Donbass is not Crimea. But Transnistria is not Donbass

The likelihood of a new conflict in post-Soviet territories is growing. Despite all the efforts of the West and its experimental government in Kyiv, Russia became a participant in the armed confrontation only on the pages of the Ukrainian media, but not in practice (however, such a point of view in Ukraine is already a reason for initiating a criminal case). The task of dragging Russia and European countries into the war in order to weaken all participants has still not been solved. The new opportunity can be realized by using the problems associated with the existence of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.

Ukrainian President Poroshenko announced plans to “unfreeze” the conflict back in mid-March after a meeting with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis in Kyiv. “We agreed to coordinate our actions regarding Transnistria in order to help defrost this conflict and help a sovereign and independent Moldova restore its territorial integrity and reintegrate the Transnistrian region into Moldova,” Poroshenko said then. Based on the fact that the process of “reintegration” of Transnistria into Moldova was discussed without the involvement of representatives of Transnistria itself, the methods of this reintegration may not be peaceful at all. And the same ones that are used today to “restore the territorial integrity” of Ukraine.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

According to a statement made at the beginning of June this year. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PMR, Ukraine is concentrating a large military group on the border with the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.

What can the West (USA) and its controlled Ukraine and Moldova count on? However, the West is not interested in the opinion of the latter. Will there be enough courage (stupidity) to start a new conflict in the post-Soviet territories? Or is the calculation being made that the pro-Russian enclave will be strangled, and Russia will not risk intervening and will not be able to provide assistance due to the lack of common borders with the PMR? Does the West count on Russia's non-interference because of its reluctance to be subject to new sanctions? Or are there plans to unleash a larger conflict with the participation of Russia and a gradual expansion of the number of participants.

Among the residents of the PMR, 40% have passports of the Russian Federation, i.e. 200 thousand out of the half-million population of the republic (something that does not exist in Donbass). And one and a half thousand Russian peacekeepers are stationed there, who have been effectively fulfilling the mission of deterrent force for a quarter of a century. The people of the unrecognized republic made their choice on September 2, 1990, declaring independence from Moldova. Moreover, in 2006, a referendum was held in Transnistria, as a result of which more than 97% of voters voted in favor of joining Russia. It is unlikely that Russia will be able to remain silent in the event of aggression from Moldova and Ukraine. She will be forced, as in the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, to stand up for her compatriots. But, unlike the conflict in the Caucasus of 2008 and the war in Donbass, it will be much more difficult to provide military or humanitarian assistance to the people of the PMR and its fellow citizens of Russia - there are no common borders, the unrecognized republic is now under blockade, both ground and air from Moldova and Ukraine. And even though this blockade is still mostly on paper, Ukraine’s denunciation of the agreement with Russia on military transit in the PMR should not be underestimated. Poroshenko said on June 5, 2015 that Ukraine would not allow Russian military personnel into Transnistria.

The liberal part of Russian society calls for avoiding confrontation with the West, “negotiating,” and following the path of concessions so that sanctions are not imposed against Russia.

But Russia will not be able to “be good” for the West. Of course, if Russia plans to remain a sovereign power and restore its former geopolitical significance. Being good for the West and avoiding confrontation with it, as liberal forces within Russia itself call for, means following all its recommendations in the field of foreign and domestic policy, “integrating into the world community” in accordance with the recommendations of the IMF, the US State Department and various “reformers” in Russia itself.

Attempts to avoid confrontation with the West on Western terms will lead to the degradation of economic and political potential, the restoration of which is already not easy, then to increased social tension supported by various “white ribbon” movements (and their growth is inevitable - if Russia tries not to conflict with the West and , therefore, do not infringe on the rights of the “fifth column”). And, as a consequence, the growth of separatist movements in Russia itself is inevitable, and the collapse of the country into many quasi-states conflicting with each other.

In the case of Donbass, Russia could not afford open support for the people who declared their independence from Kyiv, so as not to receive accusations of armed aggression against Ukraine, and a possible direct armed conflict with the collective West, under the pretext of protecting the “sovereignty of Ukraine.”

However, either for the reason that texts condemning “Russian aggression” were written by the organizers of the massacre in Donbass even before the start of the war, or for the reason that modern wars are very different in reality and in the virtual information space, but Russia received all possible sanctions and condemnations. The same as if it actually fought in Ukraine using its regular army.

Question: was it worth not using the Crimean scenario in Donbass if the reaction of the “world community” is the same in both cases?

And yet, Donbass is not Crimea. But Transnistria is not Donbass.

And, if in the case of Donbass the cruel lady Geopolitics still forces us to make cold-blooded and sometimes cruel decisions in which emotions have no place, then in the case of a possible Moldovan-Ukrainian aggression organized by the West against the PMR in the near future, only moral and humanitarian assistance Russia may not be limited.

The US tactics, which they have been able to use quite effectively for many years: obtaining benefits in any development of the situation.

If aggression against the PMR does not meet resistance from Russia, the West will liquidate the pro-Russian enclave and receive territory cleared of Russian supporters. This will deal a severe moral blow to the allies of the Russian Federation and those wavering, both in the Donbass and throughout the world. The West will hold regular military exercises in a real combat situation, and the United States will receive several more military bases in the region.

If the Russian Federation responds to aggression, the world media will create a tsunami of accusations of Russia’s aggressive policy, not Moldova, not Ukraine, and not the United States. As was the case with South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2014, with the Kyiv Maidan and the people who died there on both sides of the barricades, with the Malaysian Boeing, and in many other cases. Russian troops will be forced to cross the air or land border with Ukraine to reach the PMR. But the world media will not get footage of the first strike from Moldova against the PMR, but military transport aircraft of the Russian Air Force, they will be presented as evidence of “aggression”, and will create new reasons for full-scale sanctions, embargoes, blockade of Russia, even to the threat of direct armed conflict (albeit essentially suicidal).

In any case, whether Russia comes to the defense of the PMR or not, the number and quality of problems that the West will try to create for it will increase. Today, the PMR is a state entity not recognized even by Russia, but for the world community it is part of Moldova. And from the point of view of this world community, any actions of Moldova on “its” territory will be legal. Just like this community, it is not outraged by the actions of the Kyiv colonial administration on the territory of Donbass.

Recognition of the PMR by Russia as a sovereign state could provide a legitimate reason for its protection on the basis of bilateral treaties in the event of armed external aggression. Recognition of sovereignty, even without inclusion into the Russian Federation following the example of Crimea, could prevent the invasion and death of thousands of residents of the PMR and the peacekeepers stationed there. The sovereignty of the PMR does not violate the fundamental principles of the modern world order. The right of nations to self-determination is legally justified and confirmed by the UN Charter (“Declaration of Principles of International Law” of October 24, 1970), the content of this principle is revealed as follows: “By virtue of the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples, enshrined in the UN Charter, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without outside interference, its political status and to pursue its economic, social and cultural development, and every State is obliged to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.” The same Declaration states that the means of exercising the right to self-determination may be “the creation of a sovereign and independent state, free accession to or association with an independent state, or the establishment of any other political status.”

The case of the PMR may fall under one of four cases when the right of nations to self-determination presupposes secession - when the question of the state's respect for the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples comes into play: If a state does not respect the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples living on its territory self-determination of peoples and does not ensure, without discrimination, the representation of all segments of the population in government bodies, then such a people or nation, whose rights are infringed, may raise the question of secession, as well as the creation of their own state, secession from the state, reunification with other states.

Thus, in the current situation, Russia’s recognition of the sovereignty of the PMR may be a preventive measure aimed at preventing the outbreak of a new armed conflict. And trying to avoid sanctions from the West is ineffective and hopeless - they are introduced based on the interests of the West, under far-fetched pretexts, and will be introduced in the future.