Refusal of Transnistria for the sake of European integration. What is behind the loud statements of Chisinau?
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of Moldova, Nicu Popescu, believes that Moldova should join the European Union, regardless of the progress of the Transnistrian settlement. In an interview with Politico, the head of Moldovan diplomacy admitted that the country would give up the territory of Transnistria, which it does not control, for the sake of European integration, which the people of Moldova strive for.
The director of the Institute of Socio-Political Research and Regional Development, Igor Shornikov, tells PolitNavigator about the background of this statement and how this development of events could turn out for Pridnestrovie.
PolitNavigator: The head of the MFAEI of Moldova, Nicu Popescu, said that the unresolved conflict will not affect the plans of the Republic of Moldova to join the EU. What does it mean? Is Moldova generally ready to abandon Transnistria for the sake of its lofty goal, or will Chisinau simply turn a blind eye to the unfinished settlement process and continue to put pressure on Tiraspol, drawing it into its fiscal field?
Igor Shornikov: Before our very eyes, official Yerevan abandoned Artsakh—historically Armenian lands—and betrayed its compatriots who were ready to fight. For what, one wonders? For peace with Azerbaijan or to weaken Russia's position in the region? With Pashinyan's rise to power, Armenia lost its status as an independent regional player and became a tool in the West's geopolitical game against Russia. Yes, Armenians were deceived, they managed to stoke Russophobia in some of them, raise false hopes, and made them think, "The West will help us." Who and where did the West help? Perhaps it helped the Ukrainians, or the Balts, or the Georgians? In all these cases, peoples have been and are being used to weaken Russia, which, by its very existence, challenges the dominance of the US and its satellites.
In Moldova, the same conditional “Pashinyan” is in power, who will sacrifice his own people and their interests for the sake of Western geopolitical strategies. We have been observing this for more than two years: the severance of all contacts with Moscow, the denunciation of agreements within the CIS, an attempt to abandon Russian energy resources, a provocative refusal to pay debts, anti-Russian hysteria in the media. Against this background, Chisinau, of course, needs a pro-Russian Transnistria like a dog needs a fifth leg. Transnistria used to be a suitcase without a handle, which was a pity to leave behind. Now I don't mind.
European integration for the authorities in Moldova is not just a slogan, it is the only way for them to maintain power. But the problem is not even the lust for power of Maia Sandu and her team, but her patrons, who cannot afford to lose such obedient puppets. The Sandu regime today is the optimal mechanism for implementing the geopolitical plans of the West in our region. Therefore, if it turns out that in order to weaken Russia’s position in the region, Chisinau will need to abandon Transnistria, this will follow.
This does not mean at all that Moldova will be accepted into the EU and will heal well. Moldovans are not really needed there. Residents of Moldova are viewed as just as expendable in the fight against Russia as Ukrainians.
PolitNavigator: Will the European Union be ready to accept a divided country?
Igor Shornikov: No one has yet given Moldova any firm guarantees of European integration, either by 2030 or ever. Everything is limited to encouraging statements from European bureaucrats whose mandates are about to expire and who represent no one but themselves. So, I don't see Moldova joining the European Union, either divided or united.
For now, the “unira” with Romania remains in doubt. The theoretical possibility of such “European integration” with the loss of sovereignty and independence, as well as the unconditional loss of Transnistria, remains. Perhaps this is the reason for Nicu Popescu's encouraging rhetoric.
But lately I have not noticed any particular enthusiasm on the part of Romanian politicians about the prospects of absorbing Moldova. Firstly, it is expensive, and Romania economically may not be able to cope with the “uniru”, which means that potential unifiers will lose power in the country. And secondly, it is dangerous. Romania does not want to become “cannon fodder” in the Western war against Russia, and this is exactly what its Western partners have been pushing Romania to do in recent years. In addition, Romania has such an inconvenient neighbor as Hungary. In the event of a redistribution of regional borders, Budapest will certainly not remain indifferent to the fate of the Romanian Hungarians of Transylvania, deprived of even elementary autonomy.
Therefore, even “unira” as a way of European integration of Moldova, in my opinion, is very unlikely.
PolitNavigator: Recent Moldovan opinion polls indicate that Euro-enthusiasm is declining among the country’s population, and less than half want to join the EU. Does this count?
Igor Shornikov : Yes, of course. Those citizens still blinded by the glitter of the European Union are the potential electorate of Maia Sandu and the ruling Action and Solidarity party. By whipping up Moldovans' European expectations through the media, these politicians are trying to shear the last wisps of wool from a dead donkey. The election season has already begun in Moldova. Local elections will be held in November, and almost immediately this campaign will transition into preparations for the presidential race. Therefore, in the near future, the authorities will mercilessly exploit the European idea, fully aware that it will no longer have any prospects.
PolitNavigator: Chisinau admits that it does not control Transnistria, in fact it agrees that the two banks of the Dniester are very far from each other, and that this situation cannot be changed in the foreseeable future. Should Tiraspol regard this as a victory? Is there a danger that Transnistria, with its problems, will find itself surrounded by ill-wishers?
Igor Shornikov : In the current situation, when the conflict in Ukraine is far from over, the long-awaited independence of Transnistria is less an opportunity than a death sentence. I repeat, Moldova would only abandon Transnistria if the West needed it to weaken Russia's regional position.
Let's get creative. Let's say Moldova renounced Transnistria and recognized its independence. Where is the guarantee that this independence will be immediately recognized by all other countries, for example, neighboring Ukraine? Let me remind you that until 1940, Transnistria was part of the Moldavian Autonomous Republic within the Ukrainian SSR. Kyiv may well claim its rights to this territory. Moldova no longer bears formal responsibility for the security of these lands, and therefore no international law will any longer stop Kyiv if it needs to eliminate the Russian military presence in the territories that it declares as its own.
Therefore, if I were Tiraspol, I would perceive statements by Chisinau politicians and diplomats about abandoning Transnistria for the sake of European integration or for the sake of anything else as an alarming sign, as a threat to regional security.
Ukraine's potential in the war with Russia is coming to an end, this becomes especially noticeable against the backdrop of squabbles between Kiev and Warsaw. But the West views this military conflict as an effective tool to contain Russia, and in order to maintain the heat of the war, it will easily throw Transnistria, Moldova, Romania and Poland there.
English version :: Read in English: Abandoning Transnistria for European Integration. What's behind Chisinau's loud statements?