This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Moldova Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moldova, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Moldova on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoldovaWikipedia:WikiProject MoldovaTemplate:WikiProject MoldovaMoldova Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I just published this article, I usually revise my articles and check the sources again to see if I have gotten anything wrong or if I have filled the parameters of the source's template wrongly, but due to the ongoing nature of this event and because I won't have much time in the next few weeks I was pressed to finish this article and publish it rather quickly. I don't think there are major inaccuracies, but there might be some details and nuances like me having put a wrong date of a publication for a source by mistake (saw one such case during a quick revision). I thought it's worth mentioning, as I always revise what I write otherwise. Super Ψ Dro 13:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The crisis is caused by Ukraine refusing to continue its gas transit deal with Russia. This is clearly an important fact that is currently not in the article lead. It reads right now like Russia just chose to stop sending the gas. Liger404 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russia indeed did so. It has so far chosen not to supply Transnistria through the Turkstream pipeline. I wanted to add about the deal between Ukraine and Russia expiring and about Russia's rationale for not supplying gas through Turkstream, and will once I get time. Super Ψ Dro 13:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the existing supply was via Ukraine though, that's why the flow has stopped. Zelenskyy quite literally announced this. They might organise somthing through Turkstream, but that doesn't actually go to Moldova. Romania gets some gas from that line, I am not sure if they have the infrastructure to actually pump gas to Moldova and Transnistria or if they will need to build it. Both Turkstream and the internal Romanian pipelines are much lower in capacity, I am not sure if they can even supply the place. All that will have to be arranged if they even can. But the current shut off is due to the Ukrainian closure of the Ukrainian gas lines to Europe. https://theconversation.com/ukraine-closure-of-gazprom-pipeline-to-europe-hurts-russias-war-effort-but-leaves-transnistrians-in-the-cold-246608 Liger404 (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The supply of gas to Moldova through Turkstream is possible. A test on 31 December proved this [1]. I am not knowledgeable on the topic of gas pipelines but I assume gas from Turkstream would arrive through the Iași–Chișinău pipeline. It has a capacity of 1.85 billion m3, when Moldova was consuming 1.1 billion on average as reported in 2021 [2]. Given Transnistria's small population it seems obvious there'd have been enough capacity at least for civilian purposes. Not sure if there'd have been enough for the power plant, so there might still have been an increase in electricity prices. But Transnistria's population not having gas right now is because Russia decided so. Super Ψ Dro 12:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all that Russia decided so. The gas did not come through Turkstream. Zelenskyy announced the cut off himself, and end to European reliance on Russian gas he said. It may be that Turkstream, which does not pass through Moldova, will be able to supply Moldova in future. It it did not historically and a cut off in gas from Turkstream has never happened. This is quite simply not the cause of the outage. Turkstream has NEVER supplied Tranistia and the Iasi pipeline is brand new. Who knows what volume it can carry, at what price and to whom. But it has never before served the gas needs of Moldova and Tranistria. It's is not this pipeline that has caused the sudden reduction in supply. It may be what solves the issue, but it is certainly not the cause! Liger404 (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given this turns into a WP:FORUM debate (which I enjoy in general, but is not allowed in Wikipedia), I'll withdraw from it unless contents of the article are discussed. I'll only add that Moldova and Gazprom have a contract until 30 September 2026 [3], that Ukraine gave over one year for countries to diversify their gas supplies away from that pipeline [4] (Turkstream being the most common option [5]) and that it is only logical that it takes measures preventing the country invading it from getting more revenue to continue doing so. And Moldova already satisfies its gas needs through the Iași–Chișinău pipeline since 2023. Super Ψ Dro 13:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this crisis is because Transnistria is trying to split from Moldova. If they where part of Moldova this wouldn't be a problem. Scuba 20:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah. But Transnistrian secession predates this crisis by three decades. Their independence was possible because the situation was the opposite of what it is today for three decades. What you say is technically correct but an oversimplification. Super Ψ Dro 22:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Scuba, its not. Thats been the case for decades. The change in situation, so this specific energy crisis, is because Ukraine shut of its gas pipes to Europe. And the reason for that isn't that Transnistria is trying to break away from Moldova, its that Ukraine and Russia are at war. Moldova didn't ask Ukraine to turn the gas off, and Ukraine has very openly said it cut the gas off to break the EU from Russian energy dependence. Moldova ALSO has an energy crisis because of this, right now the EU is giving them money to buy energy they can't afford. Liger404 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova proper isn't having an energy crisis, Transnistria is. We should change the article title to 2025 Transnistrian energy crisis instead. Scuba 20:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova obtained cheap electricity from a power plant in Transnistria that ran on Russian gas. Because it no longer receives gas, electricity prices have gone up to as high as 75% in some parts of the country [6], and Moldova has spent a lot of money in imported electricity from Romania [7], it is probably unsustainable. It also spends a lot of money for compensations for the population and has declared a state of emergency that is still in force right now. The ultimate aim of this crisis is almost certainly to cause pro-Russians to win in the Moldovan parliamentary election this year. The real aim is the whole of Moldova. For these reasons, but also because Transnistria is part of Moldova and is already included in the title, I am opposed to such a proposed title. Super Ψ Dro 22:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is, most of the Moldovan energy came from a power plant in Transnistria. Right now they how power but at a price they cannot afford. Right now the EU is subsidising it, but they could otherwise not afford it. Also if we make the title "Tranistian energy crisis" people will complain that Transnistria is actually Moldova and we need to change the tittle to Moldova. Its contentious you see. Best to stick to the facts, the nation has an energy problem due to a sudden reduction in gas supply via Ukraine. Just because its in one part of the nation more than the other, doesn't mean Moldova is not having an issue. Liger404 (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re reading what this page has become, it's now a political blow by blow about transnistrian-moldovan relations. I am of a mind to delete 2/3rds of this and re write the entire thing. We have pages covering the Transnistria political situation, this is about the energy crisis. Right now its getting into what percentage of people speak Russian and election results and all kinds of off topic things. This page needs a re focus. Someone should be able to come here and quickly understand why the power is off and what might happen. They shouldn't be reading about "An internationally unrecognized referendum held in 2006 showed that over 95% of Transnistrians wanted to be annexed into Russia; allegations on irregularities and infringements in the referendum exist.". That's not on topic. Liger404 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, I am still developing the page and plan to progressively trim down some details, however I did not have in mind nearly as big of a trim as you propose. I wrote the background section having in mind readers who may know absolutely nothing on the situation. The 2006 referendum part I've included it as I generally see it mentioned in Western media articles about Transnistria, as for the 2024 elections I'll rewrite the prose a bit so the text is better chained with the suggestion that Russia could be doing this to influence yet another Moldovan vote. I agree I've overextended myself at some points, but I also believe you're exaggerating a bit. You have #In Transnistria and #In the rest of Moldova to read most directly on the consequences of the energy crisis, you have #Analysis to read on what might happen in the first two subsections (in my opinion this section is not worth much work right now as it speculates on a developing event). I plan to add more on the expiration of the gas deal and Moldova's debt disputes with Gazprom possibly tomorrow. Ultimately it's me alone dealing with this complicated topic, and I work as I can. But I do appreciate feedback from readers or editors, feel free to point out exact parts you think aren't needed (I might have already planned on trimming them out anyway). Super Ψ Dro 00:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I understand laying some background, right now the background outweighs the subject. Yes you are right readers might not know much about the Tranistria/Moldova issue, but then you could link to those pages after a very brief overview surely? You don't need politicd going back to the early 2000s to understand that it's a small nation with one main power plant that just had its gas turned off.

I also am not sure what role the debt dispute really plays, Gazprom didn't shut off the gas due to debt, it is just unable to deliver it because it lost access to the Ukrainian gas pipeline it was using. Do you not believe this is the case? Or do you believe it was Russia that turned the gas off? I do not, so I see further discussion of the gas dispute as being off topic. To me that is not why the gas is off. But if you believe Russia turned off the gas then I can see why the debt issue would be number one priority to you.

I will posit this question, if Moldova paid for the gas tomorrow, would Russia be able to deliver the gas? Because by my understanding they cannot, their only existing (Not potential but existing) way to get gas to the Tranistrian power station was through Ukraine, and Ukraine won't sign a new transit deal for war fighting reasons. This is why I believe the debt is very much a secondary issue. Liger404 (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The debt is an excuse for Russia not to supply Transnistria through alternate routes. Turkstream and the Trans-Balkan pipeline could also be used to supply Transnistria right now. Apparently also LNG imports through Greece. I'll briefly mention this in the background. I just have one more sentence to add there anyway. I've tried to keep it concise but short, I believe it has everything an unfamiliar reader may need to know, how can I go straight to the gas crisis if the person may not even have ever heard of the statelet before? If Moldova paid the 700 million that Gazprom is asking for, which would be 300 dollars per citizen, it'd be a disaster that'd probably cripple Moldova's budget. After this it's speculation: Russia does not allow the gas to come anyway, it promises it'll sign off the debt if a pro-Russian parliament comes on top this year, whatever. The goal is to remove the pro-Western parliament, in my view. Moldova is a parliamentary republic in the end. The debt thing is so Transnistrian leaders and the Kremlin can point fingers at Chișinău. Not sure otherwise why would they care about the debt precisely right now after supplying Transnistria for free for 30 years. Super Ψ Dro 10:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You assume the gas can go through Turkstream, but it never did that before, Turkstream does not go through the country and you are making many assumptions about the capabilities and legality of the various pipelines and pumps and countries that would have to come together to feed that power plant. It is true that agreements with various countries and various infrastructure developments COULD enable gas delivery via alternative routes, but the only route ever used and the only route we actually know CAN do the job was closed by order of the Ukrainian government, not a debt argument.

I did not ask you if Moldova could afford the debt, I said if they paid the debt tomorrow could Russia supply gas to the power station?

Because I believe the answer to that is no. You are skipping many steps in the chain that Russia and Gazprom do not control. Turk stream ultimately delivers gas to Turkey. The Trans Balkan pipeline takes gas to Romania and Greece. Neither of these pipelines go to the Cuciurgan power station.

Gazprom would have to arrange deals and infrastructure in Romania or Greece and then inside Moldova in order to get gas to Transnistria. So whilst that is a possible future solution to the crisis, it is not the cause and requires many parties to agree and probably quite a bit of new infrastructure.

Current EU funding for Moldova gas purchases come with requirements to join the EU energy market, it is not even clear that Moldova would be in a position to agree to a deal with Gazprom to supply via Romania or Greece, that's assuming Romania, Greece and Turkey agree first, which they may not.

The situation is not actually all that complicated. Gas arrived to the Cuciurgan power station via the Urkanain owned Iași–Chișinău pipeline, Ukraine very publically closed that gas line to get the EU off Russia gas, they said that exactly and so now the power station has no gas. Cause and effect. Liger404 (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to catch up on the latest information and found this article

https://www.politico.eu/article/moldova-russia-backed-breakaway-region-strikes-deal-end-energy-crisis-transnistria/

Separatist leaders said they will take a Russian loan to pay for supplies despite an EU aid offer.

...

In a statement Monday, Moldovan Prime Minister Dorin Recean said Transnistria had declined €60 million in European Union funds to help with fuel deliveries and instead brokered a deal with a Hungarian firm. Transnistrian authorities claimed it will be underpinned by "Russian credit."

Which appears to indicate a resolution has been found. I couldn't see anything referencing this in the article, but I know very little about the topic and am not comfortable adding this in without a better understanding. 86.145.136.144 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the only writer of this article. As you can see it's rather long and it's taken a lot of time and reading. Understandably my motivation had to eventually go down at some point. I haven't even ended writing on the crisis itself (it's at like 98%). So I've lagged behind on covering the resolution (I can't believe it's already March). I intend to cover it eventually, though I can't tell when will that be. Thanks for your interest meanwhile. Super Ψ Dro 14:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The aid came with various requirements, that will be a big part of why it was turned down. It wasn't just free money. From your article "However, a plan to secure alternatives with the support of the EU would have meant tariffs gradually increasing and integration with the continent's energy markets.". Liger404 (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the post-10 February 60 million aid package that they were offered. The 1–10 February one seems to have been completely unconditional. I've had the chance to cover the second but not the first for now. I'll continue covering all of this in the next weeks. Super Ψ Dro 12:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to have a look last night, and it's not clear the situation actually is resolved, just that there is enough gas to cook. There is very little reporting in the Googlesphere on this and I have very limited Russian sources. Liger404 (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not wrong Russia is supplying gas to Transnistria through the purchase of gas at the European market by a Hungarian company which gets paid by a UAE company, which in turn is presumably paid by Russia. And in the condition by the Moldovan government that the gas does not allow Transnistria to restart its industries. The current scheme is hated by everyone, Transnistrians because it is tenuous and short-term and Moldovans because it is not transparent and because there are calls to the government to stop helping the separatists.

The article has gotten pretty long and these topics are not exactly part of the energy crisis, I planned to cover stuff after 10 February in less detail. Super Ψ Dro 00:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some stuff like that yeah, they are getting some gas from MOldova but can't run the power plant at full capacity and so industry is still limited. I guess we could say that's a temporary reduction to the crisis, people aren't going to freeze, but they still can't work. On the whole I would say that's still unresolved. I am writing some aviation articles right now so can't help sorry. Liger404 (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is still unresolved, and it'll probably stay like that until the Moldovan parlamentary election and the completion of Moldova's electric line with Romania (after that, I presume there are no obstacles for Moldova to start exerting maximum pressure onto Transnistria). In any case what is happening right now is more political and economic as Transnistria has lost all of its sources of revenue, the gist of the energy crisis has passed (though Transnistrians pay double for energy since March and still lack hot water I believe). Super Ψ Dro 12:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This excellent Clegendael (Dutch Interactional relations institute) "https://www.clingendael.org/publication/unfreezing-transnistria", make sure to read the PDF not the short overview. Makes it clear that the alternative supply route may or may not be possible, but at this state there is no confirmation that there was capacity or agreement from the various EU states on the route to allow it.

"The obvious solution seemed to lie in an alternative route for Russian gas towards Transnistria, via TurkStream and the Trans‑Balkan gas corridor, that would reach the region from the south. Moscow repeatedly raised this as a possibility, with the precondition that Chisinau repays its dept to Gazprom. This was problematic for Chisinau, because of a major disagreement over the size of that debt2. However, even putting the debt issue aside, some experts have questioned the viability of the Balkan route as an alternative from a Russian perspective. It was unclear whether the Trans-Balkan corridor’s available capacity, that Russia could hypothetically reserve for deliveries to Transnistria, would be sufficient to satisfy that region’s needs. An additional problem is the fact that the most direct link from that corridor to Transnistria still passes through Ukrainian territory"

There is also no neutral language from our current sources. Yes they say Russia refused to use this option in an overview, but when you actually read them them make it clear the situation is actually very uncertain. Physically the pipes exist, politically its not clear they are allowed to be used."Moldova’s President, Maia Sandu, however, argued that Russian gas supplies to unrecognised Transnistria through intermediaries would violate international sanctions and be illegal under Moldovan law. She claimed that Moscow’s use of non-transparent schemes through third parties, instead of employing Gazprom as the majority shareholder of Moldovagaz, raised doubts about its intentions and responsibility.". Yet we simply report the part about Russia "refusing".

Other issues are clear, in our current article Moldova openly says it will only supply gas transit deals to "non sanctioned countries" which is pretty clearly saying they won't make a transit deal with Russia.

The current assertion that a simple alternative supply route exists for Russia to get gas to Transnistria does not reflect the complexities and barriers involved, or the source material.

Liger404 (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)'[reply]

I disagree with this. The paper links to a TASS article to verify the pipeline not having enough capacity to satisfy Transnistria's needs, the same apologetic TASS full of bullshit articles like these [8] [9] on a supposed imminent Moldovan/NATO attack on Transnistria. The TASS article the paper cites actually features as one of the arguments for the Trans-Balkan pipeline not being viable that "even if the gas via Turkish Stream passes through Moldova, there is no guarantee that it will all reach Transnistria.", "I'm not sure what percentage will reach Transnistria; that is, that Moldova could steal some of this gas. This is not a serious source, not for nothing is TASS mentioned as an outlet pushing Russian propaganda against Moldova in this very article! In any case, the years before the energy crisis, Transnistria had been receiving 5.7 million m3 of gas per day [10] [11]. This is within the maximum capacity of both TurkStream [12] and the Trans-Balkan pipeline [13]. While this capacity was already reserved for third countries (Gazprom did not reserve any capacity for Transnistria in December 2024 for the next month [14]), Russia had since 2023, when Ukraine stated it would not renew the contract [15], to reduce supplies to third countries and prioritize Transnistria.

The paper you've brought also argues that "Ukraine has not been inclined to allow for Russia to transfer gas through its territory even just for Transnistria; it cites another TASS propaganda piece, and this fact is simply inaccurate, as Ukraine did state it would not be opposed [16] [17] [18] (though it wasn't excited about it, per the latter source). Further, as I previously already stated in another discussion with you, Moldova and Bulgaria performed a test in which a small amount of gas was delivered to Moldova through the Trans-Balkan pipeline [19]. Moldova had been negotiating with Russia for the alternate route to be used since late 2022 [20], pressing for this solution until the very end [21], days before the crisis. The technical possiblity was always present.

Sources verify that Russia and Gazprom had the technical capacity to supply gas to Transnistria [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] and that they refused to do so by its own will [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] or that they deliberately caused the crisis to punish Moldova's pro-Western orientation or affect its ruling party's popularity [50] [51] [52]. The issue of the debt was irrelevant; Russia had been asking for money from Chișinău for decades [53] (p. 4), but only now did it become a problem (not my personal analysis, sources on Russia's weaponization of the debt issue: [54] [55] [56]).

I see clear consensus in sources that the alternate route always existed and that it was Russia that refused to use it. Of course I cannot possibly opposed to reflecting all views in a Wikipedia article, but if in this case it's several dozen sources vs. a single one, I believe we clearly fall into WP:EXCEPTIONAL (a Wikipedia policy, please read it, it's brief). Specially considering this source relies an unconfortable bit too much in a Russian state propaganda outlet deprecated in this website. I suggest two things: to seek the opinion of third users and the use of Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms (e.g. WP:DRN); or to give it more time until new sources possibly appear elaborating more on the view of Russia actually not having had the option to supply Transnistria. Super Ψ Dro 09:33, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been an update to this article since the Moldovan parliamentary election in September which is the given reason for the energy crisis, can somebody provide an update to the article on the status of energy to Transnistria and whether the given reason for the crisis has had any effect on the energy crisis in the time since. Peace!ChiruKondo (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]