The Transnistrian conflict, which broke out due to the persecution of Russian speakers in Moldova, was stopped by Russia, which has always sought political solutions to settle the dispute, says the Russian ambassador to Chisinau, thus misrepresenting Russia's role in the 1992 war.
NEWS: "Russia remains the guarantor of security and mediator in the Transnistrian conflict settlement process," said Russian Ambassador to Moldova Oleg Ozerov in an interview with Izvestia.
He stressed that the "5+2" negotiation format, which includes Russia, remains an effective mechanism, despite the statements of some Moldovan politicians.
"But here, first and foremost, a competent and qualified approach is needed, not attempts to solve a very serious problem in a hurry," the diplomat noted.
[...] "The ambassador recalled that the conflict on the Dniester "was stopped by Russia." "It is Russia that is the guarantor and mediator preventing the resumption of any actions, violent or nonviolent, against the Russian-speaking population living on the left bank of the Dniester," Oleg Ozerov said.
He noted that before proposing alternative initiatives, the new authorities of the Republic of Moldova, especially the prime minister, must carefully study the basic documents and re-establish dialogue within the existing format.
"As for Russia, it is open to dialogue and has no restrictions in this regard. On the contrary, we are ready to discuss issues related to the status of Transnistria," the diplomat concluded.
NARRATIVES: 1. The 5+2 format for resolving the Transnistrian conflict is functional and effective. 2. The war on the Dniester was stopped by Russia. 3. The Transnistrian conflict arose because the Russian-speaking population was being undermined.
OBJECTIVE: To present Russia as a constructive and indispensable actor in the Transnistria negotiation process, thus legitimizing its role as mediator and guarantor of security in the region; to maintain Moscow's influence over the settlement of the conflict and block alternative formats that could involve the European Union or the United States more actively; To rewrite Russia's role in the 1992 conflict, transforming it from a military actor into a supposed peacemaker; To present the conflict on the Dniester as the result of ethnic and linguistic discrimination on the part of Chisinau, thus legitimizing Transnistrian separatism and Russia's "protective" involvement; at the same time, to strengthen Moscow's image as a defender of Russian speakers in the post-Soviet space and justify its political and military presence in the region.
WHY THE NARRATIVES ARE FALSE: The 5+2 negotiation format, which includes Russia, Ukraine, the EU, the US, the OSCE, and the parties involved in the conflict—Chisinau and Tiraspol—was established in 2005. However, negotiations within this format took place with long breaks, and with the start of the war in Ukraine, discussions came to a halt. In any case, by that point, the parties had not found any political solution to resolve the conflict, getting bogged down in social or economic issues. It was Moscow and Tiraspol (seen as an extension of the former) that most strongly opposed the launch of a dialogue for a political solution, even though this was the main objective of the 5+2 format. Currently, this format is no longer functional, primarily because two participants—Russia and Ukraine—are at war.
Even though it refuses to admit it, Russia was involved in the war on the Dniester in 1992 with equipment and troops from the XIVth Army, stationed on the left bank of the Dniester. Russia did not stop the conflict, it froze it through an agreement that allowed it to maintain its army in the region. The fact that Russia is a signatory to the ceasefire agreement clearly shows Moscow's involvement in the conflict. The presence of Russian military forces on the left bank of the Dniester, uninterrupted in the more than three decades since the fighting ceased, is also one of the main obstacles to resolving the frozen conflict.
Invoking the so-called danger of unification with Romania and the Romanianization of the Republic of Moldova as the main cause of Transnistrian separatism remains one of the false narratives propagated by Moscow and Tiraspol. The issue of unification with Romania has never been seriously considered by the government elites, and the so-called "unionist movement" is a minority in the Republic of Moldova, a country which, despite the false narratives promoted by (pro-)Russians in the early 1990s, has maintained its independence and granted significant rights to ethnic and linguistic minorities (including Russian-language schools and a special status for the Gagauz people in the south of the country).
Several historians believe that Transnistria's self-proclaimed independence was in fact a reaction by the political and economic elites on the left bank of the Dniester, who were loyal to Moscow, in an attempt to maintain the status and privileges they had enjoyed during the Soviet era. According to the American historian Charles King, Transnistrian separatism “was not a revolt of the minorities, but of the political and economic elites” .
CONTEXT/LOCAL ETOS: The Transnistrian region in eastern Moldova was annexed to the former Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic during the USSR, while regions in the south and north were transferred to Ukraine. In 1990, it declared its independence against the backdrop of the collapse of the USSR and the national liberation movement in the Republic of Moldova, invoking the danger of union with Romania and repression of the Russian-speaking population, narratives still used today by Russian and Tiraspol propaganda.
Between March and July 1992, in the eastern region of the Republic of Moldova, also known as Transnistria, a military conflict broke out between the separatist regime and the constitutional authorities in Chișinău. Russia was involved in the Transnistrian conflict on the side of the separatists with the military contingent that succeeded the Soviet 14th Army, deployed in the region. Officially, this contingent is responsible for guarding the ammunition depot in Cobasna. Russia had promised to vacate the depot and withdraw its troops, but has so far failed to fulfill this commitment.
After the 1992 war on the Dniester River, the Agreement on the Principles of Peaceful Settlement of the Armed Conflict in the Transnistrian Region of the Republic of Moldova was signed on July 21, 1992 (also known as the Ceasefire Agreement), which provided for the creation of a peacekeeping mission consisting of military personnel from the Russian Federation, the Republic of Moldova, and the secessionist region on the left bank of the Dniester. Initially, it consisted of 4,800 military personnel, but over time their number has been reduced to less than 1,400, according to the specialized publication zonadesecuritate.md.
Russia also has a military contingent in the region, successor to the Soviet 14th Army, which was involved in the Transnistrian conflict on the side of the separatists; officially, this contingent is responsible for guarding the ammunition depot in Cobasna. Russia had promised to vacate the depot and withdraw its troops, but has so far failed to fulfill this commitment. Currently, all of Chisinau's efforts to withdraw its armed forces from the territory of the Republic of Moldova are being interpreted by Moscow and Tiraspol as an attempt to undermine the peacekeeping mission, even though these are two different issues.
Check sources:
