What does Moscow want with Moldova?
dw.com
dw.com
These folks aren't just Russian speaking, they are ethnic Russians that have been living there for hundreds of years.
As Moldova vacillated between Russia and Romania, these people are caught in the middle.
If it did, only logical reaction would be to deport all Russians from everywhere abroad.
Putin's paranoia is that other states reason like him and understand him as well as he thinks he understands them. Putin would engage in genocide in their position hence Ukraine was a Nazi state.
And it had zero to do with Russian speaking Ukrainians or Russian minority too.
I tend to think that he fell for his own propaganda orders as they came back given his very visible symptoms of long term steroid use and dementia. But it doesn't really matter what he fools himself with and what he knows is a lie.
Putin and Russia recycle same excuses and points across countries all the time. It does not make it harder for them, they work around the same each time.
I don't think there is much evidence of dementia or whatever. The rumors about Putin bad health are there constantly for years and none of them ended up confirmed.
Well most of the world doesn't have the horrific Russian state mindset. To us civilized ones, disrupting the generally reasonable status quo to blow people up into submission is very wrong.
However, in the grand scheme, this would not be an efficient use of resources.
"An upgrade to the virtually unarmed Moldovan military, which received its first Piranha armored vehicles from Germany a few weeks ago, is also on the table.
"At present, the country could hardly defend itself even against the separatists in Transnistria, who probably have dozens of battle tanks and other heavy military equipment, along with the large stocks of ammunition. Ukraine has therefore offered to provide military assistance if Moscow and the separatists provoke a conflict. But any suggestion that Ukraine is planning a military intervention in Moldova is absurd and at best a pretext for the Kremlin to justify its belligerence. Ukraine can certainly do without committing its military resources to a second front."
Putin styles himself as the "Defender of Ethnic Russians". Whether that is an excuse or a serious reason is probably a political question.
Given that, and the NATO encroachment, I'd think there would be an excellent reason for Putin to want Transnistria - pushing the borders back that far gives him buffer zones that includes Mountain ranges and help shore up his defenses if he captures all of Ukraine. Because Transnistria is mountainous, it provides a barrier for invading forces, and a number of attractive choke points.
> ... ethnic migration resulted in its current ethnic diversity: 158,000 Russians (33.8%), 153,500 Moldovans (33.2%), and 124,200 Ukrainians (26.7%). Throughout the Soviet period, these ethnic populations lived in harmony, freely speaking their respective languages and intermarrying. Thus, nationalism was traditionally an unappealing ideology to the multi-ethnic communities of Transnistria.
> ... The Transnistrians of 1989 and 1990 were not part of a grand Russian strategy to destabilize Moldova. Rather, the protests and independence referendums in these years were grassroots efforts by a multi-ethnic population, which felt threatened by Moldovan nationalism and pan-Romanianism. Only in the years after these actions did Moscow begin to exploit the conflict. As ties with Russia increased, Russian chauvinism usurped true linguistic equality and multiculturalism in Transnistria.
[0] https://www.defensemirror.com/news/27318/Fake_Russian_Ka_26_...
https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/national/201903/21/01-521...
So I'd presume those Russian-speaking Moldovans simply talk about their Russian values and defending their Russian uniqueness, but they won't say they're Russians simply because they lack a word. Maybe Transnitrians?
The quoted text is from this author:
William Zadeskey is a 2022 MA graduate of The Ohio State University. He completed his undergraduate degree in Russian and International Studies also at Ohio State. His area of concentration is the Politics, Culture, and History of Romania, Moldova, and Transnistria. Will's Master's thesis, The Origins of the Separation Between Moldova and Pridnestrovie (Transnistria), explored the legacy of Soviet nationality policy, the multicultural character of Transnistria, and the events of 1989-90 that drove a wedge between Moldova and Transnistria.The past invasions have been both painful and costly, and they must not be repeated. This goal is shared by the whole world, because Russia will not endure another siege of Stalingrad/St. Petersburg without bringing armageddon, nor can they be expected to do so.
I believe that, if the West delivers sufficient guarantees to Russia's territorial integrity and lifts sanctions, peace could be attained.
The guarantees would have to be very real.
The Russian preference of buffer states has very real causes. Were this a few hundred years ago, this conflict would have resulted in legions bound for Moscow. We can no longer afford this.
Or they can leave behind Urals and anchor their defenses there.
The major population centers are all in the West.
Another European hoard, in an onslaught attack must be stopped, at any cost.
This is the reasonable judgment of Russia.
The United States does have profound influence to ensure this, which we should exercise.
Violence on an order that is unthinkable would ensue, in that event.
Ukrainian invasion does not look possible, and what other nation would dare?
But the losses of Russia in the great European war we so very vast, that this cannot be asked again.
For Ukrainians, this is also true. I wish there was an answer.
No one was going to invade Russia.
This list is not small.
Let’s look at the most recent practical examples on this list.
> War of Dagestan (1999), a repulsed Chechen invasion of Dagestan.
Both Chechnya and Dagestan are internal areas in Russia so this is more of a civil war than anything else.
And anything before that is before Russia got nukes.
So I really don’t think anyone is gonna invade Russia now days.
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2023/01/31/wo...
https://news.sky.com/story/russias-economy-has-weathered-the...
https://www.newsweek.com/russias-economy-forecast-outperform...
https://www.politico.eu/article/west-munich-security-confere...
https://archive.is/2023.02.23-211202/https://www.nytimes.com...
There's a reason his legacy is that of a persona-non-grata in today's Russia.
Their problem was always the suppression of Russian nationalism in the Soviet Union.
He also sought for the party to remain in power, but when push came to shove, didn't turn to the old playbook of violence and repression.
They had no idea where it is, while strenuously asserting that the West should stay out of the conflict, and mind its own business.
Transnistria is a huge fortress in Eastern Europe that can act as a platform for many of Russia's goals. It has not yet been called into action because it is too valuable.
This means that covert access from the Black Sea is available.
This further means that the region has enormous offensive capability that is installed and operational.
Russia put nuclear weapons in Cuba. European tacticians likely know exactly what is in Transnistria.
Transnistria is west of Odesa sandwiched between Moldova and Ukraine. There is only Dniester river nearby, which goes into Zatoka gulf, which is completely controlled by Ukraine. And only access to Zatoka is choke point Pidyomnyy Bridge How any Russian ship will get there without being shot to pieces?
All that needs to move covertly is the payload.
After Cuba, this was likely carefully studied.
Just look at a terrain map with roads. Exits (or entrances) from the Carpathian mountains are incredibly important to control. They've been strategically important for literal millennia.
That explains why Moldova is so rich, thanks to those vital routes through mountains they can tax local merchants.
The answer in my opinion is that like the US Russia's leader's are too old. When you're older 20-30 years is like a few years passing by. To putin it was not so long ago when NATO agreed not to expand eastward but also when Russia agreed to Ukraine's independence in exchange for them giving up nukes.
After Iraq and Afghanistan, Putin knew that it was the right time to start invading, because the one critical weakness of America is it's dependence of the will of the people to start and continue to fight a war. America is still weary of "boots on ground". That's why he didn't envision so much western support for Ukraine because he would assume the west would not risk a possible escalation to war, but the west is able to go all the way up to the red line and all but cross it.
Russian leaders and Putin in particular believe that the only way to be great, given their vast territory and relatively small population and the only way to have the home land of western Russia prosper is by having strategic advantage over others. Primarily, this means dominating its neighbors but also interfering in random countries (much like the US) as well.
I believe until Hillary Clinton screwed up the relationship with Putin as Obama's secretary of state he was open to the idea of being freinds with the west, so long as they let him be a good old dictator and do whatever he wants.
Hillary (and by proxy Obama) made the mistake of trying to force human rights, democracy, gay rights,etc... which meant being critical of Russia, meanwhile pushing THAAD to eastern NATO countries in a time of peace.
What was the expectation? For putin to go down like Gadaffi? To have a russian arab spring and Putin quietly retire to his Yacht? Come on!
The west could not tolerate Putin nor could it stop interfering with Russias internal matters including the whole Chechnya thing which even to regular Russians that made them upset against the west.
So in my opinion, Putin had two choices, accept western influence and eventually allow for a democratic Russia with liberal western ideals and cede power and influence over the oligarchs (who also don't want democracy or western liberalism) and militarily, imagine being a nuclear power and your neighbors have ICBM interceptors which meant neutering your nuclear capability (imagine russia having those in mexico and canada) which is obviously an act of agression he would have to tolerate. The second option would be to resist.
I can't support Putin's invasions of course but the west cornered a bear and everyone acts shocked when the bear starts mawling everyone near it.
It is pure western dishonest propaganda to say Putin like Hitler just wants more territory and will invade all of europe if no one stops him. Even if he controlled all of eastern Europe western expansion means nuclear war. At best he will invade all eastern europe countries that are not nato members with the exception of Poland,Finland and sweden.
Do you know why he interfered in the 2016 elections so much? Because freaking Hillary Clinton who already pissed him off with arrogant western expansion/interference and disrespect was about to become president, so he recruits a rich new york asshole that's been in bed with the Russian mob since the early 90s and you know the rest of the story.
The one single act of this century that will reshape the power dynamics of world super powers (and possibly a lot more than that) is the democratic party's insistence on nominating Hillary Clinton who emodies a special brand neo-liberal "manifest destiny" . Bernie would tell putin to go f himself but would not put THAAD in eastern europe or demand democracy in russia knowing full well that means deposing and agitating the current dictator of Russia.
Pride and arrogance comes before downfall.
Edit: to those who are downvoting me, I just ran into this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/24/vladim... It explains Putin's thinking behind Ukraine's invasion. I am not justifying his invasions but pointing out the role of the west in knowingly being hostile and provoking Putin. It is this same neocolonial "manifest destiny" thinking that is resulting in so much hostility with China.
>Pride and arrogance comes before downfall.
Describes the current situation quite well! I'm sure Putin thought those backwater Ukrainians will bend the knee to Russias "superior military might". Putin's invasion of Ukraine is one of the greatest foreign policy blunders of the past 50 years
Yeah, it's weird, as Russia is huge.
If they really wanted a strategic buffer, they'd have created one using their own, existing territory.
eg Redraw their "unfriendly" border areas (say) 100km inwards, with that 100kms being a DMZ.
Russia is so big, people would be hard pressed to notice that on a map.
But Russia insists on pointing at other countries, saying "they're our strategic buffer" instead.
Then acts all surprised when those same countries are like "Well, fuck that!", and join together against this wannabe bully of their nations.
How much of Canada's population is within 100 km of the US border? Admittedly, the War Department put away its invasion plans ninety years ago or thereabouts.
If they want a strategic buffer so badly, they have the room to make one. :)
Guess it sucks if they need to inconvenience the population a bit, but what other option is there?
Oh yeah, they could just invade other countries instead.
Pretty sure that won't inconvenience their population either. <-- SARCASM HERE ;)
Russia is big but the homeland is in western Russia, they would have to move their big cities to the east, far away from trade routes and gas pipes to europe and at an impractical cost.
Keep in mind, the buffer is not just for invasions but for icbms. To shoot down one, the earlier, the better. Once they enter space it's harder than hitting a bullet with another bullet. ICBMs are their proverbial penis and THAAD is a strategically placed castration device if I can be a bit obscene here. This also includes medium range missiles of course but essentially, Russia wouldn't be able to use nukes effectively against countries to its west and south.
Yeah, that seems like the heart of the problem.
Apparently the better option was to just invade those wilful neighbours, and force them to use their territory as a buffer zone instead.
Except, that's not at all how it's going to play out. Not after the "Fool me once..." Crimea invasion.
I concede that you are correct about intercontinental missile defense. However, why was it neccesary to place THAAD in easter europe in a time of peace then? What I am saying is if what you are saying is true then that means the US and the west acted in such an agressive way in a time when they were pledging to be closer and friendlier with Russia, all as a formal act of an alliance formed to counter Russia. It was literally a campaign promise by Hillary.
Is there a prior act of agression by Russia I am not aware of or a non-Russian threat that required THAAD deployment in eastern Europe I am not aware of? I mean, the US could also arm countries with US controlled nukes like with Turkey but does not do so to avoid provoking Russia, so why was the defensive THAAD given the greenlight then? Strategic blunder? Curios on your take.
Again, I must thank you for attacking my reasoning only instead of character or intent like others.
Turkey is just one of five countries that participate in the NATO nuclear sharing program.
It maybe a defensive weapon but when you're a NATO member by way of article 5 along with everything else NATO offers it becomes yours to use. If canada and mexico were russia's allies and russia had a similar technology, would we dismiss it for being purely defensive or work against our neighbors (as with cuba) to change that? Russia's main military strength is their nuclear forces, a defensive weapon changes variables in "mutually assured destruction" it is that much less mutual what the fallout from nukes would be.
I am not supporting Russian reasoning, simply describing it.
> To putin it was not so long ago when NATO agreed not to expand eastward
This never happened. There has been no such agreement.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16119-document-08-letter-...
There is reputable source mentioning when during a negotiation, the US promised in return for a unified Germany there would be no eastward NATO expansion.
The argument you probably heard is that this was not a legally binding agreement. However, between sovreign nations, there is no superior authority by which you can determine what is legal or not, there is no rule of law to govern the world, international law boils down to agreements between sovreign nations and while this was not a formal treaty signed on paper it is dishonest to say that a promise made in public by an official representative of the US and NATO is non-binding. If you make a verbal agreement in any other aspect of law and choose to dishonor that agreement, so long as there is provable documentation of your agreement, you are still found liable right? This is the case in just about any country because it is aligned with a basic principle of justice: your word is your bond.
> You're being downvoted because you're perpetuating Russian lies and false perspectives.
Please sir/madam, attack my arguments all you want but don't attack my character or intent or downvote me based on false assumptions like that. It goes against the spirit of HN to discourage honest and sincere attempt at discourse like this.
I do not know or care if part of what I said aligns with what Russians are saying. My argument is not correct or incorrect because of what Russians think. I provided a rational explanation of my reasoning which you are free to attack. I do not support Russia or their invasions or Putin or Trump or whatever parisan boogeyman you can think of. I made my argument as an individual observing in my limited capacity the facts at hand for which I am glad to be corrected. Please don't attack or misrepresent my character or intent.
So you already know there was no such agreement or promise, and still try claim it as such. You know there's a good reason all the HN discussions in this topic get locked down -- they get immediately targeted by disinformation and indefensible Russian imperialist ideology.
> Please don't attack or misrepresent my character or intent.
I hope you can acknowledge that I'm not attacking you. I don't know you, so I can't know about your intents. The outcome, however, is that you end up repeating Russian propaganda and lies, and that's why you get downvoted.
Clearly I laid out reasons why there is a promise yet you claim I am fraudulently claiming otherwise?
> they get immediately targeted by disinformation and indefensible Russian imperialist ideology.
I don't give a shit about russian ideology, if you don't care to disagree and correct what I said respectfully it would be better if you said nothing at all.
Russians use this reason to justify their actions, I did not justify anything Russia did. You can only join NATO by invitation, when expanding an alliance in a time of peace, it makes sense for the only real enemy of the alliance to fear how they'll fare in the event of a future military conflict no? And NATO knew that and played chicken with a psychotic dictator.
You peope that think the way you do are caught up in morality and who is right and wrong. I am talking about what actions led to conflict and how peace can be acheived. I don't care who you blame, it would not be nice if Ukraine is just the start
Why did countries join NATO in peacetime?
>And then I put the following question to him Would you prefer to see a unified Germany outside of NATO independent and with no US forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO with assurances that NATO's jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position
ie. he asked in discussions what he'd think of NATO agreeing not to shift east. That is quite different from actually agreeing to do so. I can ask you what would you think of me sending you $1m and that is not the same as me committing to do so.
To state the obvious, no such thing occured.
Putin's nostalgia for it, while admirable, is bumbling desperation at best.
ಠ_ಠ
That being said, “They” are not trying to “be” USSR again. That would be missing the entire story behind how the Union was dissolved and the (contrived?) ideology that held it together before that. The USSR was a completely different animal.
“They” just want influence and domination in a sort of neo-medieval mobster-capitalist sort of way. That’s all they have known since the 1980’s and that’s how they think the world really works. When they see nearby countries opting into the Western system, they think it is a conspiracy that must be countered. They have a very hard time understanding that much like the USSR, the US is oriented around actually pursuing the tenets of the ideology it is founded on.
Putin offers something very attractive to the poor, shared oil wealth which is why he's been going after the oligarchs who took their wealth abroad. 2nd or 3rd largest global oil reserves can be found there. Saudi Arabia and the Middle East is too unstable and running dry.
The Anglo-Saxon model of wide wealth distribution will be used against the West.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/why-the-b...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64595322
Moldova's government has collapsed and its pro-EU prime minister has stepped down after 18 months of political and economic turbulence.
Europe's poorest country was struggling with "multiple crises", outgoing PM Natalia Gavrilita said on Friday.
With the war raging in neighbouring Ukraine, Moldova has been facing inflation, high energy prices, a refugee influx and Russian aggression.
https://www.google.com/search?q=oil+in+yuan
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insight...
"China, the world's largest buyer of crude, has opened the door to trading crude oil and natural gas in its local currency, rather than the Dollar"
Describing it as a "collapse" is purposefully misleading.
That’s what Crimea is for.
Not really sure what to say about the bit with the “shared” oil wealth. Is that something he has ever offered to “the poor” over the past 25 years that he has been in power?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coef...
There isn’t a big difference here.
Moldova is almost useless (for that purpose) unless its used to invade Western Ukraine and Romania. They control an impressive 0 meters of Black Sea coast and a whopping 500 meters of Danube's left bank.
The Black Sea is already controlled by Turkey (and NATO). Thank the Montreux convention [1] for that. Turkey's fleet is several times bigger (compared to Russian's presence on the Black Sea) and unlike Russian's they can move freely and expand its capabilities faster. Russia can't even effectively block grain ships parting from Odessa.
Moldova is under Kremlin's radar since its independence thanks to the breakaway territory of Transnistria. The region is a hot mess thanks to USSR policies of changing borders of its republics at whim without caring about the local population. The consequences of USSR's fall did a huge damage to Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia. Some regions have already recovered like the Baltic states or Poland. Transnistria, like Crimea or Ukraine used to be part of the Russian Empire since they conquered both of them to the Ottoman Empire and the Tatars. Its population was and is a mixture of Ukrainians, Moldovans and Russians. Ukraine and Crimea have their fair share of history compared to Transnistria though. And obviously, there's not an easy solution to this problem.
[0] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/nato_countries.htm [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_...
The article 5 says: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and [...] each of them,[...] will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, [...] such action as it deems necessary"
It doesn't mean at all that if there is an invasion by unmarked troops coming from Belarus into Poland that Washington is going to send all the nukes on Moscow.
For example, they could consider appropriate reaction to send financial "support" (like a loan), but they don't have to declare or enter total war (which is a common misconception).