The session of the "Permanent Meeting ..." planned by the Acting Swedish Chairmanship in the OSCE for November 2-3, 2021 would not take place in Stockholm. I was known from an interview with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pridnestrovie. Vitaly Ignatiev described the incident as "a warning signal", depriving the parties "of the opportunity to discuss many issues of negotiations on the international platform."
So far, no official comments have been made by Vladislav Kulminsky, the culprit for the disruption of the 5 + 2 meeting. The OSCE is also in no hurry to clarify the situation, apparently hoping to convince the Moldovan side to abandon the obstructionist approaches, which have already resulted in the paralysis of the “Permanent Meeting ...” for more than two years. The previous time the format met in Bratislava at the end of October 2019, while Vladislav Kulminsky`s mentor Vasily Shova then thwarted the signing of the final protocol of the round.
The negotiation process is currently in a crisis resulting from the transport blockade provoked by Moldova. Vladislav Kulminsky was personally involved in the process of negotiating the restrictions introduced from September 1 with Kyiv, as well as in their diplomatic cover. And now he is doing everything in his power to ensure that the decision on the blockade is not revised either by the Ukrainian side or by the leadership of Vladislav Kulminsky in Chisinau. Although there are serious prerequisites for the abolition of discriminatory restrictions, ranging from the insufficient capacity of the VRP to the impossibility of carrying out international cargo and passenger transportation.
Apparently, to preserve the blockade state, the Moldovan political representative is ready to do anything, even break the 5 + 2 format, to which his political leadership has repeatedly affirmed its commitment. Indeed, an honest adversarial discussion on the transport issue with a wide presence of international partners, for whom such phrases as “human rights”, “the inadmissibility of discrimination”, “freedom of movement” are not, unlike Chisinau, an empty promise, unprofitable for Moldova. Any wicked plans require silence.
Therefore, Vladislav Kulminsky is, by all means, trying to create this dialogue vacuum. And he constantly admits a discrepancy between words and deeds. At the meeting in the 1 + 1 format on October 18, he assured all participants of their interest to hold the meeting without preconditions and as soon as possible. Taking these favorable signals seriously, the OSCE Chairmanship-in-Office sent an invitation to the round in Stockholm on the next day.
However, in the middle of this week, the Moldovan negotiator changed his mind and demanded to postpone the meeting. Moreover, he did not even find it necessary to provide any arguments or convincing arguments in defense of his obstructionist position, he only confronted all participants in the international negotiation format with the fact of his refusal. Something similar already happened in September 2020, when Christina Lesnik asked to postpone the meeting for technical reasons, as a result, not a single meeting took place during the Albanian Chairmanship of the OSCE.
It is becoming obvious that the Moldovan side prefers collusion over negotiations. Words with the same root, but extremely different in content, especially in diplomatic practice. The constant indulgence of Kyiv and other international partners to the demands of Chisinau lets off the leash of the Moldovan side in its attempts to coerce Tiraspol without conducting an honest dialogue. Perhaps the Moldovan delegation refused to travel to Stockholm because there it will have to once again confirm the solution of all issues exclusively at the negotiating table, as it was recorded in the minutes of previous meetings. But Chisinau and his patrons no longer believe that this path is the only correct one. Such delusions mean trouble.
A session of the "Permanent Meeting ..." will take place sooner or later and Vladislav Kulminsky or his successor will have to explain all the steps of the official Chisinau leading to the destruction of this format, for which there is no alternative yet. Especially in the conditions when Moldova continues to ignore the invitations to dialogue at the level of presidents, heads of government, and legislative bodies, sent by Pridnestrovie about a month ago.
One gets the feeling that Chisinau is deliberately hammering the situation and provoking the conflict so that its sponsors pay more attention to the situation in Moldova and financially participate in solving the internal problems faced by the Moldovan authorities. Chisinau has already learned to speculate in the interests of Pridnestrovie, which is once again demonstrated during negotiations with Moscow on gas supplies. Yet Moldova has obvious problems with conducting a mature dialogue, fulfilling the agreements reached and the obligations taken, taking into account the rights and interests of people.
Perhaps the international community should teach Chisinau a painful lesson. For example, the Acting Swedish Chairmanship in the OSCE, personally deceived by Vladislav Kulminsky, could give its assessment of the strange maneuvers of the Moldovan negotiator and remind him of what discipline and strict commitment to the principles and procedures of dialogue means.
