Ștefan Gligor, leader of the Party of Change, which is part of the political bloc “Together”, spoke in an interview for the foreign policy newsletter about how he sees the resolution of the energy crisis created by Russia in the Transnistrian region. We talked about the effectiveness of the measures taken by the current government to prepare for the cold season, but also about the conditionality that Chisinau could have imposed on Tiraspol. We invite you to read the full interview with the leader of the Party of Change about the Transnistrian regime and Chisinau’s moves below:

How do you see the Chisinau authorities’ handling of the situation regarding gas supplies to the Transnistrian region?

I believe that this problem has two compartments. Namely the gas compartment, more precisely the provision of the Republic of Moldova with the necessary volumes of natural gas. This is the big chapter which has also had a lesson to learn from the past, from the time when Andrei Spanu was Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Unfortunately, in 2024, we have not learned the lessons of the past. Moldovan companies, especially Energocom and Moldovagaz, did not buy the necessary gas in time for the

2024-2025 heating season, and this led to a 3.74 lei per cubic meter of gas, which impoverished our population by more than 80 million euros. This was the first mistake and the biggest failure in ensuring Moldova’s energy security.

If we had bought this gas in February 2024, when the quotations were 22, 24, 28 euros per megawatt and not 42 or 56 euros per megawatt hour, this would have allowed us to actually cheapen the gas which is a component of chapter 2 of energy security, namely electricity.

Solutions and scenarios

What was done wrong from your perspective by the authorities?

We cogenerate 30-40 percemt of the energy we need through CETs, and the cost of gas is a component part of electricity. If natural gas was 10-12 lei in the bill, but not at around 17 lei, then the final cost of the end product for consumers wouldn’t be 4.10 lei/ kWh, but significantly lower.

If the government had vision and systemic approach, they would have rented or bought some mobile gas turbines in advance. These are available on the international market in multiple options. There are 30 and 50 megawatt turbines. These turbines could be loaded in 5 7 truckloads, then brought in and mounted on a prepared concrete platform.

For example, the energy source three, which was never built in the end, with a production capacity of 55 megawatts by burning internal gas using internal gas engines, was to be created on the territory of CET 1.

If we already knew about two years in advance that from 1 January 2025, Ukraine would no longer allow us to transit gas to the Transnistrian region to produce that electricity at about 67 dollars per megawatt, why did the Moldovan government not anticipate this crisis and ensure the increase in production capacity?

These are the two chapters preceding this unprecedented crisis. We have never paid as much for electricity as we do today. The state subsidizes only a part of the real consumption, up to 110 kilowatts, which again impoverishes the population by probably more than EUR 100 million.

Against this background, we arrive at the situation created in the Transnistrian region. In relation to the Transnistrian region, we had only one option, and the “Together” bloc has communicated publicly on several occasions. We have simply said that the economy of the right bank provides for its needs by purchasing gas and electricity on the free market, except for the share that we cogenerate.

The left bank has to do the same. Does anyone think that for the Metallurgical Plant or the Cement Plant, both in Ribnitsa, this economic shock is a big problem? They have been monetizing two billion cubic meters of gas annually for over two decades and enriching Russian oligarchs,

Transnistrian oligarchs from Sheriff, and their politicians who keep our citizens in cold and fear, with miserable salaries, and have been stealing from them for over three decades.

Non-transparent schemes for gas supplies

What should the current government have done about the energy crisis created by Russia for the Transnistrian region?

The Recean government had only one obligation – with dignity and vision, to deal with this unconstitutional and illegal regime in Tiraspol, which is making a mockery of human rights and basic norms of decency.

The government should have been concerned and was obliged to ensure that this regime is treated properly and is put in a position to accept market realities. Today it appears that the economic shock is being received by the right bank, while the left bank continues to benefit, through the care and dedication of the Moldovan Government, from Russian gas which has been delivered through the most obscure schemes since 1992.

The gas is paid for by some company in Dubai, and it is unclear where the money comes from on this company’s accounts. This gas is bought through a well-known Hungarian company (MET Group) which is part of a large European holding company.

Also, my sources in the Transnistrian region tell me that out of these 3.1 million cubic meters of gas purchased in an obscure way, only about 1 to 1.2 million cubic meters of gas would be used to meet the needs of individuals and public institutions. The other around two million cubic meters of gas coming daily into the region would be used by local industry, including for the production of electricity that is delivered into the system for the benefit of offshore companies. Subsequently, this electricity is monetized by these third-party companies to an end consumer who claims to be the consumer in the Republic of Moldova.

I would like much more clarity, because 3.2 million cubic meters per day is a sufficient quantity for the functioning of the entire Transnistrian economy. Since the Rabnița Metallurgical Planr (MMZ) has not yet started up its smelting plant, the question is what is to be done with this gas. I do not expect any answer to this question from the Recean government.

Levers of influence

Is now the right time for the authorities in Chisinau to put more conditions on the separatist regime there? Does it have more leverage? Does it have measures whereby it could impose more conditionality?

We currently have all possible levers. If the Republic of Moldova does not allow the transit of this gas through its territory to the Transnistrian region, the Transnistrian region will have no gas or electricity.

We have absolute control over this region, we just lack courage, dignity and vision. We have politicians who prefer to tell us about the importance of saving the citizens on the left bank of the Dniester River under the guise of peace and security, who should and could have been saved with EU money, money which the EU has given us with great wisdom and generosity. It is just that the government has preferred to go along with a PAS solution silently accepted by President Maia Sandu, which is a lie concocted to ensure alleged peace and security.

I do not believe any of these stories. We had the European money and we were publicly informed by Prime Minister Recean and his spokesperson and other officials who made a big PR campaign. They said that the EU had finally saved the Transnistrian region, not the Russian Federation. But, we ended up seeing Vadim Krasnoselski issuing statements praising Vladimir Putin.

This situation is nothing but the result of the behaviour of the government of the Republic of Moldova, which did not have the courage and discipline to protect the national interest of the Republic of Moldova. This is how we at the “Together” Bloc understand the situation.

If the EU money was not promised and did not exist, could this scheme of gas deliveries via Dubai be justified at all? Even without the EU money, the Transnistrian regime had a viable solution and the only correct one, in fact. It was able to buy gas, as it has been buying it for three days in a row, on the stock exchange, with the help of Moldovagaz, and deliver it to the left bank of the Dniester by introducing real tariffs on the market for industry and citizens.

The citizens on the left bank of the Dniester obviously had to benefit from a lower tariff, and this tariff had to be subsidized from the budget of the Republic of Moldova in the same way as citizens on the right bank are subsidized, through social assistance, on their bills.

Different visions

What would you change as an opposition party in your approach to the Transnistrian file at this point? What could have been done better?

We would have opted for an end to this shameful scheme of delivering gas for obscure money from the United Arab Emirates. We would have insisted on the left bank of the Dniester to accept EU aid and we would have insisted on new electricity and gas tariffs.

We would have thought about providing a social protection regime for the citizens on the left bank of the Dniester in order to alleviate the economic shock and we would have stood by our citizens in this very difficult energy crisis. At the same time, the regime on the left bank of the Dniester, in order to benefit from these facilities from the EU and price subsidization, would have been obliged to release political prisoners, remove internal checkpoints on the administrative border.

We would have pushed Tiraspol to take concrete steps to democratize the region by providing access to all free media in the Republic of Moldova, not just Moldova 1, which is now on the 47th position in the grid. We would have also insisted on the aspects of common sense and appropriate behaviour required in terms of reintegration strategies and policies.

The Moldovan government has in fact surrendered to the Transnistrian regime. This is what citizens have to understand from the current situation.

Thank you!