Press Release
on the organization of the debate “Russian factor in Transnistrian conflict: past, present and future”. Debates series held by the news agency IPN in its conference room with the support of the German Foundation “Hanns Seidel”
Held on 15 November 2024, brought together: Doctor of history Octavian Țîcu, coordinating researcher of the Institute of History of the Moldova State University, Doctor of history Mihai Gribincea, former ambassador of Moldova to the Benelux countries, former head of Moldova’s Mission to NATO, former ambassador to Romania and Serbia and Igor Boțan, IPN project’s standing expert.
The large-scale war that the Russian Federation is waging against the neighboring Ukraine demonstrates without any doubt how dangerous a frozen conflict remains on the territory of a country, which can break out again at any time, usually with even greater force than in the initial period. The frozen conflict in the Republic of Moldova has not been resolved for more than three decades and risks or even dangers are therefore possible. On the one hand, the failure to resolve it in time seems unnatural since it does not have an ethnic or religious components and such reasons that underlie almost all the serious conflicts in the ex-Soviet space, but also in the whole world. On the other hand, the failure to resolve the Transnistrian conflict seems to be perfectly explainable, due to its pronounced political or rather geopolitical character, given the interest that a large and dangerous international actor – the Russian Federation – has in this conflict and in this region of the world. How the Transnistrian conflict affected us, how it affects us and how it can affect us in the future, as well as what is Russia's involvement in this conflict and its real interests were among the subjects discussed by the experts invited to IPN’s public debate "Russian factor in the Transnistrian conflict: past, present and future".
The permanent expert of IPN’s project Igor Boţan said that a frozen conflict is a conflict for which a political solution has not been found, but which overcame the stage of a direct armed confrontation. That is, a frozen conflict is a smoldering, low-intensity conflict that goes through different phases of sharpening and relaxation. "The external factor in a conflict within a state generally represents the external, uncontrollable influences with an impact on the decisions and actions of the parties involved in the conflict, as well as the internal structure and processes of the country in which the conflict takes place. Respectively, the main external factors are political, legal and economic in character," noted the expert
According to him, peacekeeping forces in a frozen military conflict are usually an instrument of the operation to temporarily maintain the status quo, based on an agreement aimed at preventing the return to hostilities, in order to allow negotiations that would lead to the settlement of the dispute. It is considered that the physical presence of peacekeepers should deter combatant forces from resuming hostilities.
"There are three basic peacekeeping principles. These three principles are interconnected and strengthen each other. It goes to the consent of the parties, impartiality of the peacekeeping forces, their neutrality, except in cases of legitimate defense and defense of the mandate by these peacekeeping forces," said Igor Boţan said.
Doctor of history Mihai Gribincea, former ambassador of Moldova to the Benelux countries, former head of Moldova’s Mission to NATO, former ambassador to Romania and Serbia, said that the first question, in the context of the given topic, is whether the conflict in Transnistria is an internal one in the Republic of Moldova or is an interstate conflict. "I personally see it more as a Moldovan-Russian interstate conflict because this conflict actually stemmed from Russia's attempt to keep the Republic of Moldova in its sphere of influence. But the keeping of its troops in Transnistria was the main factor," said the former ambassador.
Mihai Gribincea noted that Russia was recognized, including in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, but also by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova, as the occupying power in Transnistria. So, officially, Transnistria should be considered a territory occupied by Russia and not a secessionist territory. "And here another question arises, why haven't all governments since 1991 done this?" asked the historian.
In his opinion, the classical definitions of a frozen conflict apply less in the case of the Republic of Moldova. "It is the same in the case of the peacekeeping forces, which we inaappropriately call "peacekeeping", because they are not peacekeeping forces in Transnistria. Even when they were introduced into Transnistria on July 28, 1992, they were considered disengagement forces and not peacekeeping forces. The peacekeeping forces, according to international law, must meet particular criteria. First of all, they must be impartial," explained the doctor of history.
Mihai Gribincea said that on a scale from 1% to 100%, this conflict is 99% based on the Russian factor. Until 1989, there were no manifestations of statehood in the districts on the left bank of the Nistru, not even during a period of its history. The population of those districts never manifested their desire to enjoy statehood. In 1924, the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was created not based on the aspirations of the population of the eastern districts. On the contrary, there are archival documents showing that the Ukrainian population, which was in the majority, was against the creation of this republic.
"The external actor, Russia, was interested in creating that separatist republic, similar to Gagauzia in the south of Bessarabia, in order to prevent, on the one hand, the union of the Republic of Moldova with Romania, even if the official Chisinau wanted to establish an independent state, as the Baltic countries wanted. On the other hand, I think there is a less emphasized aspect. The Russian military elite, which were in conflict with Russia's political elite, saw Russia's security and strategic interests differently," said the former head of Moldova's Mission to NATO.
Doctor of history Octavian Țîcu, coordinating researcher of the Institute of History of the Moldova State University, said that the war in Ukraine changes the paradigm of perception of the conflict. The war in Ukraine offers the opportunity to reassess this conflict and its prospects for resolution in general.
"The first thing I would like to bring up is the temporal paradigm of the conflict. We are talking about 1992 and we somehow do what Russia actually wants – it has always wanted to show this war as waged in 1992. In fact, this war began in 1792, long before the annexation of Bessarabia in 1812. This war implied Russia's 100% involvement and referred to Russia's annexationist plan after the conquest of Crimea in 1783. It reached the Bug and the Nistru in 1972. Aleksandr Suvorov who built the Tiraspol fortress, because after that, the Romanian majority that lived from the Nistru up to the Bug through colonization policies was transformed into a minority, and this region into a military base," said the historian.
According to him, what followed in the Soviet period was already the building of this separatism, which was long before its outbreak. "We are talking, for example, about some things related to the construction of the Bender-Tiraspol industrial and urban axis, the trolleybus line, transport, etc. This connection, this urban and industrial axis was outdone only by Chisinau and is functional even today. This fact explains why the struggle was so fierce to keep Bender/Tighina within this Transnistrian separatism," the historian said.
"We must not forget the construction of the 14th Army, which was somehow restructured after 1944 and placed very well, first in Chisinau, where the Ministry of Defense is now headquartered. The 14th Army was moved from Chisinau only in 1984, to Tiraspol, because the Soviets anticipated things that were going to happen, knowing very well what would happen. From this point of view, the construction of the 14th Army was one of the most formidable things. Its purpose was not only to maintain stability in the Moldavian SSR and it would be naïve to believe this. The 14th Army was created to move towards the Balkans. It had strategic functionalities," said Octavian Țîcu.
The public debate entitled "Russian factor in the Transnistrian conflict: past, present and future" is part of the series of debates "Development of political culture through public debates". IPN Agency carries out this project with support from the German Hanns Seidel Foundation...
The Agency published 4 news stories on the debate (see the English version of www.ipn.md): on 15.11.24.24, „ Russian factor in Transnistrian conflict: past, present and future. IPN debate”;- https://www.ipn.md/en/russian-factor-in-transnistrian-conflict-past-present-and-future-ipn-8004_1109074.html; “Țîcu: "Kozak plan" remains Russia's ideal option for settling Transnistrian conflict”; https://www.ipn.md/en/ticu-kozak-plan-remains-russias-ideal-option-for-settling-8004_1109076.html ; „ Mihai Gribincea: Transnistrian problem must be part of package of negotiations on Ukraine crisis”;- https://www.ipn.md/en/mihai-gribincea-transnistrian-problem-must-be-part-of-package-of-8004_1109081.html; „ Igor Boțan: Events in Ukraine are decisive for Moldova’s political future”;- https://www.ipn.md/en/igor-botan-events-in-ukraine-are-decisive-for-moldovas-8004_1109086.html.
Valeriu Vasilica, director of IPN
