Could Russian troops leave the Transdniester region?

There is much to discuss at the upcoming G-8 summit in St. Petersburg in July. Russian energy policy, Russia's aid and comfort to Iran, freedom of the press in Russia, etc...

One matter that might come up, however, is the presence of Russian troops in the Transdniester region. An article at the Jamestown Foundation points out there may be an opportunity to replace Russian troops there.

Two upcoming international events offer Moldova and Georgia an unprecedented opportunity to demand the termination of Russian "peacekeeping" -- also known as "piecekeeping," that is, seizure of pieces of another country's territory -- and its replacement by genuine international peacekeeping missions. Those two events are the Conference to Review the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) at the end of May in Vienna; and the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg in July, when the United States is determined to raise the issue of Russia's involvement in those conflicts.
....
Moldova's situation closely parallels Georgia's, yet Chisinau has thus far hesitated to call publicly and consistently for termination and replacement of Russian "peacekeeping" in Moldova. Certain American and European diplomats have long discouraged Chisinau from denouncing the 1992 agreement on Russian "peacekeeping" on Moldova's territory. However, Chisinau has a compelling case for denouncing that agreement at this time and for acting in parallel with Tbilisi.

The agreement on "Principles of a Peaceful Settlement of the Armed Conflict in the Transnistria Zone of Moldova" was signed on July 21, 1992, by then-Presidents Boris Yeltsin and Mircea Snegur. It ended the overt intervention of Russian forces against Moldova, at a time when Transnistria's authorities did not yet have their own military units; those units were created shortly afterward -- and augmented still later -- by the Russian Federation's military. Under the 1992 agreement, "The parties commit themselves to undertaking all necessary measures for a complete ceasefire and halting all military actions against each other." The agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement or by being denounced by either of the two parties; no provision is made regarding advance notice. The agreement makes it clear that a military conflict between Russia and Moldova took place.

Crucially, Transnistria is not a party to that agreement. The official text published in the press at the time and, shortly afterward, in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs' reference collection of documents, Diplomaticheskii Vestnik (August 15-31), shows Yeltsin's and Snegur's signatures and no one else's. However, in 2004, Russia showed at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECHR) a purported copy of the original held in Moscow's archives. On that purported copy, Transnistria leader Igor Smirnov's signature appears alongside those of the Russian and Moldovan presidents. Clearly, the Russian side "edited" the document, adding Smirnov's signature to support Moscow's and Tiraspol's twin claims that Transnistria is a "party" to the conflict and that Russia arbitrates a conflict between two parts of Moldova.
....
In this situation, Chisinau's most effective legal instrument is exercising its right to denounce the 1992 agreement. This would prevent a possible deal with Russia on "peacekeeping" at Moldova's expense during the CFE Treaty Review Conference (as some West European delegations at the OSCE envisage) and would ensure that the issue is raised effectively at the G-8 summit.

Russia would not react kindly to strong tactics to force its troops out of the area. However, Russia is certainly pursuing its own interests in Central Asia and Iran, and using its energy resources as a lever against Europe. This is a chance for Europe to push back.

Previous posts

The Transdniester region
Russian meddling
New customs rules in the Transdniester region