Daily planned blackout periods have been extended in Transnistria to eight hours as of January 7, up from four hours previously, as the energy crisis in Moldova’s pro-Russian separatist region escalates. 

The region was left without gas during one of the coldest periods of the year after Ukraine ended the transit of Russian gas across its territory on January 1. The Moldovan government has accused Moscow of cynically creating an energy crisis to destabilise the situation in Moldova. 

In response to the intensifying crisis, the separatist region has stepped up its propaganda against the pro-EU authorities in Chisinau. 

The separatists’ leader Vadim Krasnoselsky is vocally blaming the country’s pro-EU authorities for the energy blockade that left the region without natural gas and with insufficient power, paving the way for an economic and humanitarian crisis.

Statements by Krasnoselsky about the “eventual settlement of the crisis” indicate the aim of the strategy pursued by Tiraspol may be more ambitious than just increasing pro-Russian sentiment among the electorate in Moldova ahead of the 2025 general election.

In a statement on January 6, Transnistria’s foreign ministry claimed that the central government in Chisinau and Moldovagaz are responsible for the energy crisis in the separatist region.

In the statement, the separatist authorities in Tiraspol put the energy crisis in the context of what they claim to be a broader blockade imposed by Moldova, which includes closing the bank accounts of companies not registered in the territory under its control and imposing customs tariffs to all companies irrespective of where they operate on the country’s territory. The blocking of the bank accounts makes it impossible for Transnistria to pay for the natural gas imports proposed by Chisinau, the separatist authorities claimed. 

“[The crisis] arose because Moldovagaz [ironically, controlled by Gazprom] and the Moldovan authorities refused to engage in a substantive dialogue with Gazprom regarding the transit of Russian gas via alternative routes [after the closure of the route through Ukraine]. Transnistria could not agree on this itself, since it does not have a license to work on the external gas market,” Krasnoselsky said.

His accusations open the door for steps such as a direct contract between the region’s gas company Tiraspoltransgaz and Gazprom, marking the point where the region would reiterate its declaration of independence – which might be recognised by Russia this time. Krasnoselsky argued that the region’s gas company cannot currently sign a direct contract with Gazprom because it “does not have a license to work on the external gas market” – implying that the recognition of the separatist region would change the situation. 

This is only a speculative scenario, although it is consistent with the aggressive rhetoric from Krasnoselsky and Transnistria’s self-imposed energy blockade — the unrecognised republic has refused help from Chisinau to ease the energy crisis — that is likely to cause a humanitarian crisis within a month when its coal reserves are fully depleted. 

Russia already positioned itself to benefit from the situation, blaming Moldova for the energy crisis in Transnistria and warning that it stands ready to defend its citizens in the separatist region.

The region’s foreign ministry firmly claimed that Transnistria has not received any specific forms of assistance or adequate practical support from the central authorities in Chisinau.

However, the government’s spokesperson in Chisinau, Daniel Voda, quoted by Deschide made public a letter to this effect sent to Tiraspol back in December, noting that there was a negative response from the Transnistrian administration. 

The authorities in Chisinau previously claimed that on December 31 they imported a small amount of natural gas through the Trans-Balkan pipeline to the power plant on the territory of Transnistria, as a technical test to prove purchases from other routes than that crossing Ukraine are possible if Gazprom and Transnistria agree.