The energy crisis engulfing Transnistria, a self-proclaimed breakaway region of Moldova, is intensifying without a clear resolution in sight. This crisis originates from the cessation of Russian natural gas deliveries through Ukrainian pipelines, combined with Moldova’s insufficient preparedness to address the resulting energy shortfall.
Moscow’s Response: European Spot Markets
Reports suggest Moscow is considering an unorthodox approach: purchasing natural gas for Transnistria on European spot markets via intermediaries like Serbia and Hungary. This strategy could circumvent territorial restrictions imposed by Kyiv and provide energy to the pro-Russian enclave. However, experts doubt that these purchases will match the volumes previously supplied by Russia, which also powered much of Moldova.
While technical discussions on these potential deliveries are ongoing, the timeline remains uncertain. Transnistrian leader Vadim Krasnoselsky, following his visit to Moscow, has publicly acknowledged the initiative but offered no specifics. “There is no clear timeline yet,” said a source familiar with the negotiations.
Mounting Debt and Strategic Implications
Transnistria’s gas debt to Russia has surpassed $10 billion, with payments ceasing in 2005. Despite this, Gazprom has refrained from imposing sanctions. The recent halt in gas supplies, however, has created a ripple effect, impacting not only Transnistria but also Moldova as a whole, heightening domestic tensions.
Historically, Tiraspol—the capital of Transnistria—produced up to 80% of Moldova’s electricity using cheap Russian gas. Moldova’s shift to alternative energy sources, primarily imported from Romania, has proven challenging. By early 2025, over 50% of Moldova’s electricity is sourced from Romania, according to official data, with consumer tariffs nearly doubling. This has fueled social unrest and eroded the competitiveness of Moldovan goods in regional markets.
Local economists warn that the transition is exerting inflationary pressure on Moldova’s economy. “The average electricity tariff in Moldova now exceeds European levels,” said a local expert, criticizing the government’s past reliance on Gazprom for energy security.
Strategic Debates in Moscow
Debates within Moscow over resuming gas supplies to Transnistria highlight the dilemma faced by Russian policymakers. Some view the crisis as an opportunity to bolster Russia’s influence in Transnistria and Gagauzia—another autonomous region in Moldova—while signaling Moscow’s readiness to engage with the West. Others perceive it as a strategic liability, potentially exploitable by Russia’s adversaries on the international stage.
Hardliners argue that the population of Transnistria will endure hardships to maintain alignment with Moscow. Meanwhile, the Kremlin’s cautious stance suggests it views the crisis as a lever to pressure various stakeholders, including Moldovan President Maia Sandu, Transnistrian leaders, and even Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to influence Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Risks of Alienation
Critics warn that Moscow’s approach risks amplifying anti-Russian sentiment in both Moldova and Transnistria. Additionally, Russian nationalist circles may accuse the Kremlin of neglecting compatriots while appeasing the West.
Moscow’s apparent priority lies in securing gas flows through the Turkish Stream pipeline, relying on Turkey and Hungary to apply pressure on Kyiv. Notably, Russian media have largely ignored the energy crisis in Transnistria, reportedly at the Kremlin’s request.
The Role of Dmitry Kozak
Dmitry Kozak, Deputy Chief of Staff overseeing post-Soviet affairs in the Russian presidential administration, is reportedly advocating for a “wait-and-see” approach. Kozak views the gas supply issue as part of a broader strategy to integrate Transnistria into Moldova. The Kremlin is banking on Moldova’s parliamentary elections in mid-2025, which could shift power dynamics in favor of opposition parties.
Kozak has long championed Moldovan-Transnistrian integration, proposing a federal solution as early as 2003 that would grant veto powers to Transnistria and Gagauzia. However, analysts are skeptical. “Counting on electoral factors in Moldova is futile,” said a regional policy expert. “Pro-European forces dominate, while pro-Moscow factions lack structure and unity.”
Regional Constraints and Local Dynamics
Transnistrian elites appear more entrenched in local politics than aligned with Moscow’s agenda. Economic pressures, coupled with the influence of Romania and Ukraine, further limit Russia’s options.
“The Kremlin faces a dilemma: either continue supporting Transnistria at great cost or recalibrate its approach to demand greater loyalty from its leaders. Both paths carry significant risks,” noted a political analyst.
Negotiations and Broader Implications
Ongoing negotiations in Turkey highlight the complexity of resolving the crisis, with Kyiv’s position remaining pivotal due to its control over the Turkish Stream pipeline. Beyond Kozak, figures such as Yuri Chaika and Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) are also shaping Moscow’s Moldovan strategy.
Moldovan authorities frequently accuse Russian intelligence of meddling in domestic affairs. For now, Moscow remains silent on the energy crisis, fueling speculation about its next moves.
The Kremlin’s gas diplomacy continues to serve as a critical tool in advancing its influence across the post-Soviet space, southern Europe, and the European Union. With Moldova’s energy crisis far from resolved, Russia’s strategy in Transnistria is poised to play a pivotal role in shaping regional geopolitics in the months ahead.
