leeway to continue blockades and restrictions, and increase pressure on Pridnestrovie. Moldova’s refusal to sign the Declaration on Peaceful Approaches to Settlement, proposed by Pridnestrovie in May of last year, is indicative, as it clearly demonstrates the real priorities of the Republic of Moldova.
The Pridnestrovian side consistently advocates for the continuation of dialogue with the involvement of international mediators and observers in the ‘5+2’ format. International participants also express support for a constructive dialogue and the preservation of the format. However, some limit themselves to rhetoric without taking concrete action.”
- Tiraspol has repeatedly stated that representatives of Pridnestrovie will not attend negotiations in Moldova without guarantees of personal security due to the law on separatism. Have the risks and threats to Pridnestrovian officials and ordinary citizens in Moldova increased in light of the arrest of the Governor of Gagauzia and the criminal prosecution of Moldovan opposition figures?
- The anti-democratic amendments to the criminal legislation of the Republic of Moldova, including the so-called “law on separatism” and other repressive provisions, block the possibility of holding meetings on Moldovan territory, undermine the atmosphere of trust, and hinder the development of dialogue. These provisions serve as a convenient pretext for Chisinau to avoid fulfilling its official obligations in the negotiation process and to evade direct engagement with Tiraspol.
During the April meeting of the political representatives of the sides, we initiated a discussion on this issue. My counterpart mentioned that work is allegedly underway in the Moldovan parliament to clarify the relevant provisions of the criminal code. In response, we emphasized that the need to repeal these provisions has been repeatedly raised not only by Pridnestrovie, but also by senior representatives of the OSCE, ODIHR, the Russian Federation, and the European Commission.
The restoration of the previously reached “gentlemen’s agreement” on the freedom of movement for officials, which Chisinau unilaterally abandoned in 2022, would be a significant step forward. The cancellation of discriminatory and repressive provisions could pave the way for revitalizing the dialogue and holding events, including on Moldovan territory.
The current situation in neighboring Moldova, particularly in Gagauzia, confirms the validity of our concerns: legal mechanisms are increasingly being used for political purposes. We assess the emerging risks with a clear understanding and, as realists, cannot ignore them.”
- Moldovan officials have recently referred to Pridnestrovie as a place where convicted members of parliament Alexandr Nesterovschi and Irina Lozovan may be hiding from criminal prosecution. Is there currently any cooperation between the law enforcement agencies of Moldova and Pridnestrovie to address these issues?
- The information space in neighboring Moldova is filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated claims. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has officially stated that the republic’s law enforcement agencies do not have any information regarding Mr. Nesterovschi’s presence on Pridnestrovian territory.
Today, cooperation between law enforcement agencies is effectively frozen at the initiative of the Moldovan side. The last meeting of the expert (working) group on combating crime took place in 2021. We are interested in resuming its operation and put forward the corresponding initiative during the meeting on April 8.
Modern challenges, such as drug trafficking, transnational crime, phone fraud, require systematic coordination. Crime knows no borders, and we must find tools that allow us to protect people. There are concrete examples. Recently, a Romanian citizen who had committed a crime in his home country and was wanted by Interpol was detained in Pridnestrovie. He was identified by Pridnestrovian law enforcement and handed over to Moldovan police officers.
This is one of many examples that demonstrate Pridnestrovie’s openness and responsible approach. However, the Republic of Moldova avoids systematic cooperation. The Pridnestrovian side provides assistance in individual cases when it is possible to act through Interpol, via intermediaries, or based on previous agreements. To effectively combat crime, consistent and coordinated interaction is essential. That is precisely why the expert (working) group on combating crime was established. Resuming its operation would serve the interests of the people. It is a tool for law enforcement – not for politicized rhetoric.
- The Moldovan authorities expelled three Russian diplomats, including the co-chair of the Joint Control Commission. How will this step by Chisinau affect the Moldova–Pridnestrovie settlement process, given that the number of Russian diplomats at the embassy in Chisinau has been reduced to a minimum?
- Such steps undoubtedly complicate cooperation and worsen the atmosphere for dialogue. It is important to understand that the peacekeeping operation is the main and most effective mechanism for maintaining peace and security on the Dniester, having demonstrated its high functional stability over the past 33 years.
The work of the Joint Control Commission is currently ongoing. On April 10, under Russia’s chairmanship, another meeting was held at which a new co-chair from the Russian Federation – Ayrat Abdullin – was appointed. The Pridnestrovian side is satisfied that the JCC holds regular meetings and monitors the situation in the Security Zone. This indicates that the peacekeeping mechanism remains effective.
Speaking of other areas – political dialogue, interagency cooperation, consular support for citizens, and humanitarian issues – we actively engage with Russian diplomats. The Russian Federation continues to play a crucial role in the negotiation process, and Pridnestrovie is interested in ensuring its full participation in all significant processes.
- What contribution can the European Union make to the Moldova–Pridnestrovie settlement process? Is Brussels currently capable of influencing the Moldovan side to help maintain peace and stability in the region?
- The European Union participates in the international ‘5+2’ negotiation format as an observer. Its role is clearly defined by the 2005 document outlining the rights and responsibilities of observers, which provides for support in achieving a political settlement exclusively through peaceful means.
The EU holds considerable influence, serving as a major trading partner for both sides, a key political ally, and a consistent donor to the Republic of Moldova, as well as a labor market for hundreds of thousands of its citizens.
We hope that sooner or later the European Union will realize that achieving a sustainable settlement is far more effectively ensured by encouraging Chisinau’s responsible behavior in the negotiation process and promoting practical solutions in the interests of the population, rather than supporting the militarization of Moldova – a country that, according to its Constitution, is meant to remain neutral.
- Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Moldova, Mihai Popsoi, recently expressed hope that the U.S. and the EU would raise the issue of removing or destroying Russian ammunition stored in Pridnestrovie. How does Tiraspol view Chisinau’s attempts to involve various actors in resolving this issue?
- The issue of the ammunition depots in Kolbasna has long become a recurring theme in Chisinau’s political discourse, often taking on the form of a customary reference in the public statements of Moldovan representatives at various high-level forums. It could be observed that, over the years, the volume of political declarations and commentary from the Moldovan side may well rival the quantity of ammunition stored at the site.
The resolution of this complex issue is only possible through a rational and balanced approach from all parties involved. It depends on the agreements reached with Moldova, the position of the Russian Federation as the state responsible for guarding the depots, as well as consideration of the views of neighboring transit countries.
The position of the Pridnestrovian side remains consistent: we support the feasibility of resolving this issue. At the same time, it is essential to undertake extensive preparatory work and ensure all necessary conditions are met, including parameters for industrial, physical, and environmental safety.
I would like to recall that throughout the history of the negotiation process, the issue of the depots in Kolbasna has been seriously addressed only during periods when the dialogue between the parties demonstrated stable positive dynamics and real political questions were being discussed in the context of identifying a modality for a comprehensive settlement.
