If Moldova leaves the CIS, it means that it no longer recognizes the dissolution of the USSR and, consequently, its territorial integrity no longer needs to be recognized by other CIS states, including Russia, according to a stunningly illogical narrative put forward by pro-Kremlin propaganda. As for the threat to territorial integrity, history shows that CIS membership has not saved member states from Russian territorial grabs.
NEWS: On March 11, the Government of the Republic of Moldova denounced three key documents upon which the country’s participation in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) is based. These include the Statute, the Agreement on the Creation of the CIS, and the Alma-Ata Declaration of December 21, 1991. Now, the final decision is to be made by Parliament, but no surprises are expected there. The majority in Parliament belongs to the right-wing PAS party, and the deputies will undoubtedly vote in favor of denunciation. The opposition will be powerless to stop it.
[...]
Moldova’s leadership, it seems, is not giving any thought to the political consequences of denouncing the CIS documents. First of all, the agreement of December 8 states that “the USSR, as a subject of international law and as a geopolitical reality, ceases to exist.” Withdrawing from this document would mean that Chisinau does not agree with “the cessation of the USSR’s existence.”
Second, the Alma-Ata Declaration states that the parties “recognize and respect each other’s territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders.” This means that, by renouncing this declaration, Chisinau is opening the door for other CIS states, including Russia, to refuse to recognize the borders of the Republic of Moldova. In the context of the unresolved Transnistrian conflict and the existence of the unrecognized Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, this opens up a wide field for diplomatic maneuvering, interpretations, and possible scenarios for the unfolding of events. This is all the more so given the armed conflict in Ukraine and the presence of the Russian Operational Group of Forces on Transnistrian territory.
Third, Tiraspol gains additional grounds to defend the region’s right to self-determination. And all discussions about whether to join the EU “together with Transnistria or separately” lose their meaning.
NARRATIVES: 1. Moldova’s withdrawal from the CIS would amount to a challenge to the fact that the USSR has dissolved and ceased to exist as a subject of international law. 2. Withdrawal from the CIS would allow member states, including the Russian Federation, to no longer recognize Moldova’s borders and territorial integrity. 3. Leaving the CIS would give Tiraspol new political and legal momentum to claim the independence of the Transnistrian region. 4. The government in Chișinău has intentionally reduced economic ties with the CIS.
PURPOSE: To suggest that the Republic of Moldova is undermining its own state foundations by denouncing CIS documents; to fuel fears regarding the loss of international recognition of its borders and territorial integrity; to suggest that the decisions of the authorities in Chișinău would create additional risks in the Transnistrian issue and would encourage separatism; to promote the idea that the deterioration of economic relations with the CIS region is the result of intentional actions by the government, not of objective developments or the political decisions of other states; to discredit the Republic of Moldova’s pro-European orientation and to generate mistrust in the state’s ability to manage its strategic choices.
Moldova separated from the USSR by declaring its independence, and its accession to the CIS did not entail a surrender of sovereignty
WHY THE NARRATIVES ARE FALSE: The Republic of Moldova proclaimed its independence from the USSR and withdrew from it, so it is irrelevant what happened to that entity after the departure of its former subjects. Also, when it joined the CIS, the Republic of Moldova did not renounce its previously proclaimed independence, did not cede its sovereignty in any way, and did not link that accession to its territorial integrity, which is non-negotiable.
According to the author’s logic, the fact that the three Baltic states refused to join the CIS would automatically mean that they did not recognize the dissolution of the USSR. Similarly, in the case of Georgia, which left the CIS following Russia’s invasion in August 2008, that decision should be classified as a failure to recognize the dissolution of the USSR. The dissolution of the USSR is an irreversible historical and legal fact, internationally recognized since 1991, including through the admission of the successor states to the UN and the diplomatic relations established thereafter. Membership in or withdrawal from a regional organization created after the dissolution of the USSR cannot nullify or call into question the existence or non-existence of a state that ceased to exist over three decades ago.
The same applies to the warning that withdrawal from the CIS would give member states the right to no longer recognize the borders of the Republic of Moldova. Recognition of the Republic of Moldova’s borders is not conditional on membership in the CIS or on the continued validity of documents of that organization. The territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova is guaranteed by international law, the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, and numerous bilateral and multilateral treaties. Withdrawal from the CIS provides no legal basis for challenging the borders of a sovereign state.
Furthermore, membership in the CIS did not prevent Georgia in 2008 or Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 from being attacked by another member state—Russia—which, in the case of Georgia, recognized the independence of certain separatist regions, and in the case of Ukraine, annexed parts of its territory. Similarly, although Russia officially recognizes the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova, it continues to maintain military troops on its territory and fuels Transnistrian separatism.
Transnistria declared its independence in 1990, and even though it is not internationally recognized, it continues to behave de facto as such, and membership in the CIS has not helped the Republic of Moldova resolve the frozen conflict.
As for Moldova’s economic relations with the CIS states, it is false to claim that they have been undermined over the past five years, that is, by the current government. In fact, the share of Moldovan exports to the CIS began to decline gradually as early as the late 1990s, and the process accelerated following the embargoes imposed by Russia in 2006, then in 2013 and 2014. More specifically, the share of exports to the CIS fell from approximately 70% of the total in the late 1990s to less than 6% in 2025, from nearly one billion dollars per year at the start of the last decade to just over 220 million (i.e., more than four times less) in 2025. Russia’s share was less than 3% in 2025, not 7%, as the author claims.
As Veridica previously wrote, the CIS has become a structure through which Russia has attempted to legitimize its sphere of geopolitical interest. Consequently, Moscow and its propagandists are not concerned with the economic consequences for the Republic of Moldova or the Moldovan diaspora, but rather with the loss of the Kremlin’s influence in the region—an influence it desperately needs, especially in the context of the war in Ukraine.
LOCAL CONTEXT/ETHOS: The government in Chișinău approved last week the initiation of the procedure for the Republic of Moldova’s withdrawal from the statutory bodies of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) by denouncing the organization’s founding agreements. These include the Agreement on the Establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States, signed in Minsk on December 8, 1991, the Protocol to this Agreement of December 21, 1991, as well as the CIS Charter, adopted in Minsk on January 22, 1993.
The decision comes in the context of the Russian Federation’s failure to respect the fundamental values and principles of the Community, under which states mutually recognize and respect territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders.
According to the Executive, “The Russian Federation has consistently violated these principles—the act of aggression against Georgia, the brutal war against Ukraine, the occupation and annexation of these countries’ territories, and the illegal stationing of Russian military troops on the territory of the Republic of Moldova. These actions have undermined the CIS’s role as an organization intended to maintain peace and stability in the region.”
This week, the issue could also be discussed in Parliament.
Chisinau’s decision sparked a wave of fake news, Disinformation, and manipulation, and Veridica debunked some of them.
Check sources:
