[ad_1]
The history of Moldova is direct proof that no one, not even the most pro-Russian politician, can get concessions from the Kremlin.
The example of Moldova can rid itself of many illusions. The country’s new president, Maia Sandu, demanded the withdrawal of Russian soldiers from the territory of Transnistria. He stressed that there was no danger of hostilities and suggested replacing the Russian army with a civilian mission from the OSCE.
However, it would be naive to expect concessions from Moscow. After all, Russian soldiers do not appear in the former Soviet republics to establish peace. They appear to establish control, writes Pavel Kazarin for Crimea.Realii.
So it was in Transnistria. Russian troops have been stationed there for 25 years, since 1995. At first, their number reached five thousand people. Today it has fallen to more than a thousand. Russian soldiers are present at the border crossings from Moldova to Transnistria, and at the same time guard the military depots in the town of Kolbasna on the border with Ukraine.
More than 20 thousand tons of ammunition are stored in these arsenals. They remained in Transnistria as a legacy of the 14th Army of the USSR, which was once stationed here. Ammunition has been here for several decades and it is quite difficult to get it anywhere; they must be disposed of on the spot. But Moscow itself is in no rush to solve this problem. As long as the ammunition is stored in Transnistria, the Kremlin has another explanation for why Russian soldiers should continue in the region.
The only time Moscow changed its position was in the early 2000s. Later, the Communist Party led by Vladimir Voronin was in power in Moldova. In four years, Russia has disposed of almost half of its ammunition. But don’t blame benevolent obedience.
At the time, the Kremlin had every reason to hope that depots as an excuse to retain troops were no longer necessary. Voronin promised to annex Moldova to the Union State of Russia and Belarus, to make Russia the second state and to solve the problem with Transnistria. Moscow was counting on the fact that pro-Russian sentiments in Transnistria would shift Moldova’s electoral balance in favor of the Kremlin, and began preparing documents.
It would be naive to expect concessions from Moscow
In 2003, the so-called «Kozak Memorandum ”is named after its author. Moldova would become a federation, Transnistria and Gagauzia would receive autonomy, Russia would receive state status, and the country itself accepted demilitarized state status. But at the same time, Chisinau had to accept that Russian troops would receive official status and remain in the country until 2020.
If this document came into force, Moscow would no longer need warehouses in Transnistria. His army would receive official status in Moldova. It would be fixed there for decades. And the country itself would actually become a Russian colony. The situation seems to have changed due to Western pressure. In any case, Voronin refused to sign the Memorandum at the last minute. After that, the relations between Chisinau and Moscow cooled down for a long time.
The history of Moldova is direct proof that no one, not even the most pro-Russian politician, can get concessions from the Kremlin. All it can do is officially legalize the contingent of the occupying army. Comply with the Kremlin’s demands. And deprive your country of prospects. And if someone believes that the problem of peace in Donbass is based solely on the names of the Ukrainian negotiators, they can flip through the history of the neighboring country. She is quite instructive.
And there is nothing surprising in the fact that the new president of Moldova, Maia Sandu, promises to make his first visits abroad to Ukraine and Romania. Romania accounts for up to a quarter of all Moldovan exports (for comparison, Russia accounts for only 9%). And Kiev is also important for Chisinau. In addition, Maia Sandu, even before her election, advised Ukrainian politicians not to repeat her country’s mistakes and not to accept Russian demands in the negotiations.
However, what is most surprising is that the pro-European candidate won in Moldova precisely thanks to his pro-Russian predecessor Igor Dodon. When Dodon first assumed the presidency in 2016, the pro-Moscow and pro-European vectors were supported by roughly the same number of citizens. And at the end of his term, 58% of Moldovans were in favor of the EU and only 20% were against. This is because Moscow spent four years of the Dodon government talking about spiritual ties. While the European Union repaired roads, schools and hospitals in Moldova. And at the end of his cadence, the only things Igor Dodon could boast of were corruption scandals, an economic crisis and failed preparation for a pandemic.
Moldova is the best vaccine against any illusion. His example shows that no one, not even the most pro-Russian politician, can achieve the withdrawal of Russian troops. All it can do is legitimize the occupation. The Kremlin is not investing in the betterment of neighboring countries, unlike the European Union. And if a politician assures you that the country will benefit from friendship with Moscow, he is lying. Most likely, only he himself will benefit from this friendship.
And the country will only waste time. And maybe the future.
Reprinted with permission from Radio Liberty / Radio Free Europe, 2101 Connecticut Avenue, Washington 20036, USA.
Join our Opinions NV telegram channel
