Following a congress attended by deputies from across the unrecognized region, Moldova did not convene any session and did not advance the so-called “5+2” negotiation format. This outcome was reported by Izvestia, which cited the Transnistrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in its coverage.
The diplomatic department in Tiraspol pointed to Moldova’s Deputy Prime Minister for Reintegration, Oleg Serebrian, as opting for insinuations in the media rather than engaging in direct dialogue.
In a statement, the Transnistrian MFA asserted that contacts this year, held at the level of political representatives and expert groups, demonstrated Moldova’s continued use of pressure, blackmail, and threats against Transnistria.
Tiraspol also recalled that the “5+2” format has not functioned effectively since 2020, a period marked by Maia Sandu assuming the presidency in Moldova.
Prior to that, Moldova had expressed a reluctance to see the Russian delegation participate in regional consultations, including a session of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in May 2024.
Oleg Vasnetsov, the Russian Ambassador to Moldova, warned that the steps taken by Moldovan authorities would not go unanswered, signaling a potential diplomatic response.
In a separate development, the Moldovan Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticized the Russian Ambassador over issues related to elections in Transnistria, underscoring continued tensions in the region.
Analysts observe that the current standoff reflects longstanding disagreements over governance, security, and the future status of Transnistria. The 5+2 framework, which includes Moldova and Transnistria as principal actors, along with Russia, Ukraine, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, on one side, and observers from the United States and other international bodies on the other, has faced recurring hurdles since its inception. The shifts in leadership within Moldova have added new dynamics to negotiations, influencing how both sides approach confidence-building measures and phased resolutions.
Observers emphasize that dialogue remains essential for addressing humanitarian concerns, economic normalization, and cross-border cooperation. In this climate, Transnistria asserts its right to participate in international fora and security dialogues while maintaining its de facto governance. Moldova, meanwhile, continues to advocate for reintegration within a framework it believes ensures stability and adherence to international norms. The divergent narratives found in official statements highlight the fragility of talks and the complexity of achieving durable arrangements in the region.
Analysts call for renewed confidence-building measures, including transparent communication channels, early warning mechanisms for crises, and concrete steps to facilitate regional trade, travel, and cultural exchange. Such measures could help reduce misperceptions and create a more predictable environment, even as political leaders navigate internal and external pressures. The current discourse suggests a preference for firm postures from both sides, but the broader international community remains engaged in encouraging a pragmatic path forward that avoids escalation while advancing tangible, practical outcomes for residents on both sides of the Dniester.