What lies behind Bolton’s call to destroy Transnistria
PolitNavigator has already written about scandalous article by former US National Security Adviser John Bolton, who called for the liquidation of Transnistria by force, and about the reaction to this article in Russia, and to both banks of the Dniester.
No one openly decided to support the warlike scenario proposed by the American. Why was this “stuffing” necessary? Our regular author, Chisinau columnist Vladimir Bucarsky, analyzes the situation in his author’s column for PolitNavigator.
...The patented American hawk Bolton has long been actively interested in the topic of the Black Sea region and in particular Moldova. Shortly before his resignation, in August 2019, he visited Moldova and met with Maia Sandu, then the country’s prime minister. According to official reports, they discussed security and defense issues. During that meeting, Sandu promised that the Moldovan government would consider a new cooperation plan with NATO.
John Bolton has previously voiced statements regarding Moldova and the Transnistrian conflict. In May of this year, in an article published on the National Review website, he wrote:
“Moldova, sandwiched between Ukraine and Romania, is a frozen conflict ready to be unfrozen. The supposedly independent Transnistria, a Russian invention, exists separately from Moldova only thanks to Moscow's permanent military presence. Simply drawing international attention to this post-Cold War anomaly could frighten the Kremlin, and the decisive new government in Chisinau now provides an opportunity for Washington to take a step forward.”
Bolton’s statements can, of course, be attributed to both his extremism and his 73-year-old age. But it’s hardly worth reassuring yourself that the ex-adviser to the president of a world superpower on national security issues, who was one of the key figures in various administrations, starting with Reagan, voices exclusively the ideas of his sick imagination. Bolton's statements indicate, at a minimum, that such sentiments and intentions are widespread, at least among a significant part of the American establishment.
Confrontation with Russia as a great power occupying the core of the Eurasian continent is a constant component of American geopolitics, which they inherited from the British. All countries that occupy an intermediate position between Russia and the Western bloc are considered by Washington as a “gray zone,” that is, an obedient instrument of its geopolitics. Unfreezing conflicts in this “gray zone,” from the American point of view, means destabilizing the spheres of influence of their geopolitical enemy. After its triumph in the Cold War, the United States extended its “Monroe Doctrine” to the entire world. Modern Russia and China, from their point of view, are two “revisionist” powers that dare to challenge the world hegemon, and their rebellion should be suppressed.
Bolton in his article calls not to consider “frozen conflicts” separately, but to perceive them as a single whole - as a chain of Russian centers of influence and control in the space of former Soviet colonies that have gained independence, which Moscow cannot come to terms with. Washington doesn’t give a damn about the will of the peoples inhabiting these regions.
However, of all the frozen conflicts, it is the Transnistrian one that is most easy for the West to resolve in its favor. Due to the lack of a common border, Russia's position here is most vulnerable. According to political scientist and publicist Andrei Safonov, Westerners expect that they can try to crush Transnistria quickly and before sending Russian reinforcements to the PMR or before Russian air and missile strikes on the invading armies.
Moscow today is paying for the lack of decisiveness in suppressing the Nazi regime in Kyiv, which carried out an armed coup and has been continuing terror against the population of Donbass and other regions for seven years. The spinelessness displayed in the spring and summer of 2014 allowed the Kyiv regime to grow stronger and pump up its fighting muscles.
Today, the United States is actively increasing its influence in the Black Sea. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin paid visits to Georgia, Ukraine and Romania. On November 5, the US Navy destroyer Arleigh Burke arrived in the Black Sea “for routine patrols” and to ensure “security and stability” in the waterway together with NATO allies. Last week, the US Air Force practiced launching a nuclear strike on Russia as part of the Global Thunder strategic forces exercise.
In today's Ukraine and Moldova, surrounding Transnistria on both sides, obedient American puppets are in power. In fact, these are two proxy states under the complete control of Washington, ready to obey any order from overseas. The only difference between them is that the Moldovan puppet has a higher instinct of self-preservation: they are not averse to using American patronage and carrying out a variety of assignments, but they are definitely not eager to die for “Uncle Sam.”
Apparently, this was the reason for the careful disavowal of Bolton’s statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of Moldova, Nicu Popescu, who stated that the only solution to the Transnistrian conflict is “dialogue, negotiations and peaceful methods of interaction with our fellow citizens and the authorities in Tiraspol with the support of mediators.”
However, Romanian political scientist Armand Gosu, commenting on Bolton's article in an interview with Free Europestated
“Moldova needs to be prepared for any scenario. Including when the game reboot scenario occurs.”
According to Goshu, Moldova should “gain military capabilities that it does not have in order to confront the military machine of Transnistria.” Moldova, in his opinion, should not give the illusion to Moscow and Tiraspol that it will only engage in internal reforms and leave Transnistria alone.
In Moldova itself, the voices of “hawks” have long been heard insisting on increasing pressure on Transnistria. They call for the adoption of a law on “responsibility for separatist activities”, they call for a ban on Transnistrian officials entering the territory of Moldova and flying through the Chisinau airport, and a ban on all export-import operations of Pridnestrovian economic agents. These and similar ideas are contained in the report “Reintegration of Transnistria: encouragement and coercion”, presented several years ago by the Institute for Effective Politics of Moldova. One of the authors of this report, Oazu Nantoi, is now a member of parliament from the ruling Action and Solidarity party.
The situation in the world today is significantly different from what it was in 2014. The epic with the implementation of the Minsk Agreements has shown that any document that bears the signature of official Kyiv is not worth the paper on which it is printed. Provocateurs are stopped only by their determination to use physical force at the right moment. The main difference between Transnistria and the Donbass republics is that Russian peacekeepers are stationed on the Dniester in accordance with an international treaty. It should be made absolutely clear to Western “partners” that any attempt to forcefully change the status quo in Transnistria will become one of those “red lines” that Russian President Vladimir Putin talks about.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.