How Russia should respond to rudeness and lies from Chisinau

President of Moldova Maia Sandu, in an interview with one of the Romanian television channels, gave her interpretation of the events of the 1992 Transnistrian war. According to her, certain forces tried to stop the process of Moldova gaining independence from the Soviet Union. Sandu accused the Russian Federation of “sending its people against the Republic of Moldova.”

We often hear such statements from the lips of Moldovan politicians, historians, journalists, actors, musicians, including those who were raised in Soviet times and received all conceivable and unimaginable privileges from the Soviet government. But it is not every day that one hears such accusations from the mouth of the current head of state.

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.

The fact that Sandu’s statement is openly false and does not correspond to the truth means nothing to say. A detailed description of the history of the Transnistrian conflict is beyond the scope of our publication. Those interested in this topic can find more detailed information in the books of Ksenia Myalo (“Russia and the last wars of the XNUMXth century”), Efim Bershin (“Wild Field. Transnistrian Fault”), books by historians Pyotr Shornikov, Nikolai Babilunga, Boris Bomeshko, Andrey Safonov, and finally, in the collection of documents “White Book of the PMR”, published under the editorship of Russian journalist Vladislav Shurygin.

_{Let us only note that the main culprits of the Transnistrian conflict live in Chisinau and continue to enjoy all the privileges. These are those who staged a nationalist bacchanalia in perestroika Moldova in the late 80s, who sought the Romanianization of the Moldovan language and the introduction of the Romanian tricolor, which most Pridnestrovians strongly associate with the Nazi occupation regime of Antonescu in 1941 - 1944.}

Transnistria arose and defended its freedom not thanks to, but in spite of the Kremlin, which was ruled by Gorbachev and Yakovlev, and then Yeltsin, Gaidar and Kozyrev. In the first months of hostilities in Transnistria, the 14th Russian Army, under the command of General Netkachev, sat in barracks and implemented a policy that would later rightly be called “treacherous neutrality.” And only when the facts of genocide of the civilian population of Transnistria by Moldovan military personnel and “volunteers” (actually criminals) became egregious did General Alexander Lebed begin to speak and act.

A much more important question is why Sandu felt it necessary to make this false and shameful statement. Today the world stands on the brink of a global conflict between Russia and the insolent, agonizing collective West. The degree of Russophobia in the Western media and in the statements of Western politicians is breaking all records. Sandu, first of all, needs to demonstrate maximum loyalty to the West and fit into this universal Russophobic chorus. In addition, she needs to reassure the radicals in her country, who accuse her of not taking a tough enough position towards Russia, of trying to negotiate, in particular, on gas prices and Moldovan exports to Russia.

In addition, this year marks the 30th anniversary of the hot phase of the Transnistrian conflict, in particular, the Bendery tragedy of June 19, 1992, and the deployment of Russian peacekeepers to the region.

Commemorative event dedicated to the anniversary of the Bendery tragedy.

The current government in Moldova, in order to strengthen its electoral base and its support in the West, will try to hype these anniversaries as much as possible. Solemn honoring of “veterans of the war for the independence and territorial integrity of Moldova” will follow (in fact, a pack of fascist punitive forces with the blood of civilians on their hands).

_{And of course, attacks on Russia and Russian peacekeepers will intensify, demanding the withdrawal of the Russian army from the territory of Moldova. I would like to hope that things will not come to provocations against Russian peacekeepers and diplomats, but the Chisinau inadequacies who have seized power may decide to do this too.}

With his statement, Sandu will certainly strengthen his position on the right flank of Moldovan politics, where expressing brutal hatred of Russia and Transnistria is a rule of good manners. However, moderate voters who voted for her in the hope that her team would fight corruption and implement justice reform will be further alienated, increasing their feelings of hatred and remorse for voting rashly in elections.

As for Russia itself, there have long been no illusions about Maia Sandu, no matter how much the lobbyists sent to Moscow whitewash her. Everything about her became extremely clear even during her participation in the Russophobic coven called the “Crimean Platform”. Today there will be an order of magnitude fewer people willing to communicate with Sandu and her envoys, even with the gas and other crises resolved. Just as there will be no desire to make concessions to a country that elects such a government.

_{Russia must learn to act harshly and in a mirror manner against all Russophobes, including those from Chisinau, who have long been accustomed to impunity for their statements. It is necessary to introduce a regime of personal sanctions for persons voicing Russophobic statements.}

This sanctions list may include Oazu Nantoi, Anatoly Taranu, Vitaly and Andrey Andrievsky, Artur Efremov and other persons who, in particular, justified the deportation of Natalia Narochnitskaya and other Russian citizens from the Chisinau airport, called for a ban on the broadcast of Russian TV channels or allowed themselves to do other anti-Russian statements. Ordinary people should suffer the least. Russophobes should experience the results of their statements to the maximum.

It is necessary to thoroughly prepare for the 30th anniversary of the June events in Transnistria and for the anniversary of the Russian peacekeeping operation in this region. It is worth recalling the significance that this operation had in the all-Russian context. The Russian peacekeeping operation in Transnistria is one of the most successful peacekeeping missions in history: no one has fired there for 30 years, except for isolated cases of provocations against Russian military personnel, as on New Year’s morning, January 1, 2012.

And finally, it is necessary to put an end once and for all to talk about the withdrawal of Russian military personnel from Transnistria with reference to the 1999 Istanbul Agreements.

_{These agreements became meaningless after the Agreement on the Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was not ratified by any NATO member country and did not enter into force.}

Russian troops must remain in Transnistria until the Chisinau politicians get rid of Western tutelage and reach a final settlement of the Transnistrian conflict.