Trans-Dniester (Transdniestria) and US-Russia relations

Anatol Lieven calls attention to a region that is not much discussed in American politics but could become a big issue in US-Russia relations in We have no intention of fighting Russia so stop arming Ukraine for battle Responsible Statecraft 03/23/2021.

The BBC's Trans-Dniester profile (09/17/2018) provides this image showing the Trans-Dniester region in question. The piece also has background information of the post-Soviet history of the dispute.

As the title of Lieven's column indicates, the Transdniestrian issue is intimately connected with Ukraine, Although Modova is the country that has the direct territorial dispute with Russia:

The most volatile dispute in this region may not be in Ukraine itself, but Transdniestria, the breakaway Russian-speaking region of the former Soviet republic of Moldova that has since 1992 been protected by a garrison of Russian “peacekeeping” troops.

While no Moldovan government has suggested recognizing Transdniestrian independence (nor has Russia done so), Moldova since independence has been ruled by former communists or moderate nationalists anxious to avoid new conflict. However, this could change as a result of the December 2020 election of the strongly nationalist and pro-Western President Maia Sandu, who has called for the withdrawal of the Russian force from Transdniestria.

From a military point of view, the position of Russia’s force in Transdniestria is acutely vulnerable; because unlike Crimea [Ukraine], the Donbas [Ukraine], Abkhazia [Georgia] or South Ossetia [Georgia], it is entirely cut off from Russia by the territory of Ukraine and Moldova. In the event of a blockade by these countries, the Russian troops there could not be supplied. Neither Moldova nor Ukraine has imposed a blockade — despite Kiev’s bitter hostility to Russia since 2014 — for fear that Russia would go to war in response. The United States must try to maintain that dynamic. Dmitri Trenin of the Carnegie Moscow Center has written that a blockade of the Russian force in Transdniestria “would present Russia with the dilemma of conflict or humiliation.” And there is little doubt what Vladimir Putin would choose. [my emphasis]

As he explains, the US is not going to war directly over Russian incursions into the internationally recognized territories of Ukraine (Crimea and the Donbas) or Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia). Russia has declared Crimea to be part of Russia, and Russia maintains breakaway mini-republics in the indicated areas of Georgia and Ukraine. Those two countries were both formerly part of the Soviet Union, and Putin's policy has aimed at preventing them from becoming part of NATO or the EU.

Occupying parts of those countries effectively prevents their incorporation into NATO or some other military alliance with Western countries. Because such an alliance that would require the Western powers to define the borders to be defended, which would require either recognizing the Russian occupations or agreeing to militarily defend against those occupations.

And the US policy toward Russia is more than ever related to the US policy toward China. As Lieven puts it, "a war in Ukraine would be one of the greatest geopolitical gifts to China that Beijing could possibly dream of."