The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the PMR, Vitaly Ignatiev, gave an interview to the news agency RIA Novosti. He answered questions about the secret to the success of the peacekeeping operation on the Dniester, the obstacles hindering a “5+2” format meeting, the dangers of hate rhetoric towards the Pridnestrovians from Moldovan experts, journalists, and politicians. He also discussed the “neutrality” and militarization of Moldova, the current situation in Pridnestrovie amidst the ongoing humanitarian and energy crisis, and the relations with the Russian Federation.
Pridnestrovie will mark the 33rd anniversary of the start of the peacekeeping operation on the Dniester. Why is it still effective, and what is the secret to its success? What more needs to be done today to maintain peace and stability in this region of Europe?
The success of any peacekeeping mission is measured by its ability to protect the civilian population and prevent the resumption of hostilities in the area of responsibility. In this sense, it is indisputable that the operation on the Dniester is truly unique. Over the past 33 years, despite the unresolved conflict and ongoing political attacks from Moldova, there have been no armed clashes between the parties or similar provocations in the peacekeepers’ area of responsibility.
The secret to this success, in my opinion, lies in the combination of advantages that the current peacekeeping mechanism possesses. First, it is the presence of a clear contractual and legal foundation, along with the mission’s format, which involves not only the conflict parties, Pridnestrovie and Moldova, but also the Russian Federation, which responsibly fulfills its peacekeeping obligations. Second, it is the well-thought-out nature of the operation, where clear procedures are in place, such as the consensus-based decision-making principle. Third, there is the vast accumulated experience in resolving various incidents that frequently occur in the Security Zone.
It’s the peacekeeping operation that creates the conditions for a peaceful and civilized negotiation process between Pridnestrovie and Moldova. And, most importantly, it has undeniable legitimacy in the eyes of both the population of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic and Moldova. All of these factors contribute to the stability of the mission, which continues to be successfully carried out, even despite the years-long defamation campaign by the official authorities in Chisinau.
The unwavering position of Pridnestrovie is that the continued preservation of peace and security on the Dniester is directly linked to the indispensable continuation of the peacekeeping mechanism’s unhindered functioning under the auspices of Russia, at least until a final and comprehensive resolution of Moldova-Pridnestrovie relations is achieved.
The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service recently published information on the militarization of Moldova and the possible plans of the Moldovan authorities to abandon the neutrality enshrined in the country’s constitution. What might this lead to? Is Tiraspol prepared to respond to these challenges?
What real “neutrality” can Moldova claim? Since 2006, the country has had comprehensive individual partnership plans with NATO, Moldovan contingents regularly participate in joint exercises with alliance countries, Western military advisers are permanently present in Moldova, and its army is actively being converted to NATO standards.
In 2017 and 2021, NATO liaison offices and two NATO centers were opened in Moldova, one of which is focused on cybersecurity.
Moreover, since 2019, Moldova, together with Romania – a NATO member state – has been jointly patrolling their shared border. However, no bilateral treaty on mutual recognition of borders has been signed or ratified between the two countries to this day, which is a standard part of international legal norms for good-neighborliness between sovereign states. The absence of such an agreement calls into question the completeness of the delimitation and demarcation of the Moldova-Romania border, creating a potential zone of uncertainty.
In 2022, Moldova signed an agreement with the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) regarding its operations on Moldovan territory. Legally, this step means a partial transfer of the responsibility for guarding the state border of Moldova to an external actor.
In 2023, Moldova was further integrated into Euro-Atlantic structures: in February, NATO launched a security sector training program, and in May, the EU Partnership Mission (EUPM) began its work under the Common Security and Defence Policy. These steps indicate Moldova’s institutional embedding into the Western collective security architecture.
This is far from the full list of facts regarding Moldova’s collaboration with NATO. How this aligns with the declared “neutrality” remains an open question.
As for the militarization of Moldova, the clear intensification of this process raises serious concerns. The President of Moldova, Maia Sandu, recently acknowledged that there is no military threat to Moldova in the short- and medium-term. However, according to her own statements, military spending will continue to rise. This raises a legitimate question – why is Moldova so persistently arming itself? In light of Chisinau’s refusal to sign the Declaration on Peaceful Approaches to Settlement and its unwillingness to engage in a constructive negotiation process with Pridnestrovie, this question takes on particular urgency.
The head of the OSCE Mission to Moldova, Kelly Keiderling, is leaving her post. How do you assess the work of the OSCE on the Pridnestrovian issue today? What can this organization do to give an impetus to the dialogue between Chisinau and Tiraspol?
We are grateful to Ms. Keiderling for the work of the field office during her leadership and for her personal contribution to resolving a number of practical issues.
At the same time, the OSCE, as a mediator, should make more active efforts to reduce the number of problems in the relations between the parties, rather than allowing them to multiply, as is happening now. In recent years, the organization has taken a passive, observing stance, which contradicts its core function – to facilitate dialogue between the parties in order to resolve the conflict. There have also been outright negative episodes, including last year’s resolution by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the text of which contained unfounded accusations and illogical passages that tarnished Pridnestrovie. Such facts point to a deep crisis within the OSCE itself. Otherwise, it is hard to explain such phenomena, where the organization’s structures fail to interact with each other, and their reports contradict one another.
We hope that the OSCE’s work in our direction will become more effective and focused on ensuring the rights of people, which are being massively violated by the blockade and restrictive actions of Moldova, as well as on activating the mechanisms of the negotiation process, including direct dialogue at the highest leadership level and the international “5+2” format.
There is still the opinion that representatives from Russia and Ukraine will not be able to sit at the same table during a “5+2” format meeting. However, representatives from Moscow and Kyiv have already sat together at the table in Istanbul and regularly participate in meetings of the Joint Control Commission, as well as in meetings of political representatives and expert groups. So, what is hindering a “5+2” format meeting today? Whose political will is needed for this?
The examples you provided once again prove that there are no objective obstacles to organizing another round of the “Permanent Conference...”. As we can see, when the parties are interested in communication, a mutually acceptable format can always be found. In the case of the Moldovan-Pridnestrovian settlement, there is no need to search for anything, as there is a legitimate, functional, and long-established international mechanism. The fact that it is temporarily inactive is the result of sabotage by certain participants who, in reality, do not wish to engage in constructive work and therefore come up with excuses to do nothing.
Endlessly postponing “5+2” format meetings is, of course, not an option. But why waste time? It is unlikely that Moldova, which blocked the work of this consultative platform, will suddenly change its position. Therefore, we continuously urge international mediators, primarily the OSCE, to use all available diplomatic tools to give an impetus to the settlement process, including by resuming the meetings of the “Permanent Conference...”.
In Chisinau, sharp statements continue to emerge regarding the population of Pridnestrovie, ranging from calls for “de-Pridnestrovization” to claims that Russians are a “substandard ethnic element within Moldovan society.” What is the danger of such rhetoric?
Hate rhetoric towards Pridnestrovians is increasingly appearing in the speeches of Moldovan experts, journalists, and even politicians, taking on grotesque forms. What stands out is that such odious statements receive no adequate response either from the Moldovan leadership or from European or international organizations. What happened to the principles of humanism, tolerance, and democracy?
It seems that certain figures in the neighboring state have not been able to move beyond the nationalist mindset of the early ‘90s and overcome some personal complexes and psychological issues, somehow projecting them onto our country and its citizens. This is a very concerning trend, as it is precisely this kind of rhetoric that marked the onset of the conflict between Moldova and Pridnestrovie.
Recently, experts and diplomats appearing in Moldovan media have argued that the main condition for resolving the frozen conflict on the Dniester is the demilitarization of Pridnestrovie, which means the dismantling of all security forces in the republic and the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers. What risks and threats to stability on the Dniester do such statements pose?
The peacekeeping operation cannot be an obstacle to the resolution process, as it, on the contrary, creates the conditions for its implementation in a peaceful and stable manner. The same applies to the Pridnestrovian armed forces, which operate under a strictly defensive doctrine. Attempts to set the withdrawal of peacekeepers and some form of “demilitarization” of Pridnestrovie as preconditions for conflict resolution are clearly a provocative approach. Only those who truly envision conflict resolution through the imposition of ultimatums and military scenarios can demand this. For them, Russian peacekeepers and our military might indeed be an obstacle.
I emphasize that Pridnestrovie categorically rejects any changes to the existing peacekeeping mechanism. Any such ideas are aimed at clogging the information space with absurd initiatives and masking the reluctance to engage in responsible dialogue.
In Pridnestrovie, there is a state of emergency in the economy. It was also reported in Tiraspol that reserves have been exhausted, and fulfilling social obligations is becoming increasingly problematic. In Chisinau, it is said that the region’s economy could collapse. How difficult is the situation right now and how is Pridnestrovie managing to cope with these negative challenges?
Pridnestrovie continues to experience the compounded impact of a severe humanitarian and energy crisis. Industrial production has decreased by almost half, and foreign trade turnover has dropped by a third. Very negative forecasts predict a decline in GDP by the end of the year. There are difficulties with the gas supply, related to the short-term nature of supply agreements and a number of technical issues that require measures to be taken for its conservation. Therefore, the state of emergency in the economy is a necessary step.
Furthermore, our situation is significantly worsened by the blockade and restrictive actions of Moldova. There are ongoing problems with the export of products from Pridnestrovian enterprises, illegitimate customs duties, and the banking blockade.
To fulfill social obligations to the population, which is our absolute priority, all available resources are being mobilized, including through the reduction of other budgetary expenses. To prevent the collapse of the economy and the social sector, extraordinary measures have to be taken: for example, starting this month, a flexible wage payment mechanism has been introduced in the public sector.
Overall, the current situation can be described as very difficult. However, Pridnestrovie has a unique experience of surviving in challenging conditions.
Preparations for parliamentary elections are currently underway in Moldova. However, there have been many statements in the information space suggesting that Pridnestrovie might be used to somehow influence the Moldovan electoral process. What is Tiraspol’s response to this? Are there concerns in Pridnestrovie about potential provocations due to the upcoming elections in Moldova?
Perhaps there has never been an election in Moldova where certain participants haven’t speculated on the topic of Pridnestrovie. This is a long-standing Bessarabian habit. On our part, Pridnestrovie is in no way involved in the electoral processes of neighboring Moldova, considering them an internal matter of a foreign state.
The Press Secretary of the President of Russia, Dmitry Peskov, recently noted that everything related to Pridnestrovie is a matter of concern for Russia. What is Moscow’s role on the banks of the Dniester today, especially given that Russia is being actively restricted in various ways? Have the relations between Pridnestrovie and Russia changed because of this?
Pridnestrovie’s relations with the Russian Federation remain, as before, strategic in nature. We are grateful to Russia for its effective efforts in maintaining peace and stability on the Dniester within the framework of the existing peacekeeping mechanism and the negotiation process, as well as for helping to overcome the negative consequences of the humanitarian and energy crisis in our country.
The modern nature of Pridnestrovie-Russia relations remains unchanged and is based on a mutual desire to develop cooperation in various areas.
