Letter from Transnistria
calvertjournal.com
calvertjournal.com
Far be it from me to attempt to summarize a nation in a few sentences, but one would be remiss without following up that article by saying the obvious.... Transnistria is a place run by gangsters. The hammer and sickle are printed on their money to appeal to the old folks who long for the days of Soviet protection, meanwhile everything is for sale - including people. This is a hub for the trafficking of everything.
I don't say this out of love for the state it broke away from, Moldova, the poorest country in Europe, the last communist country in Europe, which has all of the same problems at a different scale.
p.s. no need for endless paperwork - fifteen euros to the border guards will secure your entry no matter where you come from.
edited to change: I wrote "fifty" euros when I meant "fifteen" - I probably overpaid, but not by that much!!
You sure overpaid. It costs something like 50 UAH (in 2013 rate) if you pay on exit and you would not even miss your bus.
The other story if you would have some drugs or make some legit reason to arrest you and demand ransom, but nothing you would not be able to pay anyway.
Or perhaps I was just consistently ID'd as a foreigner and mark. Either way, fifteen euros to get across that border seemed reasonably sufficient to all.
It's entirely possible that things have changed - I haven't been to Transnistria in several years.
Tn is in seemingly better nick than Moldova from our brief time in each - Russia prop the former up, not the latter. Moldovan roads are cobbled and used by donkeys, not cars - in transnistria they at least had cars and tarmac. It actually seemed less corrupt than Kyrgyzstan, where one gets shaken down by cops ten times daily.
Also, you overpaid, I gave them an authentic British pot noodle.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/atlas-hoods-weapons-smuggling...
It is basically a Russian foothold closer to Western Europe. The only reason that regime exists is because the Russian army is there.
It is a hub of human, weapons and drug trafficking and a nice place to hide if you want deal in shady things like that. Moldovan police can't go there and Russian police doesn't care.
Another article:
[Shades of the Crimean peninsula...]
Either way, there were several other outcomes not requiring the intervention of the Russian army, without keeping Transnistria as a sort of gangster-controlled state.
(Disclaimer: I'm Romanian)
The "constitutional forces of the R. of Moldova" were not a professional army but a mixture of police and hastily armed militia that included ultranationalist elements who were encouraging expulsion/cleansing of non-Moldovans. There were real fears that these "constitutional forces" would do the same sorts of things as the Serbian "constitutional forces" were doing to Yugoslavian separatists.
(I'm only bringing this up because I think it's interesting, not to dispute anything you've written)
The Russian move into Ukraine seems to have some medium-to-long term planning behind it.
For example, there were reports back in 2008 of Russia handing out passports to residents of Crimea:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/257...
Also interestingly, the article above specifically mentions the passport tactic being used in the other notorious breakaway republics of Abhkazia and South Ossetia.
Russia has never particularly disguised its belief that Crimea is an integral, historical and important part of its territory, whereas any limited value Transnistria has to Russia probably involves the Russian presence there remaining in a supportive, "peacekeeping" role as a symbol of Russia's reliability as an ally. That said, it notably hasn't formally recognised Transnistrian statehood, and is well aware most Transnistrians would welcome annexation (they had a referendum) if it could be achieved peacefully.
The only reason Transnistria exists is for Russia to exert influence on the politics of Moldova. Read the "Primakov memorandum of 1997": "3. Transdniestria shall participate in the conduct of the foreign policy of the Republic of Moldova - a subject of international law - on questions touching its interests. Decision of such questions shall be taken by agreement of the Parties."
In other words, Russia participates in the conduct of the foreign policy of the Republic of Moldova on questions touching its interests. An independent Transnistria will not offer the same advantages, and an Russian exclave between Ukraine and Moldova would hardly prove itself economically or militarily viable.
Not under dispute. I cite lack of professionalism only because it's generally accepted to increase the likelihood of abuses. And I'm not saying any such abuses or war crimes or genocide happened (as soviet propaganda claims) or were even planned or likely. But I do genuinely think the danger was real and the Soviet troops that were there and intervened imho were not doing so because they wanted long term levers over Moldovan politics but because they had genuine immediate concerns for the ethnic Russian and Ukrainian residents (which in many cases included themselves). Note again: if Russia wanted to, the Russians could have they could have annexed them any time in the last 20-some years, they could have sued for independence easily but they just sued for peace.
And 20-some years later, while there has been some violence, it has been relatively peaceful, certainly the complete opposite of (say) what we've seen from Russia in Chechnya. So that's why I believe that, in retrospect, the early Russian involvement was probably the right call.
Perhaps there's a best case counterfactual scenario where Russian troops are called off and Moldovans end up killing a few hundred separtists and it's over (this is slightly fewer deaths than we saw historically).
There's also much worse counterfactuals where the Moldovan irregulars engage in war crimes or the rebels hang on for years and you have long bloody sieges or they go underground and you have terrorist bombings that go on for decades and harsh Moldovan responses and maybe the Russian army gets involved anyway just thousands more end up dead.
This is patently false.
(1) Russian propaganda claimed Moldovans were massacring civilians, I've explicitly said I disbelieve this.
(2) Russian propaganda claimed all sorts of independent troop action and the general story is "we just helped arm the Transnistrians" while I'm fairly explicit that Russian troops were there fighting intentionally, not just suppliers, not just some of them acting independently of the Russian chain of command.
(3) I also strongly doubt that Russian propaganda says that they've made a terrible mess of Chechnya as I explicitly say in the above post.
So that's 3 explicit counter-examples from a single short comment. So much for my status as Russian propaganda mouthpiece.
> The whole thing was timely orchestrated.
I agree, the Moldovan troops rolled in right after the UN granted them member status, same fucking day. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
> Moldovan forces did not fight with locals,
Basic facts dispute this.
The first fatalities in the emerging conflict took place on 2 November 1990, two months after the PMR's 2 September 1990 declaration of independence. Moldovan forces entered Dubăsari in order to separate Transnistria into two halves, but were stopped by the city's inhabitants, who had blocked the bridge over the Dniester, at Lunga. In an attempt to break through the roadblock, Moldovan forces then opened fire.[21] In the course of the confrontation, three Dubăsari locals, Oleg Geletiuk, Vladimir Gotkas and Valerie Mitsuls, were killed by the Moldovan forces and sixteen people wounded
> they were fighting with volunteer guards sent over from all of the falling Soviet Union, especially cossaks!
As it turns out they fought both locals and cossacks! and Russian army and more.
> If Russia had no interest, no bloodshed whatsoever would have happened, because there isn't any of the necessary natural preconditions for that (like you are implying).
I'm open to the fact that Russian involvement made Transnistria worse off and I've explicitly said it's possible bloodshed would have been somewhat lower if they had stayed out. However 'possible' is not a guarantee.
I'd like to see you make the case for your claim above but you haven't even begun to and so you don't get to write QED at the bottom. As far as I know the 'necessary natural preconditions' for bloodshed are fairly low you just need a couple groups angry at each other and some guns on one or both sides and the lack of an inhibiting leviathan. That certainly existed in Transnistria without Russian involvement.
I explicitly pointed the exact piece of the russian propaganda you're trumpeting, but you are deliberately choosing to ignore it and to consider instead whatever you want to!
"«Moldovan forces did not fight with locals,» Basic facts dispute this."
Actually, only claims (not facts) dispute this. The involvement of "Moldovan forces" came much later, because when the first incidents happened Moldova did not had an army but only a police force which definitely did not had the competence to perform large scale drills like separation of a (newly declared) country in halves! The first causalities were the Moldovan policemen in a Tiraspol police post. I don't know where you get your sources from, a reference would have been welcomed.
"As far as I know the 'necessary natural preconditions' for bloodshed are fairly low you just need a couple groups angry at each other and some guns on one or both sides and the lack of an inhibiting leviathan. That certainly existed in Transnistria without Russian involvement."
If you go that far consider that loosely controlled armed groups existed all over Russia itself and nowhere it was treated as possible cause for genocide or whatnot. The preconditions that I was referring to is the base (usually ideological in nature) on which an irreconcilable dispute can grow. This wasn't the case in Moldova because Moldovan authorities were very open to peacefully address the kind of issues that Russia claims were central in the Transnistrian conflict. Just look at the Gagauzian Autonomy and take it as a reference for settling a minority related issue without the involvement of russian tanks!
IMHO Russia mostly wants influence on politics in all neighboring states. It only invaded Crimea and put army in Donbas in Ukraine when other ways to exert influence failed (Ukrainians did 2 revolutions, against all economic odds; it was clear Russian influence will end).
Russia doesn't invade Belarus, because it already has control.
Russia only invaded Georgia when they got dangerously close to "solve" the South Ossetia problem (another matter is how Georgians wanted to solve it).
It's also present in Russian diplomatic language - "close abroad" is the term, and Russian diplomats say they have right to participate in the politics of the near abroad. Frozen conflicts are a good way to ensure these border states won't join EU/NATO which are still seen as enemy in Russia.
This is a silly argument. Not surprisingly, the Croatians living in Belgrade did not have cleansing/expulsion committed against them either, just the ones in say Croatia and Vojvodina (areas that declared independence).
If you feel I'm mistating your argument feel free to restate it. Here's another formulation:
'fear is unfounded' BECAUSE 'no atrocity vs minority in rest of country'
Is that not essentially the argument you're making?
That is a general argument which can be disproven with specific counterexamples. I've offered one, Croatians in Belgrade. This counterexample leads us directly to reject the argument.
Why would Moldova have to adopt ethnic cleansing in Transnistria especially, when it did not do the same thing anywhere in Moldova?
It was a power struggle, plain and simple. Just as in Crimea, Abkhazia and everywhere Russia had "oppressed minorities".
His conclusion may be true but that's beside the point, the last 4 posts are simply arguing the merits of the argument he made.
> There haven't been atrocities in Moldovan governed territories,
I think we all agree on this.
> all of which contain exactly the same minority elements as Transnistria
Hardly in the same proportions.
> Why would Moldova have to adopt ethnic cleansing in Transnistria especially, when it did not do the same thing anywhere in Moldova.
'Have to adopt' is a strange construction. You never 'have to adapt' atrocity. It's something that can happen for various reasons intentionally or unintentionally -- for example undisciplined troops might engage in atrocity when taking a city after a bloody siege. If you dont see how that might apply specifically only to Transnistrian Russian minorities because they were the only ones fighting newly armed unprofessional conscripts then I can't help you.
The broader question of Why Transnistria might not be just like the rest of Moldova is a bit like asking 'Why did the Russians have a huge war and commit terrible war crimes in Chechnya but not Tatarstan, Dagestan, etc.?'. It turns out that not everything with some similar characteristics is always the same!
Some might say that it is almost insensitive, even.
At least I'm glad that we're on the same page regarding the core issue:
> His conclusion may be true
If you're wondering why someone might be offended, it's because these kinds of topics are the ones visited by Kremlin bots: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/04/pro-rus...
In this day and age it's getting difficult to distinguish legitimate pro-Russian arguments from Russian state propaganda.
Here's no gangsters, no communism. Of course it is not as developed as Chisinau, but far better place to live than the rest of Moldova and Ukraine.
Pensions are much higher than in Moldova, lots of people from Chisinau when they get old buy here appartment and move over.
Questions are welcome. Can make proofs if needed
Oh, it sounds so better economically! What do you have to say about the fact that Transnitria did not paid anything for the gas it consumed for over twenty five years now (and was left on Moldova's bill note)? Or for a lot of other things for that mater? Now about the immigration, are you serious? There is so much effort directed at keeping the outsiders out, so much scrutiny over anyone (even on locals), you understand why the claim that someone can just come not only for a few hours but indefinitely is just surreal?
As about immigration - you can trust me, those are not abstract words as I know about this not from press but from my living. Prices on appartments are high due to lots of people from moldova buy appartments here.. and this is due to low utility fees (water, gas, electricity) comparing to right coast.. Of course most of people in region try to immigrate to Europe and Russia, but still there is a bunch of them immigrating to Transnistria, amount may seem small but for our region it's enough to keep appartment prices high enough
To illustrate the state of this country, you can take a look on results of election in 2001: Igor Smirnov won, collecting 103,6% of votes.
Lenin, communist symbols, Sheriff symbols, billboards advertising 3G and suddenly every sign written in Russian. Locals are scared to accept hryvnyas as payment - think it's tax office check or something. Ended up paying the price in soviet-looking monopoly money and tipping in hryvnyas.
Talks about Russian military are something overestimating. Few bored "peacemakers" on Bandery bridge and locals that serve in Russian military because that's no work anywhere.
One point is that not everything is written in Russian; some is actually Romanian written in Cyrillic characters.
I secretly took some pictures of the border control with my DSLR, and when they were puzzled at my passport my then gf had the brilliant idea of taking more, like, in the open. They forced us to delete them. Tried undelete tools later to no avail, unfortunately.
It was an interesting experience, people are really nice and are remarkable hosts (if you don't mind being stared at ;-).