The referendum on amending the Constitution in order to enshrine the Republic of Moldova’s integration into the European Union passed. From the Transnistrian region, support for European integration came from 4,816 voters out of a total of 15,526 participants. Research shows that if all the inhabitants of the Transnistrian region had participated in such a referendum, the proportion of those who would have voted for Moldova’s integration into the EU would have been approximately the same, 30%. The figure is a positive signal that comes from the left bank when, for over 30 years, the Republic of Moldova has not had an active or long-term policy of cooperation with the population of the region in order to make them more loyal to Moldova.
The key to solving the Transnistrian conflict from the perspective of the official Chisinau has always been focused on increasing the attractiveness of the Republic of Moldova for the inhabitants of the left bank so that they voluntarily want to “reintegrate” into Moldova, a policy that has not borne fruit, obviously. Until 2018-2020, the inhabitants of the left bank of the Nistru still said that in the Transnistrian region “life is better, and the costs are lower”. Many of them came to hospitals in Chisinau for treatment or went to Europe for work. This is what many were saying recently too, during the energy crisis in the region. The localities in the security zone refused to be connected to the energy networks of the operators working on the right bank of the Nistru because they did not want to pay more for energy. However, things are changing slightly in the Transnistrian region, and not so much because of a new political paradigm of Chisinau in relation to Tiraspol, but rather because of the regional security context and Chisinau’s decision to position itself on the side of good in this uncertain context.
What is changing in the Transnistrian region?
Despite the years of self-affiliation to the Russian “civilizational space” of the Transnistrian region, as we usually believe, a part of the population of the Transnistrian region no longer feels comfortable being labeled as “pro-Russian”.
The Russian war in Ukraine has contributed enormously to this discomfort. Almost every second inhabitant of the region before the war had frequent contact with Ukraine through relatives, studies, regular visits for tourism, shopping or professional purposes. This is now impossible and this causes a kind of cognitive dissonance when it comes to their attitude towards Russia.
But in addition to the war, there are two other factors that gradually contribute to changing the perception of the population on the left bank of the Nistru towards the Republic of Moldova, the EU and Russia, despite an information space that has been continuously intoxicated by anti-democratic and anti-Chisinau narratives coming from Russia.
The first factor is reflected by the less and less aggressive rhetoric of the unrecognized political leaders in recent years towards the states of the European Union. There is a positive and quite active relationship between Tiraspol and the diplomats of the EU states. In the last 5-6 years, the bilateral meetings of the unrecognized leaders of Tiraspol with representatives of European countries, according to press releases of unrecognized institutions, have far exceeded those of Russia. For example, in 2023, only three official meetings were recorded for Russia compared to 11 for European countries. Obviously, the context of the war has made it difficult to meet with the Russian side. But, as we have seen, when Vadim Krasnoselsky needs Russia, he finds ways to get to the Kremlin.
The so-called leaders of the unrecognized region, especially Vadim Krasnoselsky, are cautious and make neutral statements when talking about EU countries. In the past two years, it has become increasingly difficult to find a critical position of those from the unrecognized leadership of the Transnistrian region towards the EU, which cannot be said about the statements about the Republic of Moldova.
When Vadim Krasnoselsky talks about the EU or communicates with diplomats of the member states, he usually asks the representatives of the EU states to take the side of the left bank in the negotiations with the Republic of Moldova, blaming the officials in Chisinau for the “violation of the civil rights of the population in the Transnistrian region”, “blockades of imports and exports, high taxes”, etc. There are even some news articles that show how the EU supports the left bank and condemns the Republic of Moldova for “aggressive” actions against the Transnistrian region.
These observations indicate that at present the EU’s diplomatic relations with the Transnistrian region are oriented rather towards political progress and less towards people. Why? Because, however, there is very little news or media coverage of the real support that the EU offers to the citizens on both banks of the Nistru. And this is no small thing. Only through the confidence-building project between the two banks, UNDP has invested, over 14 years, on both banks of the Nistru River, over $46 million. According to the EU-UNDP report on confidence-building measures in 2014-2017, there are many other projects and initiatives of millions of euros sponsored by European states and directed to the Transnistrian region.
This conclusion directs us to the second important factor – the visible support from the EU to the Republic of Moldova in recent years. Even if the EU’s involvement and support for the Transnistrian region is not so visible to the inhabitants of the left bank, the EU’s support is felt on the right.
The residents of the Transnistrian region frequently state, in our discussions, that they notice a “stagnation of the Transnistrian region” compared to the other regions of the Republic of Moldova. Thanks to the EU’s financial and political support for Moldova, more and more residents of Tiraspol, Tighina or even Ribnita say that “Transnistria is stagnating, and Moldova is progressing slowly, but surely”. Apparently, this contrast between the regions of Moldova, although they are also poor, becomes stronger in the context in which the inhabitants of the left bank in recent years have faced increasing prices, an economic monopoly that kills small business, inflation and an energy crisis.
Basically, the EU transforms the Republic of Moldova into that model of attractiveness for the left bank that was talked about for years as a solution in the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict, but which Moldova did not have the capacity to create by its own resources.
Is the Republic of Moldova attractive enough to reintegrate the Transnistrian region?
Although both the inhabitants of the right bank and those of the left bank consider that reintegration is a matter of political will, things are not quite like that.
The two banks of the Nistru can be integrated only by the will of the majority of the population (both on the right bank and on the left bank). Yes, the European Union is the only one that can support Chisinau in this process. It is the only one ready to assume the enormous cost of reintegration (as it was actually willing to do in the case of the energy crisis in Tiraspol, offering the region €60 million). It is ready to make the Republic of Moldova an attractive model for the inhabitants of the left bank. But one cannot integrate by force and bring into the European Union two thirds of the population of the region that has not yet expressed its intention to support Moldova’s integration into the EU and still dreams of being part of the Russian world.
Although the Russian war in Ukraine and the integration of the Republic of Moldova opened a unique window of opportunity for the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict, the population of the Transnistrian region is not yet ready to reintegrate into Moldova. And the Republic of Moldova has only recently started to show pro-activity in relation to the people living on the left bank of the Nistru, showing that they can rely on the government in Chisinau in terms of energy security and not only.
However, there is a need to lay emphasis on a plan of measures focused on the needs of the people living on the left bank and on more frequent and clear manifestation by the official Chisinau of concrete actions aimed at protecting the inhabitants of the Transnistrian region, their rights and concern for their well-being so that they feel that they are Moldovans.
What are the real options for the Transnistrian region?
As for the inhabitants of the Transnistrian region, they currently have two options: either they reintegrate into Moldova and thus become full-fledged European citizens, or they remain in an unrecognized and isolated enclave between two states with a majority population that does not even want to hear about the Russian Federation.
Despite Tiraspol’s myth that Russia will “annex” the region by turning it into the second Kaliningrad, I have bad news: this dream has been shattered together with the Russian war in Ukraine and the energy crisis on the left bank of the Nistru. If Russia values so much the “Russian speakers in the Transnistrian region”, why did it let the people freeze in the cold? Are the inhabitants of the region ready to go through an energy crisis again next winter?
If Russia cares so much about the Transnistrian region, why has not it turned this into Kaliningrad so far, for 30 years? If Russia cares so much about the Transnistrian region, why has it stopped almost all its large infrastructure projects in the region? If Russia cares so much about the Transnistrian region, why did it let the people stand in huge queues at the so-called Russian consulate in Tiraspol to get Russian documents? And this list of questions can go on.
For many times in discussions with the inhabitants of the left bank, they tell me that the EU manipulates Moldova, that it wants to use it only as a buffer zone against Russia. And it’s hard not to see the hypocrisy of this statement because, from my point of view, Russia is doing this with the Transnistrian region, keeping these people captive in the myth of the “Russian world” for over three decades.
The difference between the EU and Russia is that the former does not keep its army on the territory of Moldova to ensure that we remain loyal to it. They do not threaten us with occupation if we decide that we no longer want to be part of the European project (since 2009 there have been several moments when the politicians in Chisinau changed their minds, and there has been no military threat from the EU). It does not impose sanctions on products to blackmail us politically. Although it has a rich market, it also finds room for Moldovan products in this economic market, possibly with much better products, but also more expensive than those of Moldova. And most importantly, it does not give us love by force.
Moldova can integrate into the EU without the Transnistrian region. This is what the political decision-makers in Chisinau say. This is what those in Brussels say. The Transnistrian region cannot prevent this.
However, both Moldova and the EU offer the chance for the Transnistrian region to join the EU as part of Moldova. But it is the population on the left bank that is to decide in favor of such an option. They either continue to dream of the myth of the Russian World, witnessing a massive flow of people to Chisinau and Europe, an increasingly dysfunctional economy, an authoritarian regime that controls them at will, or they wake up from their dreams and cooperate with the Government in Chisinau so that they can have the freedom to benefit from everything that is currently lacking in the region: a more independent economy and more developed infrastructure; a higher standard of living; an international market for small and medium-sized entrepreneurs in the region; better education; a decent healthcare system; and, last but not least, less fear and uncertainty. There is no fear of criticizing Russia, the EU, Ukraine, the so-called peacekeepers or the Tiraspol regime. There is no uncertainty about tomorrow in the context of the Russian war on the border.
Obviously, any choice comes with particular compromises. But in a normal society, these things are discussed and negotiated, not imposed with a gun to the head.