The obscure Eastern European country that could further roil US-Russia relations in 2017

Russia’s military presence inside the self-declared republic of Transnistria has sparked regional fears. Some fear the troops will threaten neighboring Ukraine if they remain; others worry about a vacuum of vulnerability if they withdraw. These concerns come just as hostilities flare in Ukraine’s beleaguered eastern region — on the opposite end of that nation from Transnistria — during what is supposed to be a holiday cease-fire.

“It’s a zone of instability that could erupt at any time,” said Mihai Popsoi, a Moldovan political analyst who spoke to the American Media Institute from Milan. “It’s right there at the border of NATO. The West definitely should be concerned.”

Occupying some 1,600 square miles along an eastern strip of Moldova bordering Ukraine’s western border, Transnistria is a pro-Russian, disputed nation of roughly 450,000 people that is a cauldron of simmering Cold War antipathies percolating into current events. Adding drama, a new president takes office in Transnistria Dec. 30, with unknown repercussions.

With both the United States and several European countries, including Moldova and nearby Bulgaria, also in the process of government transitions, and with the incoming Trump administration appearing friendlier to Vladimir Putin’s Russia than earlier American presidencies, observers say developments in that Eastern European region bear close attention.

Immediate issues in Transnitria involve how to resolve competing territorial claims, and what to do about Russian troops and military equipment within its borders.

“The country has developed a very difficult social and economic situation,” said Anatolii Dirun, scientific director of Transnistria’s Tiraspol School of Political Studies. Dirun spoke to the American Media Institute from inside the nation he calls by its local name, Pridnestrovie. “Solving these problems are waiting for the new head of state.”

Dirun was referring to incoming President Vadim Krasnoselski. A native Russian, Krasnoselski moved with his family to Transnistria when he was 8 years old and rose through the ranks of his adopted country’s military and government.

Krasnoselski, who told his country’s Novosti news agency that “we will cherish the Russian soldier,” inherits a complicated situation — but the problems are not his alone.

A multinational political team known as the “5+2” group has attempted since 2005 to settle the Transnistria question. Members include five main participants — Moldova, Transnistria, Ukraine, Russia and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) — plus two mediator-observers, the United States and the European Union.

During periodic talks, the “5+2” group has addressed not only the territorial dispute, but also issues such as arms control, elections, human rights and the rule of law. The group has discussed varying solutions intended to settle the border and autonomy questions, but has yet to resolve the long dispute.

Geography makes these issues especially pressing. The only country in the world with a hammer and sickle on its national flag, Transnistria borders Ukraine on its east and, to its west, Moldova, which in turn borders NATO-member Romania.

Regional tensions involve whether Moldova will align with pro-Western Romania, and whether Russia will expand even further into Ukraine or other nations among what it terms its “Near Abroad” of former Soviet states.

“It’s a subtle dance of alliance,” said a civilian U.S. intelligence official who specializes in Eastern Europe. The official, not authorized to talk to the press, spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s not something you hear about from the Western media, but I assure you, it’s dynamic and meaningful.”

The hinge, experts say, lies along that strip of land between Moldova and Ukraine.

“The situation in Transnistria has the potential of creating real, dangerous developments between Russia and the United States, and between Russia and NATO,” said Miklos Radvanyi, vice president of the conservative nonprofit Frontiers of Freedom based in Fairfax, Va.

The volatility most recently stems from the 1991 dissolution of the USSR. As the communist Cold War behemoth unraveled, a number of former Soviet states became nations in their own right. Among them were Moldova and Ukraine. Tiny Transnistria, which declared itself an independent federal republic while still part of the Soviet Union, did not accept being part of the newly formed Republic of Moldova.

The international community gave nods of recognition to Moldova, Ukraine and other newly independent post-Soviet states. None, however, recognized the sovereignty of Transnistria. The United Nations instead affirmed the territory as part of Moldova.

The separatists might have remained merely disaffected, if not for their access to weapons. The rebels gained control of tanks, arms and ammunition from the 14th Soviet Army, which had been stationed in Soviet-controlled Kolbasna and now fell within the territory claimed as Transnistria.

Moldova and the well-armed rebels went to war. The clash ended in 1992, after four and a half months, in a cease-fire without resolution.

The map of Moldova continues to include the breakaway territory. Transnistria nonetheless maintains itself as an independent state, with its own government, currency, postal service, license plates, border checkpoints and other markers of autonomy.

Under pressure from the West, Russia agreed in 1999 to remove arms and ammunition from Transnistria, or to assist with on-site decomissioning. Russia withdrew equipment in increments, the OSCE reports. Still, some 20,000 metric tons of ammunition, plus much materiel, remain within Transnistria.

So, too, do an estimated 1,200 Russian troops.

“That’s what has people paying attention,” the intelligence official said. “That’s a good-sized element.”

The Russian Embassy did not respond to requests for comment, but officials have been quoted in Russian media saying the troops are there as part of a joint peacekeeping mission and to guard remaining munitions.

The troops also engage in military exercises, drawing complaints from Moldova.

Two sets of Russian-Transnistrian military drills in August were “provocative behavior,” and aimed to “undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity” of Moldova, the country’s Foreign Ministry wrote in statements following the exercises.

Countering the Moldovan complaints, the government in Transnistria has said that the Russians guarantee peace and stability, and are a welcome presence.

Moldova demanded that Russia and its heavy weapons leave Transnistria entirely.

“From a military perspective, Russian troops being stationed there is a problem for NATO,” Popsoi told AMI. “Those troops are not in Moldova based on any agreement. They infringe on Moldova’s sovereignty.”

They also represent a threat to Ukraine, one observer said.

“It is noteworthy that right after the Russians invaded Crimea, they moved some of their special forces veterans from that campaign to Transnistria,” said Phillip Karber, president of the Virginia-based nonprofit Potomac Foundation research center. “The Russian forces there were not manned at full strength, so they brought in special forces.”

Other, unconfirmed reports suggest that Russia several months ago reinforced its troops inside Transnistria, Karber said.

There is little threat to Moldova from Transnistria-based Russian troops, the intelligence official told AMI.

“To Russia, Moldova has been suspect, for leaning towards Romania,” the official said. “With the new pro-Russian president in Moldova, much of that is alleviated.”

The scenario changes if Russia moves further into Ukraine, one key observer said.

“If the Russians take the port of Odessa, you’d have a very different situation in Transnistria,” Karber said. “Those forces could attack east out of Transnistria into Ukraine, and Ukraine knows that.”

Odessa, already “awash with people in uniform,” according to a letter sent to Putin this year by a coalition of Transnistrian organizations, is a cultural jewel often known as the “pearl of the Black Sea,” favored in the late 18th century by Russian Emperor Catherine the Great. A major seaport and transportation hub of great geo-strategic importance, it lies just 60 miles from the Transnistrian border.

The only way for the Russian military to exit land-locked Transnistria would be to transit Ukraine — a proposition that likely would stoke both suspicion and anxiety among Ukrainians. Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. Additionally, Ukraine claims, Russia maintains troops within Donetsk in the Eastern part of that nation, after having already annexed the neighboring Crimean Peninsula from what once was Ukrainian territory.

Moldova and Ukraine jointly offered to devise a plan by which Ukraine would offer a safe path for Russian troops headed home from Transnistria.

Russia scoffed at the notion.

“It is a very serious offer,” Popsoi said. “The problem is, nobody is willing to take Ukraine up on this offer. The offer is definitely helpful for Moldova, but Russia has not announced plans to leave Transnistria.”

The offer is premature, Transnistria’s Dirun said.

“Solutions to this issue are very far away, so to talk about the seriousness of this proposal can not be today,” Dirun told AMI.

Still to be settled is the situation overall, which has confounded seasoned observers.

“It’s not entirely clear what Russia hopes to gain in Transnistria,” the intelligence official said.

“The Soviet empire is still collapsing, and I believe events in that region should be seen through that prism,” said Damian Kolody, a filmmaker who has documented events in Ukraine.

How should the United States, as part of the “5+2,” proceed?

“The major thing the West could do is engage Russia, and apply kind and gentle pressure for Russia to consider fulfilling its commitment to withdraw troops, and be forthcoming about its intentions,” Popsoi said.

“Tell Russia that those unresolved frozen conflicts in what the Russians call the Near Abroad are more threatening to the future and stability of Russia than to the West,” Radvanyi said.

Susan Keating is a contributor at the American Media Institute.