The Demilitarisation of Transnistria: International Law, Ukrainian Strategic Necessity, and Moldovan Sovereignty

A Frozen Conflict in a Hot War

The Transnistrian region, a narrow strip of land between the Dniester River and the Ukrainian border, has functioned as a "frozen conflict" zone since 1992. However, the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has fundamentally altered the geopolitical calculus. What was once a local diplomatic dispute is now a critical security threat to Southern Ukraine and the stability of South-Eastern Europe.

From the perspective of international law and the sovereignty of the Republic of Moldova, the potential for Ukrainian involvement in the demilitarisation of this region is not merely a military hypothetical, but a legally grounded pathway to regional stability.

1. The Legal Foundation: Sovereignty as an Absolute

The primary pillar of any analysis regarding Transnistria is the status of the territory under international law. The so-called "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic" (PMR) is a legal nullity.

• Non-Recognition: Not a single UN member state—including the Russian Federation itself—officially recognises Transnistria as an independent state. Legally, every square inch of the region is the sovereign territory of the Republic of Moldova.
• The Principle of Consent: Under the UN Charter and the principles of state sovereignty, any foreign military action on Moldovan soil is contingent upon the explicit consent of the legitimate government in Chișinău.
• The Zelenskyy Doctrine: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has consistently maintained a disciplined legal stance. He has clarified that while the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) possess the capability to neutralise threats in Transnistria, they will only act upon an official request from the Moldovan authorities. This "invitation-only" approach ensures that any action remains within the bounds of international law, contrasting sharply with Russian unilateralism.

2. The Illegal Russian Military Presence

The presence of Russian troops in Transnistria is categorised into two distinct, yet equally problematic, groups:

1. The Operative Group of Russian Forces (OGRF): This unit is the successor to the Soviet 14th Guards Army. Unlike "peacekeepers," the OGRF has no international mandate and no bilateral agreement with Moldova to justify its presence.
2. Russian Peacekeepers: While established under the 1992 ceasefire agreement, Moldova has long argued that the mission has outlived its purpose and should be replaced by a civilian international mission.

International Legal Condemnation: The illegality of this presence is documented in several high-level international instruments:

• UN General Assembly Resolution 72/282 (2018): This resolution explicitly calls for the "complete and unconditional withdrawal of foreign military forces from the territory of the Republic of Moldova."
• PACE Resolution 2433 (2022): The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe officially designated Transnistria as a "zone of Russian occupation." This is a critical distinction; it shifts the narrative from an internal civil dispute to an ongoing act of external aggression against Moldova.
• 1999 OSCE Istanbul Summit: Russia formally committed to withdrawing its forces and ammunition by 2002—a promise that remains unfulfilled more than two decades later.

3. The Arsenal at Cobasna: Europe’s Ticking Time Bomb

The strategic "gravity" of Transnistria lies in the village of Cobasna, located just 2 kilometres from the Ukrainian border. This site hosts the largest ammunition depot in Eastern Europe, a relic of the Cold War.

Estimated Quantities and Types of Armament: According to data from the OSCE, intelligence reports, and the Moldovan Academy of Sciences, the depot contains approximately 20,000 tonnes of ammunition. To put this in perspective, this would fill roughly 2,500 to 3,000 railway wagons.

The inventory includes:

• Artillery Shells: Thousands of 122mm and 152mm rounds, which are the primary calibres used in the current war in Ukraine.
• Rocket Artillery: Significant stocks of Grad (122mm) rockets.
• Small Arms & Mortars: Hundreds of thousands of grenades, mortar bombs, and millions of rounds of small arms ammunition.
• Legacy Equipment: Stocks of older anti-tank missiles and aerial bombs.

The Condition of the Arsenal: Experts estimate that 57% to 65% of this ammunition is obsolete, having exceeded its shelf life. This creates a dual-threat scenario:

• Military Threat: The functional portion of the arsenal could be used by Russian or Transnistrian forces to attack Ukraine's rear.
• Environmental/Technogenic Threat: The Academy of Sciences of Moldova has warned that an accidental or intentional detonation of the Cobasna depot would release energy equivalent to 10 kilotonnes—comparable to the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Such an event would cause a disaster radius of 50–100km, devastating both Moldovan and Ukrainian border towns.

Technogenic Risks and Infrastructural Degradation

To fully grasp the magnitude of the threat, one must consider not only the tonnage but also the physical storage conditions of the Cobasna arsenal. These depots were established as far back as the 1940s, and their current infrastructure fails to meet modern safety and security standards.

Key Risk Factors:

• Chemical Degradation: Over 60% of the ammunition was manufactured between the 1950s and 1970s. The natural decomposition of propellants and explosive fillers (such as picric acid and TNT) renders these shells extremely sensitive to temperature fluctuations and mechanical shock.
• Storage Density: Unlike modern dispersed facilities, Cobasna features a dense concentration of hangars. This creates a high risk of a 'cascade effect', where a detonation in one sector triggers a near-instantaneous chain reaction across the entire perimeter.
• Visual Scale: To visually assess the sheer scale of the largest ammunition depot in Eastern Europe and understand the complexity of its demilitarisation, it is essential to review documented footage and analytical overviews of the site.

Recommended Viewing: The following report provides a detailed look at the internal layout and vast scale of the depots, offering a clear perspective on the genuine technogenic threat posed to the region.

 

This footage confirms that the Cobasna arsenal is not merely a storage site, but a critical hazard requiring urgent international oversight and the deployment of professional EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) units to prevent a regional catastrophe.

 

4. The Socio-Political Landscape: Moods and "Sheriff" Hegemony

The internal atmosphere in Transnistria as of 2025 is defined not by ideological fervour, but by a precarious balancing act between Moscow’s rhetoric and European economic reality.

• The Pragmatism of the "Sheriff" Holding: The region is effectively a corporate fiefdom of the Sheriff holding company. While historically pro-Russian, the company’s interests have shifted. Today, over 70% of Transnistrian exports are destined for the European Union, while trade with Russia has collapsed due to logistical isolation. The local oligarchs are keenly aware that a conflict with the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) would liquidate their assets. Consequently, the local elite is more likely to negotiate a "controlled surrender" or reintegration than to fight a scorched-earth war for the Kremlin.
• A Multi-Passport Population: The vast majority of the 460,000 residents hold multiple citizenships. With nearly 350,000 Moldovan passports issued in the region, alongside thousands of Ukrainian and Russian ones, the population is highly mobile. Recent surveys indicate a growing "fatigue of isolation." While older generations remain susceptible to Russian television, the younger and economically active population increasingly views Moldova’s EU path as their only viable future.
• Potential for Resistance: The "Transnistrian Armed Forces" (approx. 5,000–7,500 personnel) are largely composed of locals who serve for a salary, not for an ideology. Military analysts suggest that in the event of a joint Moldovan-Ukrainian operation, the rate of desertion would be high. Real resistance would likely be limited to the Russian OGRF and hardline "veterans" groups, rather than the general population.

5. Projected Russian Responses: The Analyst’s View

European and Ukrainian strategic analysts (including ISW and various EU security think-tanks) agree that Russia’s "military toolbox" in Transnistria is severely limited by geography.

Scenario A: The Hybrid Destabilisation (Most Likely) Unable to send reinforcements due to the closure of Ukrainian and Romanian airspace, Moscow would likely activate "Plan B" in Chișinău. This involves:

• Organising mass protests via pro-Russian proxy parties.
• Intense cyber-attacks on Moldovan state infrastructure.
• A "False Flag" operation in the region to justify a political (though not physical) intervention.

Scenario B: The Energy Blackout Russia’s most potent weapon remains the gas valve. By cutting off the supply to the Cuciurgan power plant, Moscow could plunge both banks of the Dniester into darkness. However, in 2025, Moldova is better connected to the Romanian and European grids than ever before, blunting the impact of this blackmail.

Scenario C: Strategic "Scorched Earth" A high-risk scenario involves Russia attempting to remotely detonate the Cobasna depot or using cruise missiles to destroy the arsenal before the AFU can secure it. This would be a desperate move intended to create a humanitarian and environmental crisis that would stall any military advance.

6. The Legal Mirage of "Ownership"

A common Russian narrative is that the Cobasna arsenal is "sovereign Russian property." Legally, this is a fallacy:

• The Vacuum of Agreements: There is no valid bilateral treaty between the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation that permits the storage of these weapons.
• Status of the Property: While the hardware originated from the Soviet 14th Army, international law dictates that illegal property on sovereign soil—especially when placed there in violation of withdrawal commitments (Istanbul 1999)—loses its diplomatic protection. Moldova has the right to treat these stocks as "hazardous abandoned property" and delegate its disposal to a third party (Ukraine).

7. The Roadmap for Demilitarisation (Technical Proposal)

To avoid a "hot" conflict, a phased transition is necessary:

1. Diplomatic Pre-emption: Moldova and Ukraine sign a "Security Cooperation Protocol," officially requesting Ukrainian technical assistance for the "neutralisation of technogenic threats" at Cobasna.
2. The "Corridor of Repatriation": Russia is offered a 72-hour window to evacuate OGRF personnel (without equipment) via a monitored corridor to a neutral third country or back to Russia.
3. Active Inventory & Transfer: * Functional Stocks: 122mm/152mm shells are inventoried by a joint commission and transferred to the AFU as "payment for security services" or under a long-term lease-purchase agreement with Moldova.   
• Obsolete Stocks: Mobile industrial incinerators (supplied by EU partners) are deployed to neutralize the 60% of ammunition that is too unstable to move.
4. Civilian Reintegration: The Russian "peacekeepers" are replaced by an international policing mission (e.g., EU-led), focusing on border control and public safety during the transition to Moldovan law.

Summary

The demilitarisation of Transnistria is not an act of aggression, but an act of regional hygiene. It is the closing of a 30-year-old loophole that Russia has used to hold Moldova hostage and threaten Ukraine’s southern flank. With the legal consent of Chișinău and the military capability of Kyiv, the "Transnistrian problem" can be solved through a combination of legal precision and strategic resolve. 

The Silver Screen Glow: Your Ultimate Guide to the Movies That Own Christmas 2025

Plus: The Thriller Lane (for when the kids go to bed and the grown-ups want danger). 

The tree is lit. The cocoa is steaming. Someone’s already arguing about whether one more film is a reasonable idea at 11:47 p.m. And the world is obsessed with one question:

What are we watching tonight?

If the 2025 holiday season feels like a cinematic gold rush, you’re not imagining it. This year’s line-up isn’t merely “something to have on in the background.” It’s a full-blown cultural event—sequels that actually deliver, family films with real brains, and Netflix thrillers pulling tens of millions of views in a single week. Netflix

So here’s your guide: not just a list, but a holiday viewing strategy—a set of films that create conversations, spark laughter, and (when you want it) raise your pulse.

Grab the remote. Here is the pulse of Christmas 2025.

1) The Global Titan: Avatar: Fire and Ash

James Cameron didn’t return to cinema—he reclaimed it. Fire and Ash opened with $345 million worldwide over its first weekend, setting the tone for the entire season. Reuters
Link (IMDb): Where to Watch

Why it’s a must: It’s not just spectacle; it’s empathy, world-building, and a reminder that imagination can still feel dangerously real.
The vibe: Visual transcendence. This is “big screen” cinema. If you watch it on a phone, a Na’vi somewhere quietly weeps.

2) The Smartest Sequel: Zootopia 2

This is the rare sequel that doesn’t just repeat the magic—it advances the franchise. Rotten Tomatoes lists it at 91% Tomatometer and 96% Popcornmeter. Rotten Tomatoes
Link (Rotten Tomatoes): Where to Watch

The scoop: It’s a detective noir for families—fast, funny, and quietly teaching critical thinking.
Why cinephiles love it: It respects the audience. Even the youngest viewers feel like the film is speaking to them, not down to them.

3) The Streaming King: Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery

Netflix’s holiday ace. According to Netflix Tudum’s weekly Top 10 reporting (week of Dec. 15, 2025), it held No. 1 on the English film list with 20.9 million views for a second week. Netflix
Watch (Netflix): Where to Watch
Link (IMDb): Where to Watch

The draw: It’s an intellectual playground. The ideal family mystery for older kids and teens—everyone becomes a detective, everyone accuses everyone, and nobody trusts Aunt Linda’s “I knew it from the beginning” energy.

4) The Creative Explosion: A Minecraft Movie

Critics were split, audiences showed up. Rotten Tomatoes currently lists 85% Popcornmeter (10,000+ verified ratings). Rotten Tomatoes
Link (Rotten Tomatoes): Where to Watch

The lesson: It’s a feature-length love letter to creativity. It quietly makes the case that building worlds is more powerful than breaking them.

5) The Heart-Melter: Oh. What. Fun. (Prime Video)

A holiday comedy with a very modern, very real premise—Michelle Pfeiffer plays the person who holds everything together… until she stops doing that.
Watch (Prime Video UK): Where to Watch
Link (IMDb): Where to Watch

Why it hits: Because every family has a “holiday engine.” This film finally says the quiet part out loud—and makes it hilarious.

6) The Musical Epic: Wicked: For Good

The “Pink vs. Green” phenomenon didn’t fade—it escalated. The soundtrack landed Top 10 placements across multiple Billboard charts in early December. billboard.com
Link (Billboard coverage): Where to Watch

The lesson: Origin stories are never simple—and neither is friendship.
How to watch: If your household likes musicals even a little, this becomes a full living-room event.

7) The Nostalgia Trip: Paddington in Peru

The world’s most polite bear returns with exactly what the holidays demand: warmth, decency, and a sense that kindness is still a superpower.
Link (IMDb search starting point): Where to Watch

Best for: Multigenerational viewing. Grandparents, kids, exhausted adults—all protected under Paddington’s gentle umbrella.

8) The Space Odyssey: Elio (Disney/Pixar)

Pixar does what Pixar does best: take a huge concept (identity, belonging, the universe) and make it personal.
Link (IMDb search starting point): Where to Watch

The educational edge: It’s a conversation starter—space, curiosity, loneliness, courage. The kind of film that leaves kids asking better questions.

9) The Underdog Hit: Marty Supreme

Timothée Chalamet as a 1950s ping-pong pro sounds like a fever dream—until it’s suddenly the coolest thing in the room.
Link (Rotten Tomatoes “Certified Fresh pick” listing appears in the RT navigation, and the title is actively tracked there): Where to Watch

The vibe: Stylish, character-driven, surprisingly addictive—perfect for families with older teens.

10) The Pure Joy: The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants

Sometimes the holiday miracle is simple: everyone laughs. Everyone.
Link (IMDb search starting point): Where to Watch 

Best for: Younger children and the adults who secretly enjoy SpongeBob more than they admit.

The Thriller Lane: Five Links That Turn Christmas Cozy Into Christmas Electric

Berlin, December 15, 2025, will go down in history books as the day when Europe stopped being afraid and began to act

Towards a Just Peace: What the Berlin Joint Statement Means for Ukraine and Europe

On 15 December 2025, Europe’s political centre of gravity shifted to Berlin. There, a remarkable line-up of European leaders – including Chancellor Merz, Presidents Stubb, Macron, Costa, President von der Leyen, and Prime Ministers Kristersson, Frederiksen, Meloni, Schoof, Støre, Tusk and Starmer – issued a joint statement on Ukraine that could define the next phase of the war and the continent’s security architecture for decades to come.

At the heart of the declaration is a clear message: Ukraine’s security, sovereignty and prosperity are not only a moral imperative, but a core interest of Euro-Atlantic security. And for the first time, the United States and Europe are publicly aligning around a single framework for a just and lasting peace, centred on President Trump’s proposed plan and President Zelenskyy’s leadership.

A New Phase in the War – and in Diplomacy

Can Ukraine Legally Reclaim Its Nuclear Status?

In debates about Ukraine’s future, one question keeps resurfacing, quietly at first and then ever louder: could Ukraine ever re-enter the nuclear club? After the collapse of the security assurances that once underpinned its denuclearisation, the issue is no longer confined to fringe commentary. 

 

It now sits at the intersection of law and survival, of the NPT’s rules and a state’s right to exist. This article asks the hardest version of the question: can Ukraine legally reclaim a nuclear status, and what would such a decision mean for the world that once persuaded it to disarm?

Ukraine’s nuclear knot: how the 1990–1994 package built an architecture that broke in 2014 and 2022

1) The inheritance moment: a vast arsenal without a sovereign nuclear status

After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine found itself hosting one of the largest nuclear arsenals in Europe. In practice, this was an unprecedented status: warheads were on Ukrainian territory, but command-and-control, permissive action links, and much of the operational chain remained embedded in Soviet, then Russian, systems.

That starting point matters. Ukraine’s decisions in 1990–1994 were not made in a moral vacuum. They were made under hard power realities and intense external pressure to preserve the global non-proliferation regime.

2) Arms control first, then non-proliferation: START I and the Lisbon Protocol

The “denuclearisation of Ukraine” was folded into a broader US–Russian arms control logic. A key milestone was the Lisbon Protocol (23 May 1992), which aligned Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine with START I and anchored their trajectory towards non-nuclear status under the NPT framework.

The political meaning of Lisbon was straightforward: “we lock in a legal pathway through which post-Soviet republics exit the nuclear category”.

3) The 1994 trilateral bargain: warheads exchanged for compensation and assurances

When negotiations stalled, a US–Ukraine–Russia trilateral format emerged. The Trilateral Statement of 14 January 1994 reflected the core bargain: Ukraine would transfer warheads for dismantlement; in return, the package encompassed compensation mechanisms (including nuclear fuel arrangements) and the provision of security-related assurances.

This was not a romantic story of disarmament for peace. It was a transaction: Ukraine relinquished a strategic asset; in exchange it received a mix of technical-financial arrangements and political “insurance”.

4) The NPT: not a security guarantee, but a legal self-restraint regime

This element is often misunderstood. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is not a collective defence instrument. It is a status treaty:

• non-nuclear-weapon states undertake not to acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons;
• nuclear-weapon states undertake not to transfer them;
• the system relies on verification and the political cost of breach.

Ukraine acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state and entered the IAEA safeguards system. That is not a memorandum of polite promises; it is an institutionalised verification regime.

5) The Budapest Memorandum: the bridging document between disarmament and assurances

The Budapest Memorandum (5 December 1994) became the public symbol of the deal: Ukraine joined the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state and surrendered the inherited arsenal; in return, the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia provided security assurances (not “guarantees” in the sense of a mutual-defence treaty).

Two structural weaknesses were effectively treated as acceptable at the time:

1. No enforcement mechanism. There is no automaticity, no Article 5, no pre-defined package of actions triggered by aggression.

2. Constructive ambiguity. The language supports political invocation of obligations, while leaving substantial room for legal interpretation. Many analysts consider this the memorandum’s original vulnerability.

“If assurances are breached, does that mean nothing applies?” What treaty law actually says

Andrii Azarov. How to get through a crisis with minimal losses and build a crisis-resilient business

Andrii Azarov, Founder of the GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE international consortium (global-alliance.biz), entrepreneur with 35 years of experience, managing 40+ companies, organisations and projects; Chairman of the Higher Council of the European Association of Business Development.

Why the world keeps entering “new crises”

Over the last decade, the global economy has been living in a near-permanent stress test: financial shocks, political turbulence, economic downturns, pandemics, supply-chain disruptions, currency volatility, constant wars, energy price swings, high inflation and rising interest rates. These crises look different on the surface, but inside the business they trigger the same chain reaction: 

• demand falls or becomes unpredictable
• costs rise (or cash flow collapses)
• credit tightens
• partners break commitments
• the workforce becomes anxious
• decision-making speed becomes more valuable than “perfect plans” 

The anti-crisis methods are largely the same, regardless of whether the trigger is a pandemic, a financial crisis, a political crisis or a broader economic recession: protect liquidity, stabilise operations, renegotiate obligations, reduce complexity, pivot to what is in demand, and build partnerships that increase resilience.

Practical advice for the future (from my 35-year playbook)

If you want your company to survive not just one crisis, but many, treat resilience as a management system:

1. Build a cash buffer as a strategic asset, not “unused money”.

2. Keep your business model modular: products, teams, suppliers and channels should be easy to scale down and rebuild.

3. Diversify revenue streams: at least 2–3 independent sources, ideally in different customer segments or geographies.

4. Make “remote-first readiness” a standard (sales, service delivery, support, HR, finance).

5. Run scenario planning quarterly: base case, stress case, and worst case; with pre-approved actions for each.

6. Treat partnerships, clusters and consortia as an instrument of survival and growth, not just “networking”.

My recommendations for entrepreneurs for the first month of a crisis (and the months after)

Zaluzhnyi: “Our allies must deploy nuclear weapons in Ukraine as a security guarantee.”

Nuclear Shadows Over Ukraine: From the Budapest Memorandum to Calls for Allied Deterrence

When Valerii Zaluzhnyi publicly argued that Ukraine’s allies should deploy nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory as a security guarantee, it was not just a provocative soundbite. It was the latest expression of a long, painful story: a country that once held one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals, gave it up under pressure and promises — and was then invaded by one of the guarantors.

To understand why such a statement can now be voiced by a senior Ukrainian statesman, we have to go back to the early 1990s.

Ukraine: Once the World’s Third-Largest Nuclear Power

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine did not start its independent life as a “normal” non-nuclear state. It suddenly found itself sitting on a huge part of the Soviet strategic arsenal:

• Around 130 UR-100N (SS-19) ICBMs with six warheads each

• 46 RT-23 Molodets (SS-24) ICBMs with ten warheads each

• 33 heavy bombers capable of carrying nuclear-armed cruise missiles

• In total, roughly 1,700 nuclear warheads on its territory

That made Ukraine, the third-largest nuclear power in the world, behind only russia and the United States. It held about one-third of the former Soviet strategic arsenal.