Transnistria: Geopolitical Crossroads on Ukrainian Border

The appointment of Yevgeny Primakov as head of the Russian State Commission to Solve the Transnistria Problem seems to be the start of a real political gambit. One gets this impression from “Small Chessboard,” by Sergei Gradirovsky in Moscow’s Nezavisimaya gazeta. The publication mainly concerned establishing a condominium in Transnistria. Condominium is a joint ownership of a territory by two states (like Andorra was for seven centuries — Ed.). According to the article, the condominium should be concluded between the current guarantors of peaceful settlement of Transnistrian confrontation, Russia and Ukraine. Certain circles in Transnistria like this idea very much. Russia, having lost to the West in the Baltic region, the Balkans, Caucasus, and elsewhere, is aware only too well that it will not be able to stand firm in Transnistria, which becomes ever more the zone of US strategic interests on account of NATO expansion toward Moldova’s border. A failure to conform with the G7 decision on complete withdrawal from Transnistria would mean for Moscow most serious possible sanctions from the West. And the country, which established this enclave in order to serve its own geopolitical interests has obviously decided to give it up in exchange for the West’s money. But before leaving, it took care lay some time bombs. Russia has already extended Russian citizenship to over 60,000 Transnistria residents and is strenuously increasing this number, gigantic for this tiny region. Obviously, by withdrawal of the last Russian soldier from Transnistria there will be about 100,000-120,000 citizens of the Russian Federation, who will have real power in this region calling itself independent territory. Education, culture, and jurisprudence were largely adjusted to Russian standards long ago. The language spoken by Transnistrian political elite is Russian. It is clear who would be the real master in Transnistria under such a condominium. Russia is simply trying to use Ukraine in its politics, aiming to cause a collision between the interests of the West and Ukraine itself.

Recently Moskovskie vedomosti also put in its word on the topic, publishing Primakov’s project for creation of a joint state, which only confirms, in particular, the above.

The idea to include Transnistria in Ukraine, though not openly or directly, has been migrating from one newspaper to another. Incidentally, this troubles some political minds in Transnistria also and is well known in Chisinau. And it seems they like it there too: in the Moldovan capital it is used as a scarecrow, something to use in the games played not only with Moscow but also with Bucharest. No doubt, Romania would not like to have such cancerous growth on its body for ever — not for the world. Mechanically, or even by active reeducation of the population (what it is demonstrating now, regardless of the huge costs), Romania can not unite with Moldova painlessly. And this is not an issue of anti-Romanian schemes of the Slavic states that act as such contradictory guarantors in settling the Transnistria crisis.

As a modern state, Romania was established without the participation of Bessarabia (historic region that included today’s Moldova — Ed.). Thus, they do not have in their blood that common psychology of Romanian statehood which is supposed to be the basis for peaceful unification. According to scholars, 30% of the agricultural terms in the language, which Moldova’s constitution defines as Moldovan, are of Slavic origin. In Romanian they were long ago replaced by French or Italian equivalents. And Moldova, as we know, is an agrarian country. Bessarabia has been within Russia’s geopolitical space for centuries (1812-1918 and 1941-1991 to be exact — Ed.). And the issue is not even in the language as in the lack of a common legal historic responsibility for building the modern Romanian state. Currently, there is no real political force in Moldova, president and parliament included, which could painlessly lead the nation to Romania, nor is such a force anticipated in the next few years. Meanwhile, the economic situation in the country is atrocious. Many people in Moldova understand that it will not survive on its own in such surroundings. Hence the question: where should Bessarabia go? For unionists, especially those who made capital on this idea, clearly to Romania. Incidentally, such a view is shared by many of the creators of Transnistria. President of Transnistria Igor Smirnov would probably not object either. Moreover, if Moldova united with Romania, the Transnistrian Moldovan Republic would be very likely the first state that would welcome it.

There are almost three times as many Ukrainians living in Moldova as in Transnistria. However, most of Transnistria is located on historically Ukrainian land. Under the Moscow memorandum Transnistria would have the right to self- determination, if Moldova’s statehood is changed. The document says nothing further in this respect. In reality no state other than Ukraine could lay claim to this area. This is admitted even by Romanian ultra-nationalists, who envisage the borders of Great Romania along the Dnister. Russia is stubbornly silent about it, although numerous Transnistrian lawmakers and President Smirnov himself have declared more than once that “Transnistria is and will remain Russian soil.” Thus, in Transnistria we are dealing with purely pragmatic interests of specific countries. At this point it should be clearly stated that Russia’s interests in this region run counter to those of most other countries. Nobody needs a second Kaliningrad oblast or Yugoslavia here. And this is what could unite us.

Of the four million total population of Moldova, including Transnistria, there are about 700,000 Ukrainians who have officially registered their ethnicity. About 300,000 more did not do this for various reasons. In addition to Ukrainians and Russians, Moldova’s inhabitants include Bulgarians who do not want to assimilate with the Romanians. The Gagauz are not Slavs, but they are not Romanians either. It is not possible now and will not be in the future to join Moldova to Romania by referendum. Such a thing already happened in 1918, but the then ethnic composition of the nation was totally different. There is almost nobody in the Moldovan parliament or local authorities who openly advocated unification with Romania during the elections. Yes, currently there are 27 deputies in the Moldovan parliament who together with their 30 and something Romanian colleagues created, in words of a Nezavisimaya Moldova (Independent Moldova) journalist an “anti-constitutional organization” aiming at unification. The majority of the Moldovan intelligentsia indeed advocate unification with Romania, but not most of the peole.

The reunification of Moldova and Romania by military means is absolutely impossible. There is nothing to fight for. No natural resources or some specific geographical location worth the costs of war. Sane politicians in Bucharest understand this.

On the other hand, if the union of Russia and Belarus became a reality, why cannot the idea of a union of Ukraine, Transnistria, and Moldova be possible? It would be even more stable if Romania was in it. Only then historic suspicions and claims would sink into oblivion. Within such union there would be a room for Romania in GUUAM as well. And jointly with Romania we would help our common poor relatives on the Dnister to get on their feet. I think that all civilized Europe would help us in doing this, if not in a material way, then at least morally.