The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, Vitaly Ignatiev, gave an interview to the RIA Novosti News Agency, answering the questions about the prospects of the negotiation process, security risks and threats on the Dniester, the possible model of conflict settlement, and more.
– A new government has been formed in Moldova, and a new Deputy Prime Minister for Reintegration has been appointed. There have already been statements that Chisinau considers only a peaceful settlement of the Pridnestrovian issue. Does Tiraspol expect any progress in the settlement process in the coming months?
We expect that with the completion of the electoral processes and the approval of the new Moldovan government, including the political representative, the unjustified and overly prolonged pause in our dialogue will finally come to an end. At the moment, the negotiation agenda is overflowing with various problematic issues in almost all areas, many of which are acute and long-standing in nature.
The prolonged and politically motivated blocking of the “5+2” format has harmed not only the parties themselves, but also the international participants, who have been deprived of political and diplomatic mechanisms of involvement, and have lost initiative and, to some extent, trust. You would agree that it is difficult to speak about effective international mediation when a unique negotiation platform has been blocked for more than five years for invented reasons, and most external participants, instead of supporting dialogue, remain in a passive and contemplative state. It is important to note the constructive position of Russia, which actively advocates for the restoration of full-fledged negotiations.
The participants who are blocking the mechanism – primarily Chisinau – must realize that the ones who lose most from the suspension of full negotiations are the people: the citizens of Pridnestrovie and Moldova. After all, it is for their sake that politicians and diplomats are obliged to work. Therefore, Moldova must return to the negotiating table as soon as possible.
– Moldova has gone through a tough electoral campaign. The parliamentary elections are over, and the results are known. There are many statements being made in Chisinau regarding Pridnestrovie, in particular that the settlement should be pursued through the economy and that the negotiation formats should be changed. How does Tiraspol view these statements?
Settlement is achieved through equal dialogue: by resolving the accumulated range of issues in the interests of the people, restoring an atmosphere of trust through the strict fulfillment of commitments, normalizing relations through honest interaction and rejecting the harmful practice of unilateral pressure.
Only such adequate approaches can truly bring the conflict closer to an end and ensure its settlement in a fair and sustainable manner. For addressing these tasks, the existing negotiation formats are more than sufficient. Their non-functionality in recent years is not due to a loss of credibility or effectiveness, but solely to the unwillingness of certain participants to work within them.
– On the day of voting in the Moldovan parliamentary elections, the police literally detained and prevented citizens of Pridnestrovie from reaching polling stations. This happened before as well. Why does Chisinau regularly create barriers for people living in Pridnestrovie?
The deliberate and widespread obstruction of voting by Pridnestrovians holding Moldovan citizenship, which was observed during the electoral processes of previous years and especially this year, clearly indicates Chisinau’s unwillingness to hear and take into account the opinion of the residents of Pridnestrovie, as well as its intention, by any means – even such undemocratic ones – to exclude them from its political life.
- At present, Pridnestrovie is preparing for the Supreme Council and local council elections. Based on past experience, the Moldovan authorities used to create various obstacles during elections. Could Chisinau now attempt to discredit the Pridnestrovian electoral process in some way? If so, how would Tiraspol respond?
Holding elections is an inalienable and sovereign right of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. Any interference in this process would constitute a violation of international law and will receive an appropriate political and diplomatic response.
- Recently, Moldova adopted a new military strategy in which the Russian peacekeeping contingent in Pridnestrovie is effectively designated as a military threat, while the size of the Moldovan army is planned to be increased. What could be the consequences of implementing this document? What risks and threats may arise on the Dniester amid Moldova’s militarization?
The document you mentioned is not the first among those that attempt to impose false narratives and distort the objective reality, in which the peacekeeping operation under the auspices of the Russian Federation remains the only reliable guarantee of peace and stability in the entire region. In this context, the real threat lies in attempts to dismantle the existing peacekeeping mechanism and escalate military tensions on the Dniester through the active militarization of one party to the unresolved conflict.
- Moldovan politicians now very often accuse Russia of interfering in the internal affairs of Moldova and destabilizing the situation. How do you currently assess Russia’s role in maintaining peace in the region and its assistance to Pridnestrovie against the backdrop of economic problems and the energy crisis?
The Russian Federation, as before, remains a strategic partner of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. We are grateful to Russia for its consistently effective peacekeeping efforts, as well as for its assistance and support in mitigating the consequences of the humanitarian and energy crisis, including the restoration of stable gas supplies to Pridnestrovie. We also value the Russian side’s openness to maintaining and expanding contacts between our countries across various areas of cooperation.
- Recently, the President of Romania, Nicusor Dan, suggested that Pridnestrovie could be reintegrated into Moldova with the status of an autonomy, following the example of Gagauzia, as the country moves toward accession to the European Union. What is Tiraspol’s official position on this statement?
Any formula for a final and comprehensive settlement of Moldova-Pridnestrovie relations must take into account the opinion and will of the people of Pridnestrovie, who possess their own identity, interests, and their own vision of the best future for themselves and their children. This is an essential democratic foundation of any settlement formula.
Without direct, peaceful, and civilized negotiations with Pridnestrovie, it is impossible to achieve any sustainable results, and I hope all serious international actors clearly understand this. One may theorize about this endlessly, but real progress requires adequate practical steps. First and foremost, it is necessary to unblock the artificially frozen international ‘5+2’ format. Chisinau must return to the negotiating table on all legitimate platforms and at all levels, including direct contacts between the top leadership of Pridnestrovie and Moldova, which were the norm until 2020.
- Experts say that the Moldovan government has a strategy for reintegration with Pridnestrovie, aiming to complete the process by 2027. It is also reported that if Tiraspol refuses, a forceful scenario is likely to be implemented. What could be the consequences of such an approach? Is there currently a viable model for resolving the conflict on the Dniester?
A viable model does exist, and it is the simplest and most obvious one – to recognize the objective reality that has developed over 35 years: the existence of the Pridnestrovian state and the Pridnestrovian people who built it, a people that long ago chose its historical path and development vector. In Pridnestrovie and Moldova, two different peoples have historically formed, and over the past three decades, different generations of youth have grown up in the two states with their own priorities, values, and heroes. Therefore, any theoretical approaches that ignore this reality will prove unviable.
As for forceful scenarios, they clearly carry catastrophic consequences both for this regional space and for all of Europe. All participants in the international negotiation process continue to declare a commitment to peaceful dialogue, which is a positive signal. We proceed from the assumption that their actions will continue to align with this position.
