Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) warned on Monday that Moldova might soon attack Transnistria. According to their sources, newly (but controversially) re-elected President Maia Sandu talked at a recent government meeting about taking out her rage at Ukraine’s plans to cut off Russian gas to Europe at the start of the year on her country’s separatist region, which could spark a larger conflict. Here are five background briefings to bring readers up to speed with the context of their report:
* 2 March: “Transnistria Could Become The Tripwire For A Wider War”
* 4 April: “Romania’s Draft Law On Dispatching Troops To Protect Its Compatriots Abroad Is Aimed At Moldova”
* 22 October: “Moldova’s EU Referendum Was Neither Free Nor Fair”
* 7 November: “Moldova’s Pro-Western President Was Predictably Re-Elected Due To The Diaspora”
* 16 December: “Romania’s Constitutional Coup Is Meant To Buy More Time For NATO In Ukraine”
To summarize, several thousand Russian troops are in Transnistria so an escalation there could lead to Moscow directly retaliating against Moldova, thus risking NATO-member Romania’s entrance into the conflict in support of this neighboring country that nationalists consider a part of their civilization. This scenario has been in the cards since the start of Russia’s special operation but wasn’t activated for reasons that can only be speculated upon, perhaps out of NATO’s fear of an uncontrollable escalation.
In any case, SVR’s report makes it clear that Sandu would be acting unilaterally if she goes through with what they reported, writing that “The European Union, of course, would not be against the emergence of a new crisis point in the zone of direct interests of Russia. But Brussels is not ready for this yet. And the EU border is nearby – it is dangerous. But no one can guarantee that the Moldovan president will not really try to unleash a real war in the region.”
Observers should also recall what was written at the beginning of their report about how “She categorically refused to discuss this issue (of soon-to-be cut-off energy supplies from Russia) with Ukraine and categorically placed all responsibility on Russia. According to Sandu, ‘if Moscow does not find a way to deliver gas here, then Chisinau will take it out on pro-Russian Transnistria.’” Regardless of the veracity of their claim, this framing is meant to portray her as rogue, vindictive, and irresponsible.
That appears to be an accurate description even if it can’t be proven that she actually said what they wrote. The purpose behind publishing their report is to inform the Western public of her alleged plans, signal that Russia isn’t interested in sparking a conflict there (no matter how Sandu might spin its response to her potential provocations in Transnistria), and indirectly encourage her patrons to stop her. The problem though is that some Western officials might want her to go through with this aggression.
The most hawkish anti-Russian members of the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) have long practiced the policies of “weaponizing chaos” and “escalating to de-escalate”. Some of their media surrogates are also very vocal in this regard too. It’s impossible to assess their influence within the “deep state” due to this shadowy network’s opacity, but it’s known that they sometimes get what they want.
For instance, arming Ukraine to the teeth and greenlighting what Russia claims was Kiev’s imminent offensive on Donbass ultimately pushed Putin to authorize the special operation, which some of their media surrogates have presented as preplanned “bear trap”. On the other hand, the well-known Transnistrian scenario and the associated Belarusian one (which readers can learn more about here) haven’t yet been activated, thus confirming that they don’t fully call the shots.
There’s also the concern among some observers that these ultra-hawkish anti-Russian members of the “deep state” sometimes go behind the backs of their peers in trying to provoke Russia without authorization such as what some believe drove Kiev to carry out its most audacious provocations. Other times observers believe that Zelensky or perhaps even more rogue military and intelligence officials around him might be acting unilaterally for the same purpose regardless of approval from US hawks.
These perceptions are important when analyzing SVR’s warning about Moldova’s impending attack on Transnistria. The way that they framed everything suggests that this isn’t what the West wants but that Sandu might still go through with it anyhow for her own reasons. If that’s what she’s really planning, then they should rein her in before she sets into motion a series of escalations that the West might be powerless to stop, thus risking a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis in the worst-case scenario.
