Shadow States and Shattered Frontiers: Strategic Relevance of Bessarabia in Eastern European Geopolitics

Abstract

This article explores the enduring strategic importance of Bessarabia, a historically contested region at the crossroads of Eastern Europe. From imperial conquests to contemporary frozen conflicts, Bessarabia has served as a geopolitical pressure point for empires and ideologies alike. Tracing its trajectory from 19th-century wars through Soviet annexation and into modern Russian strategic planning, the essay examines key military episodes, the role of propaganda during the 1940 annexation, and Bessarabia’s contemporary utility to the Russian Federation—particularly through Transnistria and military activity near Odesa.

Akermanska fortetsia, also known as Cetatea-Albă or Kokot, a historical and architectural monument of the 13th–14th centuries located in Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi in the Odesa Oblast of southwestern Ukraine, in the Budjak, the historical region of Bessarabia.

Introduction

Bessarabia, a region of eastern Europe long forgotten to many Westerners, is nestled between the Prut and Dniester rivers, and extends toward the Black Sea. Despite Bessarabia’s formal departure from the international system, it has long been a geopolitical fault line. Its strategic location and fertile terrain have drawn the ambitions of regional powers including the Ottoman Empire, Tsarist Russia, Romania, and the Soviet Union (USSR). Today, Bessarabia remains politically and militarily significant through lingering territorial disputes and its proximity to critical infrastructure.

This essay traces Bessarabia’s military history, the ideological framing of its annexation by the USSR, and its contemporary utility for the Russian Federation—particularly the Transnistrian enclave and Russia’s interest in the Zatoka bridge.

Zatoka Bridge in 2005, Odesa–Basarabeasca railway line

Historical Battles and Strategic Shifts in Bessarabia

Bessarabia’s strategic value was recognized during the Russo-Turkish wars, culminating in the Treaty of Bucharest (1812), which transferred the region from the Ottoman Empire to Tsarist Russia. This shift pushed Bessarabia into a forward position regarding Russia’s ambitions for the Balkans.

Following the Crimean War (1853–1856), portions of southern Bessarabia were temporarily returned to Moldavia. In 1878, Russia reclaimed that land as compensation for Moldavia’s role in the Russo-Turkish War.

Romania’s 1918 military intervention further reshaped Bessarabia’s political alignment. Deploying over 50,000 troops, Romania executed campaigns in:

• Chișinău: Secured after two offensives.
• Bender (Tighina): Captured after urban fighting.
• Bălți and Akkerman: Controlled by February.

These victories culminated in the union of Bessarabia and Romania on April 9, 1918—an act that redefined the balance of power in Eastern Europe. Romania’s territorial expansion transformed it into a bulwark against Bolshevik encroachment and a stabilizing force amid ideological fragmentation following World War I. The union undercut Soviet ambitions and complicated Russia’s efforts to project revolutionary influence westward. To Western powers, an expanded Romania appeared as a vital counterweight to communism. The consolidation reshaped diplomatic alliances, elevated Romania’s position at postwar treaty negotiations, and ignited tensions that would reverberate through the interwar era. In effect, the union turned Romania from a peripheral participant into a pivotal regional power.

The Union was voted by the Sfatul Țării (Council of the Country), which convened in a solemn session in Chișinău. Present at the event were the President of the Council of Ministers of the Moldovan Republic, Daniel Ciugureanu, all members of the government, and Romania’s Prime Minister, Alexandru Marghiloman, the special envoy of King Ferdinand I.

Following the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the USSR issued an ultimatum to Romania in June 1940, demanding the cession of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Romania, diplomatically isolated and militarily vulnerable, acquiesced, and Soviet forces occupied the region between June 28 and July 3, 1940, incorporating most of Bessarabia into the newly formed Moldavian SSR.

Soviet Propaganda and the 1940 Annexation

The Soviet reabsorption of Bessarabia in 1940 was not merely military, it was ideological. A coordinated propaganda offensive recast Soviet expansionism as liberation. Following the USSR’s June 26 ultimatum to Romania, Red Army troops entered Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina on June 28. Soviet messaging portrayed the move as a rescue mission for oppressed Moldovan and Ukrainian populations, framing the annexation as a triumph of historical justice and ethnic reunification. This narrative warfare relied on emotionally charged propaganda—posters, parades, and staged village rallies—that depicted Soviet troops as liberators welcomed by jubilant peasants. Newspapers like Krasnoye Znamya published stories of enthusiastic receptions, while visual media showed smiling villagers embracing soldiers under banners of Stalin. These tactics were designed not only to legitimize Soviet aggression but also to erase Romanian influence and reinforce Soviet identity in the region.

Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina Propaganda poster (28 June – 3 July 1940)

This approach mirrors modern Russian information campaigns in Ukraine, particularly since 2014. During the annexation of Crimea, Russian media portrayed the move as protecting ethnic Russians from Ukrainian “fascists”—a narrative echoed in the 2022 invasion, where Kremlin outlets claimed to be “denazifying” Ukraine. Disinformation campaigns have included fabricated stories of Ukrainian atrocities, deepfake videos of President Zelenskyy surrendering, and forged documents alleging illegal mobilization of Ukrainian soldiers. These operations aim to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty, sow distrust, and justify Russian military actions under the guise of humanitarian intervention.

Both Soviet and modern Russian strategies rely on mythmaking, selective history, and emotional manipulation to shape public perception—turning invasions into acts of salvation and occupation into liberation. In Moldova, Russia continues to exploit identity politics and linguistic divisions to spread pro-Kremlin narratives, particularly in regions like Transnistria and Gagauzia.

Contemporary Strategic Role of Bessarabia: Transnistria and Zatoka

The eastern fringe of historical Bessarabia now hosts Transnistria, a separatist enclave with deep Russian military and intelligence ties. Though unrecognized globally, it operates with de facto autonomy and hosts legacy Soviet infrastructure—including the Kolbasna arms depot and strategic railways—that could support a southern Russian campaign. Just 120 kilometers from Odesa, Transnistria offers a potential staging ground.

Russia’s repeated targeting of the Zatoka bridge, which connects Odesa to southwestern Ukraine and Romania, reveals the area’s operational importance. Strikes using Iskander-M missiles and drones aim to:

• Disrupt NATO-adjacent supply lines
• Sever Odesa’s southern connections
• Pave the way for a ground corridor from Crimea through Transnistria

If realized, such a corridor would grant Russia continuous control over Ukraine’s southern flank and heighten pressure on Moldova’s sovereignty—reanimating Bessarabia’s role as a strategic chokepoint.

Conclusion

Bessarabia has consistently functioned as both battleground and bargaining chip in Eastern European power politics. From imperial annexations and wartime occupations to ideological manipulation through propaganda, the region’s past is deeply entwined with its present. Its shifting borders and contested identity reflect the broader struggle between competing visions of sovereignty, nationalism, and geopolitical influence.

Today, Bessarabia’s strategic relevance is once again underscored by the latent military role of Transnistria, a Russian-backed enclave that serves as a forward outpost for Moscow’s ambitions. Though militarily limited, Transnistria offers logistical infrastructure, ideological leverage, and a symbolic foothold in the region. Meanwhile, the vulnerability of the Zatoka bridge, a critical link between Odesa and Romania, highlights the region’s exposure to kinetic disruption and its importance in NATO-aligned supply chains. Russian strikes on this infrastructure are not merely tactical—they are emblematic of a broader strategy to fracture connectivity and assert control over Ukraine’s southern flank.

Moreover, the post-Soviet evolution of Bessarabia reveals a complex tapestry of ethnic identities, shifting allegiances, and emerging civic resilience. Once considered a pro-Russian stronghold, parts of Ukrainian Bessarabia have increasingly embraced national unity in response to Russian aggression. Local resistance, infrastructure development, and the blocking of Russian propaganda channels have transformed the region into a crucial lifeline for Ukraine’s exports and defense logistics, particularly through Danube ports like Izmail.

Understanding Bessarabia’s historical framing and persistent military relevance is essential to interpreting the broader dynamics of post-Soviet space and Russian strategic ambition. It is not merely a relic of imperial cartography, it is a living fault line where history, identity, and power continue to collide. As the region navigates renewed threats and shifting alliances, Bessarabia remains a barometer of Eastern Europe’s geopolitical climate, and a reminder that the past is never truly past.