The article provides an analysis of the Genesis, the unfolding, and the specificity of the flow of the Transnistrianconflict, conclusions and forecasts on the situation in post-Soviet Moldova, with the use of security communities’political theory.
Table of Contents:
1. Formulation of the problem
2. The specifics of the conflict: events and facts
1. Formulation of the problem
The purpose of this work is to give an analysis of the genesis, unfolding and specificity of the course of the Transnistrian conflict, to draw conclusions and predictions about the situation in the post-Soviet Moldova, usingmodern political science theory.
According to some political analysts, the Transnistrian conflict within the overall range of the Balkan conflicts [1,2]. As a result of the frozen Transnistrian conflict, on the territory of the former Moldavian SSR, a state formation wasformed, including the Republic of Moldova and the Transnistrian Moldavian Republic. Using the terminology of politologist Karl Deutsch, the author of the concept of security communities in international relations, this state-territorial entity can be described as an “amalgamic” security community. According to K. Deutsch, the maincharacteristic of any security community is the mutual confidence of its members that none of them will resort to force, no matter what disputes arise between them.
And there are two types of security communities – “amalgamic” and “pluralistic”. Karl Deutsch emphasizes the essential difference between integration and amalgamation.
Integration implies the formation of a full-fledged community, while amalgam primarily involves the creation of aformal organization, the establishment of political institutions [3, 4].
Thus, a pluralistic association does not necessarily imply the existence of common formalized political institutions.The followers of K. Deutsch, Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, define the pluralistic association as follows: «themember states of this community must be the bearers of the common basic values developed by social and politicalinstitutions; states should be ready and able to quickly and adequately respond to changes in relationships, which isachieved through loyalty to each other and having a sense of community; besides this, the states should beintegrated with each other to the extent that they do not see any other way of developing relations other than peaceful» .
For Adler and Barnett, a security community based on the strong confidence of its members in the peacefuldevelopment of relationships cannot emerge if there is no mutual trust and common identity among its members. K.Deutsch and his followers agree that a sense of community should first arise in people’s heads, and only then beembodied in one form or another in interstate relations. It is believed that this “sense of community” appears as a resultof close interaction between representatives of national societies, thanks to which they get to know each other betterand are penetrated by mutual trust .
Examples of “pluralistic” associations include the European Community/EuropeanUnion, ASEAN, Eurasian Economic Union. The amalgam community can exist without integration, without a sense ofcommunity, an example of which is the situation in post-Soviet Moldova with the Republic of Moldova andTransnistrian Moldavian Republic . And it seems that a serious practical problem is that the Republic of Moldovaand Transnistrian Moldavian Republic go on to forming a “pluralistic” security community.
2. The specifics of the conflict: events and facts
In order to analyze the events in Transnistria, it is necessary to return to the second half of the 80s, since the sourcesof the conflict originate from there.
First, you need to point out that the policy of «perestroika», proclaimed M. Gorbachev in the mid-1980s, led to anincrease in social activity of the population. In the national republics this was expressed in the creation and rapid growth of social movements uniting representatives of the titular nationality.
In Moldova, the specificity of theideological orientation of the national movement consisted in the proclamation of the thesis about the identity of theMoldovan and Romanian languages and in calls for the unification of Moldova and Romania (especially given thecomplex history of Bessarabia’s annexation to the USSR).
A significant part of the national intelligentsia and the leadership of the Moldavian SSR supported nationalist sentiments.
In March 1988, at the congress of the Union of Writers of the USSR in Moscow, a proposal was made toimpart state status to the languages of the titular nations of all republics of the Soviet Union. Part of the Moldovanintelligentsia attracted the possibility of obtaining ethnic preferences. In the volume#4/1988 of the “Nistru” magazine,which was published by the MSSR Writers’ Union, a program was published with demands to recognize the identity of the Moldovan and Romanian languages and to translate the Moldavian language into Latin script.
In September 1988, “The Letter 66” was published, in which Moldovan writers demanded recognition of the state language onlyMoldovan on the basis of Latin script. In the autumn, a series of demonstrations were held, at which more and moreradical slogans sounded: “Moldavia for Moldovans”, “Suitcase-Station-Russia”, “The Russians – beyond the Dniester, the Jews – into the Dniester” .
In 1988-89 in the wake of perestroika, numerous nationalist organizations appeared in Moldova, acting under anti-Soviet and anti-Russian slogans. At the end of 1988, the formation of the Popular Front of Moldova began. The unionists, who, under the slogan “One language, one nation!” called upon to join Romania, became more active. Since 1991, the two main Moldovan newspapers began to appear under the epigraph on the first page (above the title) “Weare Romanians – and that’s it!” .
On February 16, 1989, on behalf of the Writers’ Union of Moldova, the draft law “On the Functioning of Languageson the Territory of the Moldavian SSR” was published. According to this project, parents were deprived of the right tochoose the language of instruction of children, and for using a language other than the state (and the state language meant, in fact, Romanian) for official communication, administrative and, in some cases, criminal .
On March 30, 1989, the draft law “On the State Language” was published, prepared by a working group of theSupreme Council of the MSSR, in which Moldovan was proclaimed the only state language. In Transnistria (this territory, where Moldovans did not constitute most of the population, was artificially united with Bessarabia after itsaccession to the USSR) both of these bills were perceived as discriminatory, which led to the emergence of a spontaneous social movement that favored the introduction of two official state languages in Moldova: Moldovan and Russian. It should be noted that not only the Russian, but the numerous Ukrainian populations of Transnistria opposed the introduction of Moldovan (Romanian) language as the only statelanguage. Some Moldovans from Transnistria also opposed the translation of Moldovan writing into Latin .
In May 1989, the “Popular Front of Moldova” was created, uniting a number of nationalist organizations. Inopposition to it, “Interdvizhenie” (The International Movement) appeared in Transnistria, later called “Unitate-Unity”.
On May 23, 1989, the Tiraspol City Council appealed to the Presidium of the MSSR Supreme Council to adopt alaw on the functioning of two state languages in the republic – Moldovan and Russian, and also to extend the timeframe for discussing draft laws to the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU on interethnic relations and hold anational referendum .
On August 2, 1989, on the day of the celebration of the 49th anniversary of the founding of the MSSR, about a hundred people from the “Vatra” informal association gathered in the town of Bender in the “Oktyabrsky” park.They put on mourning bandages, attached black bows to their clothes, opened “tricolors” (Romanian national flags) and arranged an unauthorized procession through the streets of the city. They called the arrived police officers’ “occupiers” and“Stalinists”. Police detained 14 protesters, among whom were residents of Tiraspol, Causen and Ialoven. Theadministrative organizers of the procession N. Rakovita, I. Nikolaev and A. Mirzu were brought to administrativeresponsibility .
On August 10, 1989, it became known that at the upcoming 13th session of the Supreme Council of the MSSR, noteven the draft law of March 30, 1989 would be discussed, but it’s even more rigid version, which envisaged conductingoffice work exclusively in Moldovan.
In response, on August 11, 1989 in Tiraspol, the Joint Council of Labour Collectives (OSTK) was created, opposing this bill, which, according to the founders and leaders of the OSTK, could lead to discrimination based on nationality in the exercise of the right to work .
On August 16, 1989, by a decision of the OSTK, a precautionary strike was held with the demand to postpone thesession of the Supreme Soviet. More than 30 thousand people took part in the strike. MSSR leadership did notrespond to the demands of the strikers and confirmed the decision to hold a session at which it was planned to discuss the law on the official state language. Thiswas the impetus for a large-scale political strike that began on August 21. It covered many enterprises, institutions and organizations of Tiraspol, Bender and Rybnitsa.
By August 29, 1989, when the session of the Supreme Councilopened, the OSTK was transformed into the Republican Strike Committee, and 170 enterprises participated in the strike, including the Mezon, the Schetmash, the Alpha, the Electropribor and other Chisinau factories. More than 400labor collectives did not join the strike but declared their solidarity with the strikers .
In response to the strike, the Popular Front organized a rally in Chisinau, called the Great National Assembly,which called for the exclusion of the Russian language from the public life of the republic. About 500 thousandpeople from the whole MSSR took part in the meeting. As a result, on August 31, 1989, the Supreme Council gave theMoldovan language the status of the state language. This day was later declared a festive holiday in Moldova .
After the adoption of the law on the state language, many enterprises joined the strike. President Mikhail Gorbachevtried to convince business leaders to suspend the strike, but this proposal was rejected at a rally in Tiraspol. The strike was nevertheless stopped on September 21, 1989 after the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, when it became clear that substantial assistance from the central leadership would not follow .
Meanwhile, under the control of the OSTK, the “The Striking Tiraspol” and the “The Labour Tiraspol” newspapersbegan to issue.
On November 3-4, 1989, the 2nd Conference of the OSTK was held, where a proposal was made tocreate autonomy in Transnistria. On November 4, 1989, during the conference of authorized labor collectives of Tiraspol, a resolution was passed instructing the OSTK to consider the possibility of holding a referendum on the issue of autonomy before the XIVSession of the Supreme Council of the MSSR.
On December 3, 1989, a referendum was held in Rybnitsa on the expediency of creating the Transnistrian Autonomous Socialist Republic. 91,1% of those who took part in the referendum were in favor of creating autonomy.January 29, 1990 a similar referendum was held in Tiraspol .
The confrontation between Moldova and Transnistria began to grow after the election of a new composition of theSupreme Council of the MSSR on February 25, 1990, in which Transnistrian representatives, being in the minority,were unable to exert any influence on legislative activity. Soon after repeated threats, psychological pressure andbeatings, they left the parliament session. One of the members of the Supreme Soviet of the MSSR, a Moldovan I.Rusu, wrote that “since May 1990, fist-type lawlessness, the threat of physical violence has become the mainarguments of parliamentary democrats” .
On May 20, 1990, supporters of the Popular Front of Moldova broke up a rally of mothers and beat more than 20deputies, mainly from Transnistria. Deputies from Transnistria I. Smirnov, V. Rylyakov, P. Zalozhkov and deputies-leaders of the International Movement A. Lisetsky, P. Shornikov, I. Russu were attacked . On May 17, the“Literatura Si Arta (Literature and Art)” newspaper published an announcement about the upcoming rally of thePopular Front near Bender. One of the phrases of the announcement was: “Let’s demonstrate to everyone that Tiginawas, is and remains a Romanian city”. In the working groups of enterprises of the city of Bender, suggesting theprovocative nature of the action, the creation of self-defense units began .
The rally was scheduled for May 20 and, according to the application of the organizers, was to be held in thearea of Varnitsa. It was announced that the rally will be devoted to the laws on languages, the transition to the Latin alphabet and the adoption of new state symbols.
About 3 thousand people, brought by the Popular Front from Chisinau and rural areas of Moldova, took part in it. At the rally, there were calls to go to Bender and hoist the “tricolor” flag over the City Council, but Ion Hadârcă, the chairman of the executive committee of the Popular Front, asked in his speech to refrainfrom this. A resolution was passed expressing distrust of the deputies of the MSSR, representing Bender, anddemanding that the city authorities place a tricolor flag over the city council. After the end of the rally, most of its participants dispersed, but a small motorcade attempted to break through into Bender.
However, in this case, the city authorities set up a train, which blocked the railroad. Members of the Popular Front managed to unhook the cars and move on, but after colliding with one of the workers' self-defense detachments Bender they left their decision to enter the city. The next day, the incident was prosecuted .
In June 1990, the head of Moldova, Mircea Snegur, left the CPSU. The former main Moldovan communist became aseparatist, however, more moderate than the radicals from the Popular Front. M. Snegur was in favor of secession fromthe USSR but was against joining Romania. In the same month, the 1st Congress of Transnistrian Deputies of all levelswas held in Parkany.
On June 23, the MSSR Supreme Council approved the Conclusion of a special commission on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in which the creation of the MSSR was declared an illegal act, and Bessarabia and NorthernBukovina – the occupied Romanian territories .
In July 1990, the Popular Front issued a demand for the renaming of Moldova into the Romanian Republic ofMoldova. All this caused a negative reaction from the residents of Transnistria and Gagauzia (where the majority areTurkic Gagauz). On July 31, the Presidium of the Tiraspol City Council, in response to the actions of Chisinau, proclaimed that if the MSSR was created illegally, then the left bank of the Dniester was also illegally included in it.
Therefore, the presidium “does not consider itself bound by any obligations to the leadership of the SSR ofMoldova” .
Local authorities in Transnistria and Gagauzia held referendums on the functioning of languages. As a result of which Moldovan, Russian and Ukrainian were proclaimed official languages in Transnistria, and Moldavian, Gagauzand Russian were proclaimed official languages in Gagauzia. Following this, on August 19, 1990 the independenceof Gagauzia was proclaimed, and on September 2, 1990, at the 2nd Extraordinary Congress of Deputies of all levels ofTransnistria, the Transnistrian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic was formed within the USSR. At the same time, itstemporary Supreme Soviet was elected with Igor Smirnov as chairman and a decision was made on the need to developa constitution of the TMSSR by December 1, 1990. .
The formation of the TMSSR caused a negative reaction both from the official Chisinau and nationalistorganizations, and from the government of the USSR. We can agree with point of view of ZurabTodua, the political scientist and Deputy of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, that the separatist movements in Transnistria and Gagauzia was a response to Chisinau’s reluctance to take into account theinterests of ethnic communities .
At the end of 1990, Nicolae Dabija, the editor-in-chief of the “Literatura Si Arta” newspaper, published the brochure“Moldova over Dniester – Our Native Land”, in which he actively opposed secession. In December 1990, MikhailGorbachev signed a decree in which attention was drawn to the fact that “in important cases, citizenship”. The decreecalled on the Moldovan leadership “to revise certain provisions from the section” Liberation of Languages on theTerritory of the Moldavian SSR “and the Decree of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on the order of its entry so thatthe interests of all nationalities living on its territory are respected”. The decree also contained the requirement “to takeall necessary measures to normalize the situation, unconditionally respect the rights of citizens of any nationality, and prevent incitement of ethnic conflicts”. At the same time, the decisions on the proclamation of the Gagauz Republic andthe TMSSR were considered null and void .
From December 1989 to November 1990, local referendums were held in the cities and districts of Transnistria regarding the formation of the Transnistrian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. Of the 472 thousand registeredvoters, 370 thousand, or 79%, voted. Of these, over 355 thousand, that is, 95,8% of the voters, or 75,3% of the numberof voters included in the lists, spoke in favor of the formation of the TMSSR. Only 1.9% voted against .
On March 17, 1991, an All-USSR Referendum on the preservation of the USSR was held, but Moldovan authorities prevented the referendum from taking place in the republic, therefore central republican referendum commissions werenot created, and voting was held only in military units. Of the 701000 who voted for the preservation of the SovietUnion, 98,3% were in favor. In Bender, 73 000 participated in the referendum – 77,2% of the 94 000 listed residents of the city and neighboring villages. Of these, 98,9% were in favor of preserving the USSR, less than 1% were against (620 people) .
The holding of a referendum in Transnistria has increased dissatisfaction with Chisinau authorities. The situation worsened after the coupof the Emergency Committee on August 19-21, 1991. After its failure, a rally was held in Chisinau, at which therewere calls for Moldova to leave the Soviet Union. The OSTK Tiraspol Presidium, for its part, supported the StateEmergency Committee, publishing in the Labor Tiraspol a statement: stabilization of the socio-political situation .
On 23 August 1991, the Communist Party of Moldova was dissolved. On August 22, 1991, detachments of theChisinau police arrested some of the deputies of the Supreme and local councils of Transnistria. August 25, 1991 in Tiraspol adopted the Declaration of Independence of the TMSSR. On August 27, 1991, after Russia and Ukraine, Moldova declares its independence, and on August 29, 1991, in Kiev, the Chisinau special services arrested the Chairman of the Supreme Council of the TMSPR, Igor Smirnov. StepanTopal, the leader of Gagauzia was also arrested .
On September 1, the deputies of the Tiraspol City Council, Galina Andreeva and Svetlana Migulya, headed theWomen’s Strike Committee and held a many-thousand women’s rally in the center of Tiraspol, at which a resolutionwas adopted demanding the release of arrested Transnistrian and Gagauz politicians and the formation of the people’sguard. After the rally, the women blocked the railroad, thus starting the so-called “railway blockade”. In the followingdays, the blockade spread to Bender.
On September 2, the 4th Congress of Deputies of Transnistria of all levelsapproved the constitution, the flag and the coat of arms of the TMSSR. In September, the Supreme Council of Transnistria decided to establish the Republican Guard. Reassignment of Transnistrian internal affairs departmentsbegins. On September 25, Moldovan police entered Dubossary, where they used weapons against civilians, and over 100 people were beaten. In response to this, one of the leaders of Transnistria, Grigory Marakutsa, headed the police and proceeded to the creation of paramilitary forces. Under public pressure, on October 1, Moldovan OPON forces was withdrawn from Dubossary and I. Smirnov and other Transnistrian deputies were released .
On November 5, by the decision of the Supreme Council, the name of the TMSSR was changed to a new one –the Transnistrian Moldavian Republic (Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic). On December 1, the first referendum onindependence of the Transnistrian Moldavian Republic was held. 78% of voters took part in the voting, 97,7% of thereferendum participants voted “Yes” .
On December 13, the day after the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR ratified the Belavezha Accords, the Moldovanpolice made the third attempt to attack Dubossary. During the 40- minute firefight of the police and the TransnistrianRepublican Guard, four policemen and three guardsmen from Rybnitsa were shot: Russian A. Patergin, Ukrainian V. Shcherbaty, and Moldovan Y. Turcan. 15 people were wounded, about 20 guardsmen were missing. In response,hostage-taking by police officers in Transnistria began. In Bender, the chairman of the city executive committee,Vyacheslav Kogut, introduced a state of emergency. However, to date information about the collision on December 13is very controversial. The claims that guardsmen fired on the Moldovan police post in the morning or that the police tried to break into the center of Dubossary have not yet been confirmed.
At December 14, clashes in Dubossary continued. A police lieutenant was killed. Two buses with Moldovanpolicemen were sent to Bender. Cossacks and volunteers from different regions of Russia began to arrive inTransnistria. On December 14 and 15, two meetings of M. Snegur and I. Smirnov were held in Chisinau, duringwhich decisions were made to create a “conciliation commission”, to withdraw armed units to places of permanentdeployment, to remove roadblocks and to release the wounded and detained. On December 18, Russia recognized the independence of Moldova, on December 21, Ukraine recognized the independence of Moldova. On the same day, M.Snegur signed an agreement on the accession of Moldova to the CIS .
During the winter of 1991-92 relations between Chisinau and Tiraspol were exacerbated. Several minor clashesoccurred, one of which in the first days of the spring of 1992 caused the outbreak of large-scale hostilities.
On April 1, 1992 a unit of the Moldovan police, accompanied by two BTR-70 armored personnel carriers,entered to Bender. The police attempted to disarm the Transnistrian guardsmen. Under the crossfire hit the bus with the workers of the cotton spinning mill. There were dead and woundedon both sides. One woman died, and several civilians were injured.
On April 30, a deputy and Transnistrian politician Nikolai Ostapenko was killed by Moldovan terrorists from the Ilascu group in the village of Karagash in the vicinity of Tiraspol. Mobilization began in Transnistria. 14 thousandworkers were given weapons. By order of the Transnistrian command, bridges across the Dniester near Criulyan andthe village of Bychok were blown up. The defense of the dam of the Dubossary power station and the Rybnitsa bridgewas organized .
The battle for Bender took place on June 19-21, 1992. On this day, regular units of the Moldavian army and armored columns of the Ministry of Internal Affairs were sent to Bender.
At that time, the President and Commander-in-chief of Moldova was Mircea Snegur, the speaker of the Parliamentwas Alexandru Moșanu, the head of the Government was Valery Muravsky, the Minister of Defense was General Ion Costaş .
Bloody battles began in Bender. On June 20, Moldovan troops reached the Bender Bridge over the Dniester. Theassault of the city executive committee, defended by Transnistrians, began. Chisinau tried to use aircraft to blow upthe bridge, but the bombs hit the residential areas of the village of Parcany. In the location of the Russian regiment inthe village there was an explosion that killed 26 soldiers. In the meantime, volunteers from the 14th Army, many of whom had local families, went over to the Transnistrian side. They, along with the Cossacks, Republican guardians andmilitia, broke into Bender and drove the Moldovan troops out of most of the city .
Volunteers from Russia arrived in Transnistria. In such a situation, the Russian leadership could no longer maintainneutrality, and on July 7, 1992, plenipotentiary representatives of the Russian president, led by General AlexanderLebed, arrived in the region and ordered to block the approaches to the city and the bridge across the Dniester.Meanwhile, in Chisinau, left-wing political forces began speaking for the resignation of the government and parliament, which allowed civil war. The head of government and defense minister resigned.
It was possible to reach agreements on a cease-fire, and on July 21 in Moscow, B. Yeltsin and M. Snegur in thepresence of I. Smirnov signed an agreement “On the principles of settling the armed conflict in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova”.
According to various estimates, the losses during the conflict were as follows: by mid-July, 950 people were killed on both sides, about 4.5 thousand were wounded. Only the Transnistrian side lost about 500people dead, 899 were injured, and about 50 were missing, but experts believe that the real losses were large .
During the events of the summer of 1992, at least 489 people died in Bender, of whom 132 were civilians, 5 werechildren. 1242 people were wounded, of whom 698 are civilians, 18 are children. Gone missing – 87 people. Subsequently, 40 people died from injuries. 1280 residential buildings were destroyed and damaged, of which 60 were destroyed. 19 public education facilities (including 3 schools), 15 healthcare facilities were destroyed. 46 industrial transport and construction enterprises were damaged. Five multi-story residential buildings of state housing stock arenot subject to restoration, 603 state houses are partially damaged.
The city was damaged in excess of 10 billion rubles at 1992 prices .
After July 1992, the Transnistrian conflict entered a peaceful phase. In the course of numerous negotiationsmediated by Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE, an agreement on the status of Transnistria has not yet been reached.Relations between the parties to the conflict remain tense, but no more military action has taken place.
Moving to the stage of peaceful settlement, the Transnistrian conflict remains one of the most complicated problemsof the region [22, 23]. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the views of the parties in several positions, inparticular, on the issue of their own security, are radically different.
Industrialized Transnistria blames agrarian Moldova for multibillion- dollar debts, a negativeimport-export balance, and a consuming nature of the economy.
Based on these judgments, the opinion of the unprofitability of association with Moldova is spread in Transnistria.The Moldovan side, in turn, represents the Transnistrian Moldavian Republic in the form of a so-called “black hole”,a smuggling zone and a criminal regime .
We agree with the point of view of political scientist ZurabTodua that the war for a long time spread the left andright banks of Moldova. Now it is difficult to unite the country.
Transnistria will always have a reason to remember the war and the victims and TMR’s Government to abandonany settlement plan. And the Moldavan national radicals in Chisinau will always have a reason to accuse the supportersof the compromise of “betrayal of national interests” if they think that Moldova has made excessive concessions .
In the summer of 2001, relations between Transnistrian Moldavian Republic and the Republic of Moldova began toworsen again. On September 1, 2001, Moldova replaced the customs stamps, as a result of which the PMR enterpriseshad to obtain permits for export in Chisinau, which led to the disruption of the export enterprises .
In 2003, the activity of the EU and the USA intensified, and Russia developed the so- called “Dmitri KozakMemorandum”, aimed at uniting Moldova with the MRT as part of a federal Moldovan state. However, the memorandum was not adopted, since the then Moldovan leader, the head of the Communist Party, V. Voronin, at thelast moment refused to sign it, citing his refusal by the lack of approval from the international community, which is necessary because of the course chosen by Moldova for European integration. Indeed, the EU did not support the planproposed by Russia and, in fact, did everything to disrupt it. Even though Russia has withdrawn its troops from Transnistria, its position continues to be an important factor, especially given the economic dependence of Transnistriaon Russia (the foreign trade of the unrecognized state is focused on Russia).
As of this year, the conflict remains unresolved and, according to some political analysts, there are no prerequisitesfor a political decision soon, despite the change of presidents of Moldova and Transnistria. It can also be noted thatin most cases there are no forms of hostility between ordinary citizens of Moldova and Transnistria.
It should be noted that Transnistria is a factor that allows to actively influence the situation in the wider region – inthe Balkans. Therefore, the geopolitical value of the PMR is much higher than its actual share in the Balkan node.
In the period of aggravation, in 1992, the conflict was settled according to the scenario favorable to Russia.
The following factors can be noted that turned out to be favorable for Russia and “worked” so that the vector of control over the conflict was turned in the direction of our country:
- Government bodies in the Republic were practically copied from the old union structures. By social, nationalcomposition and personal connections, they are to Russia. This, in turn, provided opportunities for Russia toinfluence representatives of government bodies.
- The peculiarity of the Transnistrian economy was that large enterprises, as a rule, worked for the formerall-Union market, primarily the Russian market, and depended on external relations both in terms of the supplyof raw materials and components, and in terms of product sales. There is no doubt that the interest of somany business leaders lay and continues to lie in the development and restoration of these ties. Because of this,they were interested in establishing relations with Russian economic structures, which enabled Russia to influence the development of the situation in the republic.
- It is also necessary to note the development already in the PMR of commercial structures. Youngentrepreneurs, too, to Russia, because they wanted to enlist the support of the Russian business community. Inaddition, in the PMR, as in several other new states formed on the territory of the former USSR, the Russianruble continues to be valued.
- The national factor was very important. Three main ethnic groups - Moldovans, Ukrainians and Russians live inTransnistria. And together, Ukrainians and Russians make up about 52% of the Republic’s population. Asignificant part of the Russians and Ukrainians of the PMR live in cities such as Tiraspol, Dubossary, Benderand several others. Economically, most of the Russian and Ukrainian population was closely associated with anextremely limited number of large and super-large enterprises, which, in turn, are primarily focused on Russia.This also made it possible to influence the population from Russia. In addition, most of the Moldovanpopulation of the PMR previously (historically) lived in the territories of the Russian Empire and the USSR (itshould be noted that the rest of Moldova entered the USSR only in 1940) and also in the bulk of Russia. For example, Transnistrian Moldovans refused to translate Moldavian into Latin, unlike Moldovans living in Moldavia.
- Many parties and public organizations of Transnistria were created as regional organizations of Russianstructures. For example, then the Transnistrian regional organization of the Democratic Reforms Movement, the Slavic Council of Bessarabia Socio-political association, the South-Western Party of Economic Freedom, andthe South-Western Union of Industrialists EOLIS existed on the territory of the PMR. In addition, severalparties were closely associated with related organizations in Russia. For example, the Communist Party ofWorkers of Transnistria, the Democratic Party of Transnistria and several others. Through these organizations,Russian politicians influenced the part of the PMR population that was involved in them.
- It is also necessary to note the presence of such a factor as the presence of Russian troops on the territory ofthe Transnistrian Moldavian Republic, through which Russia had a very large influence on the development ofthe situation in Transnistria. Thus, it can be stated that along with the active actions of the residents ofTransnistria, the channels of indirect influence and regulation of the situation on the part of Russia, whichcreated a favorable opportunity for resolving the conflict.
Contributo selezionato da Filodiritto tra quelli pubblicati nei Proceedings “2nd Southeast Europe: History, Culture, Politics and Economy-2019”Per acquistare i Proceedings clicca qui.
Contribution selected by Filodiritto among those published in the Proceedings “2nd Southeast Europe: History, Culture, Politics and Economy-2019”To buy the Proceedings click here.