A view from Tiraspol: Ukraine is repeating the path of the Moldovan-Transnistrian conflict. Is it possible to turn it off?
Tiraspol - Odessa - Kyiv, May 03 (Navigator, Andrey Safonov) - The Odessa tragedy proves that events in Ukraine are increasingly repeating the scenario of the conflict between Transnistria and Moldova, the consequences of which have not yet been overcome. How to prevent the irreparable? About this in the author's column for "Navigator" writes a Transnistrian political scientist Andrey Safonov.
Subscribe to the news “Navigator - Kiev” в Facebook or In contact with
...Yesterday I wrote an article on the situation in Ukraine entitled “Ending the bloodshed is a chance to preserve the integrity of Ukraine.” It said, in particular: “the movement toward civil war may already exclude even federalization as a way to preserve Ukraine within its borders.” And more: “We, who survived 1992, wish you, dear Ukrainians, that the bloodshed will be stopped at this last point.”
Only a few hours passed and by nightfall, after the events in Odessa, after new battles in eastern Ukraine, it became clear that the article was largely outdated and lagged behind developing events. Therefore, after publishing it on social networks, I decided to remake it specifically for Navigator, preserving what remains, in my opinion, relevant.
The fact is that on May 2, Ukraine took a step into a full-scale civil war, and this is in many ways reminiscent of the bloody path of the Moldovan-Transnistrian confrontation of 1990-1992, which ended with the war on the Dniester.
Politically and regionally, Ukraine is hugely divided. The central government in Kyiv is completely oriented towards the West, while its opponents from the east and south are towards Russia. There are also halftones, but these colors are now the main ones. Based on the geopolitical orientation and the position of the West, the authorities in Kyiv do not accept federalization, since the West is afraid that the east and south of Ukraine will not allow all of Ukraine to be brought under the control of the United States, the EU and NATO. Accordingly, since the beginning of the intra-Ukrainian confrontation, Russia has seen federalization as a way to prevent a complete separation of Ukraine from the former USSR in general and from Russia in particular.
Analyzing the situation, one must clearly understand: no one is going to accept Ukraine into the EU. In Washington and Brussels they see her in the following capacity:
1. A weapon in the conflict with Russia - both political and directly military, since the Westerners themselves are clearly not inclined to total wars.
2. Market for dumping goods from the West with the destroyed national economy of Ukraine.
3. A means of preventing the integration of territories and peoples of the former USSR.
This explains that the West is so openly pushing the confrontation in Ukraine towards a bloody outcome in the form of a civil war. Neither the United States nor the EU needs a strong and economically efficient Ukraine under any regime or under any government. Washington and Brussels, insisting on presidential elections in Ukraine on May 25, are clearly not concerned about the fate of the current leaders of Kyiv. Indeed, in the scenario of a civil war, the current authorities of Ukraine will either fall under the burden of the conflict flaring up in the east and south (as the Moldovan pro-Romanian “hawks” fell after the war on the Dniester in 1992), or will be replaced with the help of the West after May 25 (or a little later).
The West, judging by open sources of information, views this government as temporary, transitional, and therefore pushes it to continue using force. Ukrainian oligarchs with the habits of medieval shinkars who moved among the Cossack camps are bringing their share of the troubles.
But even in this extremely difficult situation, which is fraught with further deterioration, the main task remains - to prevent a full-scale civil war in Ukraine. The Moldovan-Transnistrian experience suggests the following possible solutions.
At first, declare a widespread ceasefire. At points of armed confrontation with opposing formations, assign authorized people to monitor compliance with the peaceful situation.
Secondly, announce the cessation of all participation in the internal confrontation of units and formations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The army should be withdrawn to the barracks, an urgent mechanism should be created to monitor the implementation of this decision, making sure that the troops are in permanent deployment points.
Thirdly, in any case, before Victory Day, the opposing sides must release all those detained, arrested and prisoners.
Fourthly, separate all opposing formations to a safe distance from each other. Prohibit individual unit commanders from making independent decisions that entail the use of weapons.
Fifth, commanders of opposing formations to establish contact with each other to avoid all kinds of provocations that could lead to further casualties. Otherwise, the “switchmen” in the person of these same commanders may well be made to blame.
At sixth, in the next 4-5 days, move on to substantive negotiations on the future structure of Ukraine and its foreign policy, which is a subject of disagreement in the country. It is obvious that we cannot do without discussing the federation model, although it will not suit everyone in the south and east of the country. Negotiations should be conducted in a relatively neutral locality (obviously not in Kyiv or Donetsk, not in Odessa or Lvov).
Seventh, to create an All-Ukrainian commission of representatives of various socio-political forces to investigate the events in Odessa.
It is up to the Ukrainians to decide what to do. From our experience I can only say: if this or something similar is not suitable, then all that remains is to stock up on weapons, ammunition, salt, matches and follow the path that we took on the banks of the Dniester 22 years ago.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.