The war in Transnistria
The collapse of the Soviet Union opened the way for the independence of all its former members, with Moldova becoming an independent state on August 27, 1991.
Steliu Lambru, 26.01.2026, 14:00
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 opened the way for the independence of all its former members, with the Republic of Moldova becoming an independent state on August 27, 1991. However, in the regions on the left bank of Dniester River, which would soon proclaim themselves as the Dniester Moldovan Republic or Transnistria, politicians and paramilitary groups, supported by Russia, were preparing secession. An armed conflict between the legitimate troops of the Republic of Moldova and the separatist guards would follow between March and July 1992, a conflict as a result of which Moldova lost control over Transnistria.
Jurist and professor Adrian Năstase was Romania’s foreign minister between 1990 and 1992, during the conflict between Moldova and Transnistria. At the launch of the volume “The Moldovan-Russian War on the Dniester in the spring-summer of 1992”, signed by historian Mihai Gribincea, Năstase said that, legally, Russia was a party to the conflict, although it always denied involvement. Adrian Nastase: “This conflict, the war, was between the leaders in Chisinau and the leaders in Tiraspol. Or, as it results from documents signed perhaps more easily by the Russians, the Russians admitted that they were a party to the conflict when it reached its end. The fact that they signed that document regarding the end of the conflict, speaking of parties, is clear evidence of the fact that Russia was involved in this war.”
History is always complicated and often contradicts our opinions. Adrian Năstase pointed out that, as regards the conflict in Transnistria, not only Russia should be held responsible for Moldova’s destabilization: “Ukraine, at that time, tried to benefit from the war by having the opportunity to block the arrival of the Cossacks. It kept hoping that, in the end, it would gain something from this conflict, possibly territories. Let me say one more thing that we should keep in mind. We are talking about hypersonic weapons, about all kinds of sophisticated military equipment, about fighter jets and so on, when often, wars are won through betrayal. And, in my opinion, the Republic of Moldova, from a military point of view at that time, had no chance of winning. First of all, the army was full of people who had studied in Moscow and had been part of the Soviet Union’s army. Mixed families were the ones in charge of the country, to a large extent, such as President Mircea Snegur, but not only him. Most of them also had Russian wives. In this environment, the Republic of Moldova, from a military point of view, was defeated very easily because a lot of the information related to troops dispatchment, in Bender and beyond, were known in advance. Those who participated in the fighting, however, had no experience in terms of intelligence and counterintelligence. And, in addition, the Russian army obviously knew very well the location of the Moldovan troops, the intentions of the attack, and so on.”
Author Mihai Gribincea said that the secession of Transnistria is something of a recent date: “If we study the history of the regions on the left bank of Moldova’s Dniester River, including the Moldovan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, we will see that a separatist movement or a movement for self-determination of that territory has never existed. Moreover, in 1924, when the Moldovan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was created, it was supposed to be a bridgehead for Soviet Russia in Bessarabia. The local population was against the creation of this republic. There are many documents, including the ones in my archive, which come from some localities that demanded that this republic not be formed, the locals considering that they would be discriminated against. People calmed down only when the authorities said that the Ukrainian and Russian languages would be used on an equal footing with the Moldovan language. So this was in 1924. The question arises: if in the interwar period or during the existence of the Moldovan ASSR there was no autonomy movement or separatist movement, how is it that during the perestroika years this separatist movement and the idea of forming a separatist republic with the capital in Tiraspol emerged?”
The orchestration of the war in Transnistria by Russia has been obvious since then. But Mihai Gribincea’s current volume provides unrefutable evidence: “In fact, such a republic could not have been formed unless fully supported by Moscow. Also, the purpose of this republic was to create an instrument, an obstacle to the unification of the Republic of Moldova with Romania. Transnistria, on the other hand, was a reason for Russia to keep its troops in that territory. For example, General Lebed spoke of Transnistria as the as the key to the Balkans. Other politicians spoke of it as the territory from which the restoration of the USSR would begin. And other politicians spoke of Transnistria as the second Kaliningrad on the southern borders of the former USSR. In fact, this conflict did not have the local ingredients to spark a conflict between Chisinau and Tiraspol.”
The war in Transnistria is today a frozen conflict. The prospects for its resolution are unclear, as is the future itself. (EE)
