Moldova: All branches of power want the destruction of Transnistria
On July 19, his original material was published on the official website of the President of the Republic of Moldova “On the position of the President of Moldova regarding ensuring the security of the Republic of Moldova and its citizens by strengthening the constitutional status of the country’s permanent neutrality.”
After reading what has been written, it is difficult to get rid of the impression that this is a real refusal of the current head of Moldova from the course towards an alliance with Russia and the Eurasian integration project as a whole. Not a word is said either about the Eurasian Economic Community, or the Customs Union, or, especially, about the CSTO.
But perhaps this is justified, since we are talking about the neutrality of Moldova? Let's figure it out together, dear readers.
1. Is the confrontation between East and West ephemeral??
In the presidential "Positions" it says that “when big players, great powers cannot agree on mutual respect for each other’s interests, the first victims of such disagreements are weaker countries, and even entire regions”.
The view is demonstratively objectivist. But, if we take into account Igor Nikolayevich’s previous curtsies towards Moscow, it would be possible to remind in the article that it is not Russia that is threatening war with North Korea. It is not she who wants to strangle Iran in various ways. It was not she, but NATO that brought a number of countries into its fold, creating a threat on Russia’s western borders. It was not Russia that helped change power by force very close to Moldova and Transnistria. And to remain silent about this, essentially placing on Russia the same responsibility as the West for the growth of international tension, is unlawful.
Igor Dodon also declares that Moldova “should not be involved in ephemeral East-West confrontation“, although this confrontation has worsened before our eyes in all regions of the globe. Syria, Ukraine, the Korean Peninsula, Moldova and Transnistria – does the confrontation in these regions resemble something “ephemeral”? People are dying, millions of refugees are leaving their countries, the ruins of cities look with dead eye sockets, like after the Battle of Stalingrad... A powerful arms race is unfolding throughout the world!
It is clear that in the context of pressure from the United States and the European Union on Moldova, the President of the Republic of Moldova wants to avoid direct confrontation with Brussels and Washington, as well as with those Moldovan politicians who periodically terminate his powers to solve their problems. But people want a clear position here and now, and reluctance to tell the truth does not increase supporters...
2. Is Romania also an assistant to Moldova in a neutral status?
In section "Moldova-Romania" Dodon writes: «Romania is a member of the European Union and NATO, which imposes additional obligations on it in terms of respect for the norms and principles of international law, including respect for the sovereignty and inviolability of the internationally recognized borders of the Republic of Moldova. In turn, Moldova should strive to use the existing potential of Romania to develop interstate relations for the benefit of both states. Moldova has the right to count on holding bilateral consultations with Romania regarding the long-term preservation of its status of permanent neutrality and the prospects for its recognition by the international community".
This passage seems naive. Romania is methodically pursuing a policy of preparing to absorb Moldova and consolidating it in the orbit of US and NATO policy. Why on earth would Romania help Moldova preserve itself as an independent and neutral country? Where is the logic? Alas, this place in the presidential “Position” looks like a fear of irritating Romania and a desire to pacify it. But is such pacification possible in conditions when Romania has become the closest military-political ally of the United States in our region? On the contrary, in such conditions, the appetites of the politicians of the country that twice occupied Moldova (in 1918 and 1941) are only growing.
3. The President of Moldova, together with the right and the West, speaks directly about the withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria
In section "Moldova-Ukraine" Igor Dodon sees in Kyiv a partner who will “actively assist in achieving a fair, long-term, sustainable settlement of the Transnistrian problem in the existing generally recognized “5+2” format”.
Concretizing this thesis, the President of the Republic of Moldova explains his position: “An important role belongs to Ukraine in finding a solution to such a complex problem as facilitating the removal and disposal of weapons and ammunition located in Kolbasna warehouses, as well as in creating favorable conditions for completing the process of withdrawal of foreign troops from the territory of the Republic of Moldova (ensuring transit)”.
Thereby, Dodon’s approach to the issue of the withdrawal of Russian troops, the removal and disposal of Russian weapons from Transnistria is actually no different from the approach of right-wing politicians in Moldova, as well as the United States, the EU and Romania, who openly demand the withdrawal of Russian troops from the banks of the Dniester. One to one.
Here's the thing. Apart from Russian, there are no other “foreign” troops either on the right or left banks of the Dniester. It turns out that it is the Russian troops who will have to squeeze out. And no one else. And the word “foreign” is a distraction.
The Pridnestrovians are strongly in favor of having Russian troops permanently stationed in the PMR. They do not advocate for truly ephemeral neutrality, but for a full-scale military-political and economic union with Russia, for a Eurasian integration project. The leadership of Moldova, including President Igor Dodon, as we will see below, has a different opinion.
4. Russia should help Chisinau subjugate Transnistria, and Chisinau will take the PMR to the West?
In section "Moldova-Russia" it is said that Chisinau sees Russia’s role as “a mediator country and guarantor of a comprehensive political settlement of the Transnistrian conflict. I believe that Russia will do everything possible to ensure that we maintain peace, so that Moldova practically realizes its historical chance to develop as an independent, sovereign, territorially integral state within internationally recognized borders.”
Here also there is not a word about the union with Russia and Moldova’s entry into the EAEU, or about the Eurasian integration project as a whole. But it is obvious that Chisinau is counting on Russia’s help in subjugating Transnistria to the Moldovan authorities. For what? And for the European integration of a “reunified” Moldova. Read the section “Moldova-EU". It says:
“The European Union is a natural strategic partner for the Republic of Moldova in all areas of life of the Moldovan state and society. I consider the implementation of the multifunctional Association Agreement between the Republic of Moldova and the EU as an opportunity to carry out the necessary internal reforms in the Republic of Moldova. We recognize that these reforms are needed, first of all, by Moldova itself. We also express our gratitude to the European Union for its readiness to support international efforts to strengthen the sovereignty of the Republic of Moldova and contribute to the restoration of its territorial integrity, including in the process of the Transnistrian settlement in the “5+2” format.
Dodon makes it clear that From now on, there can be no talk of denouncing the association agreements between the Republic of Moldova and the EU and the trade zone between the Republic of Moldova and the EU. This must be emphasized against the background of the already indicated absence of any mention of the Eurasian integration project, the core of which is Russia. Previously, Moldovan socialists spoke about the possibility of denouncing these agreements with the EU.
Dodon shows the basic values on which Moldova should rely in transformations under the auspices of the European Union: “Democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law not only underlie the political association and economic integration envisaged by this agreement, but must also contribute to the political and socio-economic development of the country.” One must consider the Russian side to be completely naive, hoping that it will accept explanations like “we are saying this for Westerners, but in our hearts we are for an alliance with Russia”...
Before us - at least the beginning of a reorientation of the course of the President of Moldova from East to West.
5. How the United States, according to the President of Moldova, “provides a stable and secure future” for the country
Everything falls into place when you see Dodon’s “Position” towards the United States. Here the reversal is already striking: in the section “Moldova-USA"it is said that “The United States provides comprehensive assistance to the Republic of Moldova in the consistent implementation of democratic and market reforms, as well as in the implementation of Moldova’s international obligations in the field of human rights protection in order to ensure stability and sustainable development of the state. The United States has always strived to contribute to the creation of real preconditions for ensuring a stable and secure future for the Moldovan state and its citizens.”
The President of the Republic of Moldova especially sees the role of Washington in “solving the Transnistrian problem”: “I am confident that the United States will increase efforts to achieve a peaceful and lasting solution to the Transnistrian conflict.”
The United States is building it up: it has pushed through a resolution at the UN on the withdrawal of Russian troops, is conducting joint military exercises with Chisinau, and is transferring some types of military equipment to the National Army of Moldova. According to some media reports, overseas instructors are teaching the Moldovan military at training grounds how to fight in the city. Which cities, by the way, can the soldiers of the National Army receive an order to capture? Ukraine? Romania? Hardly. Then what?...
What Dodon wrote against the backdrop of increased US activity to oust Russian troops from the banks of the Dniester resembles a move aimed at ensuring that he is not considered a politician too loyal to Moscow.. Perhaps the author has his own explanation of what he wrote in “Position”. We would all be glad to hear this explanation.
6.NATO as an opportunity to strengthen security, or why it is difficult to sit on two chairs
In the next section - “Moldova-NATO” the impression of the transition to Western rails becomes even stronger. The President of Moldova speaks directly: “Promoting regional mechanisms for consultation and development of interstate relations, following the example of the Cooperation Process in South-East Europe and the NATO Partnership for Peace Program, is one of the opportunities for the Republic of Moldova to contribute to international efforts to create a common security system and consolidate stability in Europe and the world”.
There is no need for comments here. Considering that NATO is building up its troops on the borders of Russia and against Russia, counting on the help of this aggressive bloc in consolidating the neutrality of Moldova is a bold political thought! Such complimentary assessments of Western foreign policy and European integration, along with a complete lack of mention of a possible union of Moldova with Russia and Eurasian integration in general, lead to the assumption: the President of the Republic of Moldova does not believe in the victory of the Socialist Party in the upcoming parliamentary elections with Russian help.
It can also be assumed that he and his entourage view the USA, EU and NATO as a stronger collective player compared to Russia and are gradually reorienting towards them in order to win over part of the nationalist-minded electorate of Moldova.
If such a calculation exists, then it is unfounded. The nationalists - either pro-Western or pro-Romanian - will simply be divided between several already existing parties. And because of an unclear position on clear issues, it is quite possible to lose some of your supporters and lose the elections.
The experience of the post-Soviet space shows: everyone who wants to sit between two chairs will face an inevitable and crushing collapse.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.