By Alex Razvan @ Adobe Stock
In National Review, Andrew Stuttaford takes readers on a guided tour of the history and politics that could make Moldova and Transnistria the scene of the next war. He writes:
With the exception, perhaps, of its unexpected appearance as the Kingdom of “Moldavia” in Dynasty, it’s fair to say that Americans do not think much about Moldova. That may change.
Lodged between Romania, Ukraine and, well, something else, Moldova has had a complicated history. To (over)simplify: Moldavia was once a principality incorporating much of modern Romania. The portion of its territory containing modern Moldova was transferred to Russia at various points during the 19th century (where it was redesignated as Bessarabia) but declared independence after the Russian revolution. It then reunited with Romania (the “Moldovan” language, a Soviet confection, is, in reality, Romanian). In 1940, and with the agreement of their partners in Berlin, the Soviets annexed the former Bessarabia. Most of it became the Moldavian SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic), which also incorporated a slice of Soviet territory east of the Dniester River (the so-called Moldavian ASSR — Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic), although some parts of the newly annexed territory were allocated to the Ukrainian SSR.
In 1991, the Moldavian SSR declared independence as Moldova. After some fighting, the former Moldavian ASSR (where Moldovans are a minority) broke away from Moldova, and ever since has been the (unrecognized) republic of Transnistria (the official name is longer, but enough already). Transnistria, which was visited by Jim Geraghty last year, existed as one of those “frozen conflicts” on the former Soviet periphery, its “independence” guaranteed by the presence of Russian troops “peacekeepers.” Jim described it as “spectacularly strange,” which, by all accounts, it is.
Meanwhile Moldova, which is not a member of NATO (it probably should have rejoined Romania, which is), has been looking westwards toward the EU. That doesn’t please Moscow, which has been doing its bit to destabilize Moldova’s democratic government, including, it seems, some coup-mongering.
Now, it seems as if Russia is again turning the ratchet.
The Daily Telegraph (February 15):
The Kremlin is using “very similar” rhetoric towards Moldova as it did before its invasion of Ukraine, the Institute for the Study of War reported.
The think tanks says Moscow’s methods are “likely” designed “to set conditions to justify possible future Russian escalation against Moldova.”
Addressing the Transnistria conflict, yesterday, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, made a series of allegations that mirror those directed at Ukraine ahead of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its full-scale invasion.
His allegations included falsely claiming that the US and EU control the Moldovan government. He also claimed that there are about 200,000 Russian citizens in Transnistria, and that Russia is “concerned about their fate” and “will not allow them to become victims of another Western adventure.”
The Kremlin has used the idea of protecting its “compatriots abroad” to justify Russian occupation of Transnistria since 1992 as well as its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the ISW reported.
“The timing of a possible Russian hybrid operation in Moldova is unclear, but the Kremlin is setting informational conditions to make it possible soon,” it said.
Balkan Insight (February 16):
Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Mikhail Galuzin, has warned Moldova of “a military scenario” if it attempts to resolve the problem of the breakaway Transnistrian region by force.
“We are extremely concerned about such a possibility and have always made it clear that attempts to resolve the Transnistrian issue by force are counterproductive. We expect Chisinau to understand what a military scenario could mean for Moldova,” Galuzin told the Russian daily Izvestia on Thursday.
The minister said that any actions that pose a threat to the Russian military, or to fellow citizens [of Transnistria], would be “considered by Moscow, in accordance with international law, as an attack on Russia”.
Russia has, of course, been known to fake acts of aggression against it or its proxies in order to justify military intervention . . .
Read more here.
If you’re willing to fight for Main Street America, click here to sign up for my free weekly email.
