Coercive Diplomacy as an Instrument of EU Influence on the Peace Process: Transdniestrian Casus

DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2023-67-10-120-131
Russian presidential Academy of national economy and public administration, North-Western Institute of management, 57/43, Srednii prospect V.O., Saint Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation.

Received 02.05.2023. Revised 23.06.2023. Accepted 01.08.2023.

Abstract. “Coercive diplomacy” is often described as a protective and non-offensive political and diplomatic tool, an alternative to military action based on the threat of force instead of its use. The article shows how “coercive diplomacy” has evolved nowadays, when it is applied in the form of sanctions and special economic regimes both as an incentive to action and as a requirement to change policies. The emphasis is placed on the role of trade policy in the context of settlement of a protracted conflict. The experience of using trade and economic instruments by the European Union within the framework of the “carrot and stick” strategy is analyzed on the example of stimulating the reorientation of Transdniestrian producers from the Russian to the European market and then involving this unrecognized de facto state in the regime of the deep comprehensive free trade area (DCFTA) of the EU in order to influence the peace process and the reintegration of the Republic of Moldova. The author concludes that trade instruments allow the EU not only to keep the Transdniestrian elites in its zone of influence, but also to balance Russian presence in this region. The article has been prepared on the basis of an extensive number of sources, including statements of participants in the processes described in the article, as well as the recorded results of the author’s working meetings, for a number of years directly involved in the negotiation process on the Transdniestrian settlement in the “5+2” format and negotiations with the leadership of the EU Trade Department on the implementation of certain aspects of the DCFTA regime in Transdniestria.

Keywords: Transdniestrian settlement, “coercive diplomacy”, 5+2 negotiation process, “carrot and stick” strategy, de facto state, DCFTA, Transdniestria, Moldova


1. Byman D., Waxman M. The Dynamics of Coercion: American Foreign Policy and the Limits of Military Might. Cambridge University Press, 2002. 261 p.

2. Schultz K.A. Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 301 p.

3. Sperandei M. Bridging Deterrence and Compellence: An Alternative Approach to the Study of Coercive Diplomacy. International Studies Review, 2006, no. 8, pp. 253-280.

4. George A. Forceful Persuasion. Diplomacy as an Alternative to War. Washington, D.C., United States Institute of Peace Press, 1991. 95 p.

5. Lauren P.G., Hall D.K., Sagan S.D., Zimmerman T. The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy: Second Edition. Avalon Publishing, 1994. 310 p.

6. Kardaş Ş. Understanding Turkey’s coercive diplomacy. German Marshall Fund paper, 2020, no. 7. Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

7. Jentleson B. Coercive Diplomacy: Scope and Limits in the Contemporary World. The Stanley Foundation, 2006. 12 p. Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

8. Filmus E. Sticks and Carrots in Coercive Diplomacy: Toward a Theory of Inducements. Diss. The University of Chicago, 2015. 43 p. Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

9. Madalane T.P. EU DCFTAs: Carrot-and-Stick. Vig Z., ed. Challenges of international trade and investment in the 21st century. Ankara, Chișinău, Szeged, 2022, p. 83-107. Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

10. Stepanova .A. Peace Process: On Substantive Definition. World Economy and International Relations, 2022, vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 5-18. (In Russ.) Available at:

11. Shtanski N.V., Palamarchuk D.N., Kambur D.N. Workbook “Blockade of Transnistria: survival instead of development. All the way between two fires.” Media Center “Eurasian Transnistria”. Bendery, 2014. 56 p. (In Russ.)

12. Prohnitchi V., Lupusor A. Transnistria and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area: a Little Stone That Overturns a Great Wain? Expert-Group Centru Analitic Independent, 12.03.2013. Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

13. Konończuk W., Rodkiewicz W. Could Transnistria block Moldova’s integration with the EU? Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia, 23.10.2013. Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

14. Lupushor A. Five myths about the Association Agreement with the European Union. Centru Analytic Independent, 19.11.2013. (In Russ.) Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

15. Calus K. The DCFTA in Transnistria: Who Gains? New Eastern Europe, 2016. Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

16. De Waal T. Uncertain Ground: Engaging with Europe’s De Facto States and Breakaway Territories. Carnegie, Washington, D.C., 2018. 98 p. Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

17. Beyer J., Wolff S. Linkage and Leverage Effects on Moldova’s Transnistria Problem. East European Politics, 2015, no. 32 (3), pp. 335-354. DOI: 10.1080/21599165.2015.1124092

18. Secrieru S. Transnistria Zig-zagging towards a DCFTA. PISM Policy Paper, no. 145, 2016. Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

19. Paul I. Transnistria – Where to? European Policy Center, Policy Brief, 13.03.2014. Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

20. Kemoklidze N., Wolff S. Trade as a Confidence-Building Measure in Protracted Conflicts: The Cases of Georgia and Moldova Compared. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 2020, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 305-332. DOI: 10.1080/15387216.2019.1702567

21. Kosienkowski M. The patron–client relationship between Russia and Transnistria. Hoch T., Kopeček V., eds. De Facto States in Eurasia. Abingdon, Routledge, 2019, p. 183-207. DOI: 10.4324/9780429244049-14

22. Gumene V. DCFTA’s Implications for Foreign Trade of the Transnistrian Region. Center for European Policy Studies. Policy Brief, 2019. Available at:’s-implications-for-foreign-trade-of-the-transnistrian-region (accessed 20.03.2023).

23. Shevchuk N.V. ‘Small steps’ approach to conflict settlement. The case of Transnistria. International Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy, 2022, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 38-54. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17994/IT.2022.  

24. Fisher R., Ury W. Getting to Yes: How to Reach Agreement without Giving In. London, Hutchinson, 1982. 163 p.

25. Istomin I., Bolgova I. Transnistrian Strategy in the Context of Russian–Ukrainian Relations: The Rise and Failure of ‘Dual Alignment’. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 2016, no. 16 (1), pp. 169-194. DOI: 10.1080/14683857.2016.1148412


1. Statement by the leaders of Transnistria and Moldova, April 28, 1994. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PMR. (In Russ.) Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023). 

2. Memorandum on the basics of the normalization of relations between Moldova and Transnistria (Moscow), May 8, 1997. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PMR. (In Russ.) Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

3. Protocol decision on resolving the problems that have arisen in the field of activity of the customs services of the Republic of Moldova and Transnistria, February 7, 1996. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PMR. (In Russ.) Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

4. Protocol between the State Customs Service of Ukraine and the Customs Department of the Republic of Moldova on the mutual recognition of shipping, commercial and customs documents and customs provisions, May 15, 2003 (Kyiv). OSCE. (In Russ.) Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

5. Information about the economic agents of Transdniestria. Government of the Republic of Moldova, 05.01.2022. (In Russ.) Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

6. The Impact of the EU-Moldova DCFTA on the Transnistrian Economy: Quantitative Assessment under Three Scenarios. Berlin Economics, 04.06.2013. Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

7. After Vilnius, Transnistria will be forced to accept the European course of the Republic of Moldova., 12.11.2013. (In Russ.) Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023).

8. The EU supports a peaceful settlement in Transnistria respecting Moldova’s borders. IA TASS, 07.02.2023. (In Russ.) Available at: (accessed 20.03.2023). 

For citation:
Shevchuk N. Coercive Diplomacy as an Instrument of EU Influence on the Peace Process: Transdniestrian Casus. World Eonomy and International Relations, 2023, vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 120-131. EDN: MHLYQV

Comments (0)

No comments

Add comment






Dear authors! Please note that in the VAK List of peer-reviewed scientific journals, in which the main scientific results of dissertations for the degree of candidate and doctor of sciences should be published for the “MEMO Journal” the following specialties are recorded:
economic sciences:
5.2.5. World Economy.
5.2.1. Economic Theory
5.2.3. Regional and Branch Economics
political sciences:
5.5.4. International Relations
5.5.1. History and Theory of Politics
5.5.2. Political Institutions, Processes, Technologies


Current Issue
2024, vol. 68, No. 4
Topical Themes of the Issue:
  • Financial Contagion Propagation in Europe under the Impact of Global Shocks
  • Regional Powers on the African Continent: Trends and Prospects
  • Investment Activity of the PRC in the Kyrgyz Republic
  • “Land Grabbing” Concept: Global and National Aspects
Submit an Article
The Editorial Board invites authors to write analytical articles on the following topics:
  • changes in the processes of globalization in modern conditions
  • formation of the new world order
  • shifts in civilization at the stage of transition to a digital society

The editors are also interested in publishing synthesis articles / scientific reviews revealing the main trends in the development of certain regions of the world - Latin America, Africa, South Asia, etc.