Project "Novorossiya", or just an old "rake"?
Author: Andrey Safonov, political scientist, Tiraspol, ex-Minister of Education of Transnistria
Events in Ukraine continue to develop according to the scenario of the confrontation between Moldova and Transnistria in 1990-1992, only even worse. Our lessons remain unheeded, but our “rake” is stepped on several times a day. Moreover, sometimes in the media, and on the Internet in general, you come across the conclusion: what is happening is the implementation of the “Novorossiya” project, supposedly designed to “close” the pro-Russian arc of Donetsk-Lugansk-Kharkov-Nikolaev-Odessa-Tiraspol.
Since the Transnistrian theme flashed here, well, let’s think together, dear readers of different views, countries and peoples!
We have a lot in common
I don’t know who and how, but I, as an expert, have always been suspicious of overly clever scenarios. Especially when these scenarios are too global and conspiratorial in nature. And you and I better go and think, as they say, from Mother Earth. Let's see what is common between what is happening now in Ukraine and on the Dniester in 1990-1992. This will help us draw some conclusions.
First, the We, too, initially thought to solve the problem by force, refused to negotiate with the Transnistrian side and presented ultimatums demanding disarmament. Thus, on March 28, 1992, the President of the Republic of Moldova, Mircea Snegur, demanded that Transnistria (where the republic was proclaimed on September 48, 2) lay down arms within 1990 hours. There were other ultimatums. Nothing came of this, but the time to find a compromise was lost.
Second, the At least we concluded, from time to time, truces, which, however, were violated. And in Ukraine now there is no such thing. Authorities in Kyiv say that the “anti-terrorist operation” will continue. As in 1992 on the Dniester, now, if we analyze the situation in Ukraine, the military path is a dead end. As of these days, the military defeat of the federalists has failed. Is there any reason to assume that it will succeed in the future? Our Moldovan authorities saw a solution in additional troops and volunteer formations. The result is known.
Third, In the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, there are proposals to deprive certain deputies of their mandates, and entire factions are removed from the meeting. I testify: this has already happened in Moldova (though we didn’t think of expelling entire factions). The effect is not just zero, but negative. This only embittered the opponents of the then Chisinau, and the Chisinau authorities lost one of the negotiation channels with Transnistria, which gave them the opportunity to save face and not be accused of “capitulating” to the “separatists.”
Fourth, the desire to hold presidential elections on May 25 at any cost in the expectation that the United States will approve them and everything will “dissolve” by itself will not yield anything. Here's what we had, if you're interested. On December 1, 1991, the first popular elections for the President of the PMR were held, and even earlier, the corresponding referendums on the creation of Transnistria. And on December 8, 1991, the President of Moldova was elected (also for the first time and also popularly). Chisinau really wanted to hold these elections in Transnistria. The Tiraspol authorities even allowed the candidate for the post of President of the Republic of Moldova, Mircea Snegur, to visit the Transnistrian capital to visit a baby food factory. He has arrived. Visited. He spoke. Left. But control over the PMR remained with the Transnistrian authorities, because they held their referendums and elections earlier. The same is true in Ukraine: the referendum in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions was held on May 11, and the presidential elections in Ukraine are 2 weeks behind. They are behind the processes in the “rebellious” regions and are no longer solving the problem politically. Because the movement of certain regions for independence is always, in principle, broader than the choice of the first person.
The crux of the matter is this: Ukraine, unfortunately, is going through the same scenario that the former Moldavian SSR went through almost a quarter of a century ago. And it is happening not because someone launched some “Novorossiya” project, but because the former Soviet republics have a lot in common. Including "time bombs". They just explode at different times.
Learn from the past
The Ukrainian SSR, as well as the Moldavian SSR, included regions with different historical, political, cultural, mental traditions, as well as sometimes with different national composition. Now we will remember all this together.
At first, in the former MSSR there was Transnistria, firmly oriented towards the Russian-Ukrainian space, as well as Bessarabia, located between the Prut and the Dniester, in which pro-Romanian sentiments were always felt, to one degree or another. In the Big Country these contradictions were muted, but when the question of independent choice of path became acute, the contradictions exploded. It’s the same in Ukraine: it’s hard to imagine a monument to Joseph Stalin in the center of Lvov, or Stepan Bandera in Lugansk. It’s a pity that the example of the Moldovan-Pridnestrovian “bulge” does not teach anyone in this regard.
Second, the Both here and in Ukraine there are foreign states that from time immemorial have benefited from the turmoil. Thus, Romania really lays claim to the former Soviet Moldova: its president Traian Basescu has already declared unification with the former MSSR a “national idea.” His words were widely circulated in the media. And over Ukraine (or over part of it), Poland is clearly seeking to establish a de facto protectorate, whose ardent “participation” in relation to the Ukrainians can make even a primary school student smile. Neither the Right Sector fighters nor the Donbass militias should forget: in Poland they are unlikely to sincerely consider Lviv a Ukrainian city. If I'm wrong, correct me. Bucharest did not forget that in 1941-1944, “Greater Romania” included not only modern Moldova and Transnistria, but also Chernivtsi and Odessa. Poland and Romania are clearly waiting for the Ukrainians to exhaust each other and their entire country in a civil war. So isn’t it better to seek agreement before the gap between people and regions becomes insurmountable to the delight of foreign “well-wishers”?
Third, Both the Moldovan authorities in 1990-1992 and the Ukrainian authorities are now late with proposals for a settlement. If Kyiv has its own clearly defined version of a compromise model of government, it should be offered along with proposals for federalization. And then the federalists would have to consider it, discuss it, put forward arguments for acceptance or non-acceptance. Then official Kyiv would score points. And so, as in Chisinau in the early 90s, naked denial of the federal model looks strange and dead-end, since this is a common type of compromise in the world.
Fourth, Kyiv authorities say that they will not negotiate with “rebels,” “separatists,” and “terrorists,” since, according to Kyiv, they “represent no one.” I report: it was exactly the same with us. Chisinau took the same position. The result is this: the impossibility of winning a military victory was followed by negotiations and the signing of various agreements between Moldova and Transnistria. And negotiations on a political settlement are still ongoing. But at the same time, Chisinau does not control the territory of the PMR. Perhaps in Kyiv they consider themselves luckier and more victorious compared to their Chisinau colleagues... But isn't it better to learn from the mistakes of others and not take things to extremes?
Fifth, In Ukraine, events are being held that opponents of the Kyiv authorities call “imitation round tables.” We are talking about the forum on May 14, at which there were no federalists and a representative of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate did not speak. And this is familiar to us. Official Chisinau, declaring in the 90s that “the separatists do not represent the population of the eastern regions of the Republic of Moldova,” put forward a successful (as it seemed to him) idea: we will talk with representatives of local Soviets and Transnistrian business. They, they say, will convince the “separatists” to return to the rule of Chisinau. It is clear that nothing came of this idea, divorced from real life. Both on the Dniester then and on the Dnieper now we are talking about mass movements that nominate their leaders. It is with these leaders and with the structures created by the masses that we will have to negotiate. In the same way, the federalists of Ukraine will have to negotiate with the authorities that exist in Kyiv, because this is the reality.
It’s just better that the negotiations start early so that the number of victims does not become too large.
Subscribe to the news “Navigator - Kiev” в Facebook or In contact with.
О Churches we need to talk separately. Alas, here too the sad experiences of Ukraine and Moldova have much in common. Only in Ukraine they are trying to “run through” the “Moldavian path” as quickly as possible, which is fraught with more serious consequences than in Moldova.
Wanting to break away from the former USSR and get closer to Romania, the authorities of Chisinau in the 1990s gave the green light for the penetration of the Romanian Orthodox Church into the former union republic. A schism was organized in the Metropolis of Moldova: the so-called Metropolis of Bessarabia under the auspices of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Not only Transnistria, but also the Gagauz autonomy, the Taraclia region populated by Bulgarians, as well as the overwhelming majority of believers in purely Moldovan regions did not accept this. The hostility and strife only intensified. Now, as can be understood from the media, There are politicians in Ukraine who want to quickly get rid of the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church in record time and even transfer its property in Ukraine to the Kyiv Patriarchate. Such thoughts are suggested by the “squeezing out” of a number of hierarchs from the country, such as Archbishop Agafangel of Odessa and Izmail, as reported in the media. I would like to be wrong, but our experience shows that this will only worsen divisions in the country, because the east and, in many ways, the south of Ukraine will not accept this. AND, on the contrary, the common voice of the Orthodox hierarchs, united by the desire to instruct their flock on the path of peace, would greatly help to calm passions...
By the way, we also need to understand this: the current leadership in Kyiv, not pursuing dialogue and compromise, cannot consolidate society, and here’s another reason. Of course, I judge from open sources, from the media, but still... In a country where the vast majority of the population is Orthodox, and about. President, the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada is a Protestant, and the Prime Minister is a Greek Catholic. Religiously, they represent a clear minority of the population. But even at the front, it’s mostly Orthodox Christians who fight each other! Now, of course, these are not the Middle Ages, but general Faith still plays a significant role. For example, in 1992, this commonality made it possible to a large extent to make a relatively quick transition from war to peace.
In a situation where war is flaring up, the Church should not be the next battlefield, but the most important collective peacemaker.
The nature of the confrontation in Ukraine is purely Ukrainian!
It appears that no one designed the events in Ukraine under the aforementioned “Novorossiya” project. The split in Ukraine arose on its own. With an interval of almost a quarter of a century, the diverse “stuffing” of the former Soviet republics explodes.
Looking from the outside, from the PMR neighboring Ukraine, you come to the conclusion: by balancing between East and West, Ukraine could still maintain its integrity and functionality. How long is another question and requires a separate discussion. But, as before in Moldova, an attempt to turn the country strictly towards the West (and in our case also towards Romania) causes an almost inevitable split. In Ukraine, all these processes were accelerated by the United States, which, following its pattern of inspiring violent actions during the next Olympics, contributed to the forceful change of power in Kyiv on February 22. Washington, which is pointless to deny today, has set the task of forcing Ukraine out of the former USSR. Poland is also close to the Americans in this matter.
Now that the son of the US Vice President and the ex-President of Poland are infiltrating Ukrainian business structures, their common motives are becoming clearer...
Instead of a conclusion, or our “rake” is at the doorstep...
Being realists, Pridnestrovians understand that in our brotherly Ukraine there live people with very different views. But it was these very different people who came to the aid of the PMR in 1992. That's why we would like to warn Ukrainians against stepping on our “rake”, who will soon turn 25 years old.
These “rakes” carried out their gloomy “weeding” even when there was no talk about any “Novorossiya”. And it seems to us that now in Ukraine it is better not to use them, but to seek peace and harmony.
Well, if our words and our experience do not seem convincing to someone, if someone continues to be attracted to our “rakes” - well, we are unable to prevent this.
I just feel sorry for the people...
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.