Flying close to the wind. (SERGEI GAPON/AFP via Getty Images)
Could another war be beginning in Europe? The past few weeks in Transnistria are worrying, not least because they are so familiar. The separatist government there is agitating against Moldova, accusing it of destroying the economy, and violating Transnistrian human rights and freedoms. If this is not a new war, it certainly suggests a widening of the existing one.
It all kicked off last week, when Transnistria adopted a resolution condemning Moldova for the “economic and political blockade” of the region. It then called on Russia, the UN, the OSCE and the EU to intervene and protect the rights of its people — around 460,000 Russians and Ukrainians and a sizable ethnic Moldovan minority.
Transnistria, the narrow strip of land running between Moldova’s eastern border with Ukraine, illegally broke away from Moldova in 1990 and is unrecognised as independent by almost all the world, including the UN. But not Russia, of course, which maintains two motorised rifle battalions there. And as Russia performatively heeds the breakaway republic’s “call”, memories of eastern Ukraine in 2014 are inescapable.
I was there after the EuroMaidan revolution in which Ukrainians overthrew their Kremlin-backed President, the corrupt, convicted criminal Viktor Yanukovych. Over the following weeks I travelled across the country talking to so-called Ukrainian “separatists” (backed by Russia, we now know) who were saying exactly the same thing as the Transnistrian government is now. They were, they told me, calling on Russia to come and “rescue” them. They wanted their indigenous rights protected from the government of the country they were legally a part of. It was nonsense then just as it is now in Moldova.
The catalyst for the Maidan Revolution in 2014 was Yanukovych’s last-minute refusal to sign the EU Accession Agreement in favour of Moscow’s Eurasian Customs Union. This year, on 7 February, Ilan Shor (a former Moldovan MP who is now sanctioned by US) went to Russia where he had a meeting with Leonid Kalashnikov who assured him that Moldova’s only chance of betterment was to join Eurasian Economic Union.
Gennady Chorba, a Transnistrian politician said his “government” will submit a request to the Kremlin to this effect during a special congress that last met in 2006. “This will be voiced to Russia on behalf of citizens living on the left bank of the Dniester River.” His statement came a few days after Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, said the rights of pro-Russian separatists in Transnistria must be respected. On 17 February, Russia relaxed its requirements for “compatriots” living abroad so that they do not now need to prove their Russian proficiency to resettle into Russia, so long as the individual was born in the former USSR.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeGeorgia will be next up. He’s already carved off part of it so no doubt the rest will be in his sights once Ukraine eases off
Billy you’ve been downvoted so it can’t be true! Good to have all of these btl-ers who have travelled so extensively in Eastern Europe and spoken to so many people there so can comment so knowledgeably to contradict the author. Apparently he even edits his notes to write the article – what a cradle of disinformation it must be! That nice Uncle Vlad is only trying to improve the life chances of anyone vaguely Russian so why are we being so nasty to him?
What we are seeing is that people don’t believe Billy Bob – as opposed to the author. Understandably so, but I don’t know enough about Georgia to know if this instance is true.
Garbage, snide comment totally misrepresenting everything I said. An adult does not jump up and down because Putin wants to invade Moldova or Georgia. An adult looks at the map, determines what is in our best interest to protect and does so. It is not the responsibility of the US or EU to protect every nation on the earth.
Blimey that’s very touchy – I didn’t refer to you at all and was actually thinking of someone else’s comment in my snide comment about editing! However if you want to think that it’s all about you feel free.
Separately (perhaps, I ain’t going looking for what you have said previously) where do you draw the line? OK take Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, then have Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, then Uzbekistan etc when they start thinking about maybe democracy, then on to those countries which were tied into the Soviet Union, then Germany ‘cos they were such baddies 80 years ago…..
I get it. Putin is a dictator and Moldova is at risk. But what is our interest in Moldova and is it worth the cost of defending?
The author would be a lot more convincing if he toned down the hyperbole. Statements like this turn me off; “What this means,” a fierce Moldovan journalist said to me, “is that they say if we join the EU our kids will be forced to become gay and it won’t be possible to beat your wife anymore.” I replied that this was surely couched in a more sophisticated language. “Barely,” she replied.
How is the author being hyperbolic when he’s merely repeating what was said?
He used it as an example of Russian misinformation. It’s silly and unserious. Eastern Europeans are more socially conservative than the west. It’s true in Poland. It’s true in Hungary. Russian misinformation is not making them socially conservative. And no one is looking fondly at Russia because they are afraid their kids will be forced to be gay in the EU.
But Putin himself has made those claims in the past, about the degenerate west’s lack of morals (while he feeds young conscripts into the meat grinder) and how the gay rights undermine families. Just because the Eastern Europeans may be more susceptible to messaging of that nature doesn’t mean Putin isn’t also spreading exaggerated versions of it to try and cause problems for those countries who are looking to pivot westwards away from his influence
There is that fear, but as I understand it, Eastern Europeans see western LGBQT activism as a vehicle by which governments can conveniently circumnavigate parental authority and gain greater control over children’s development.
Russian disinformation or not making Eastern Europeans socially conservative. They are socially conservative, with or without him. And being socially conservative does not make them predisposed to Russian rule.
I’m not sure it’s hyperbole on the author’s part, but it certainly sounds like hyperbole on the part of this person whose language he is repeating. Presumably the author had many interactions with this particular journalist, and may even have interviewed other journalists. I highly doubt he only asked the one question about Russian misinformation, yet he’s repeating this one quote, an anecdote from exactly one probably progressive, idealistic, and pro-European female journalist in a more traditional patriarchal culture as being representative of the issue as a whole. I don’t think it is. I think it’s one side of an issue that the author has decided for himself is the right side. This is how he justifies repeating what it seems clear is a highly biased statement. I, for one, can practically hear the quoted person’s disgust with Russia and probably more than a little resentment towards her own culture. The author isn’t using his own hyperbole, but he’s still accomplishing the same thing by reporting someone else’s hyperbole. It has all the same problems that it would have if the author said something hyperbolic himself, but the journalist gets to dodge responsibility because he was just ‘reporting what he heard’.
This is not new. It’s a tactic used by propagandists and skilled writers to sneak their own viewpoints into their reporting without doing so directly. They selectively edit what information makes it into their article and what doesn’t, choosing what to report to the people and what to discard. We’ve all seen people quoted out of context, which is an inelegant use of the tactic in its simplest form, and it’s usually done to make the quoted person look bad without the reporter doing the reporting ever being called into question for being biased. The example in this article is more artful… barely (and I will own up to my own hyperbole there). Like Jim, I see what this author is doing and I don’t much care for it.
So are you suggesting the author should include every quote and conversation he’s had on the subject in the interests of balance? Every article would be incredibly unwieldy if every quote had to be followed by another stating the exact opposite, and the point of the article would be invariably lost in the process.
He’s merely used that one quote as a singular example of the subject matter of the article, how Putin spreads various messaging to discredit the west and destabilise governments that are in Russias orbit.
Not every single quote, no, but there should be some attempt at balance. Every debate has two sides and I much prefer it when journalists try to explain both sides.
It’s also not that I necessarily think the author is wrong. I think it’s quite likely the Russians engage in a lot of information warfare and distort the truth quite liberally to spread their influence, but so does the EU, so does the US, and so has every other government since the concept of propaganda and information warfare has been understood. I agree that Russian disinformation can’t be trusted and has a negative effect on societies where Russian influence is strong, but on the other hand, the other side is doing it too for similar reasons. We can debate which side is better for the people in question or considers their rights and their welfare to a greater degree, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves about how ugly the business of geopolitics is. Our side is not ‘the good guys’. In 99% of cases, there are no good guys and bad guys.
What this writer has done is the sort of subtle information warfare that the west engages in. It’s less blatant and in my mind preferable to what Putin does, but it’s also insidious and endemic to western press, who have gotten to the point they do it without even realizing what they’re doing in many cases. Unherd does this far less than many. The UK press in general is better quality than what we have in the US. I believe Jim is from Canada and they have the same mainstream media slant, maybe worse. It’s so ubiquitous here as to be nigh inescapable, and people like Jim and myself who recognize it for what it is are just really tired of it. That’s why I, for one, subscribe to Unherd, as a way to get away from it, so of course I’m never pleased to see it here. I’m mostly just backing Jim up here. He’s right about what the author is doing.
I think it’s pretty clear that Patrikarakos is a NAFO propagandist, so don’t bother trying to look for balance. There’s hardly a paragraph that hasn’t some distortion of events or history.
Take, for example, the trope that Russia invaded (partly?) because it had a problem with Ukraine joining the EU. Nope; it was NATO accession that Russia was worried about (along with the build-up for a major offensive into the breakaway regions, and Zelenskyy hinting he wanted Ukraine to acquire nuclear weapons).
And given the logistical difficulties of defending Transnistria if it were attacked by Moldova or Ukraine, I doubt the Russians are the ones stirring up trouble there.
No one has ever suggested that Moldova, itself formerly part of Romania, hived off at Stalin’s behest, will join NATO. I think some of you guys are so keen to attack every aspect of “progressivism” in the West that you just are wilfully naive about Putin’s rather crude territorial expansionism. (Putin is in fact quite happy to use “progressive” tropes, such as ‘anti-racism’ when it suits him…..)
It is pretty clear to me that Putin wants a veto on any state in Russia’s supposed sphere of influence on whether they join either NATO or the EU.
Nothing hyperbolic about it. The propaganda machinery of Putin’s pal Viktor Orbán, even though he is PM of a NATO and EU member state, has been putting out the same basic message about the West 24/7 here in Hungary, and I can tell you it is effective. The gist of that message, in so far as it comes down to the unsophisticated pro-Orbán crowd is exactly the same as described by by Mr. Patrikarakos’s Moldovan journalist.
It seems as though Vladimir Putin is as interested in identity politics as the rest of them. Transnistrian rights are human rights! A Russian is anyone who identifies as a Russian! Cisnistrians, check your Moldovan privilege!
All the BS about NATO and the EU action forcing Putin to invade Ukraine is exactly that – BS. It was the weak and divided response he got as a result of all his previous incursions into the former USSR / Russian empire that emboldened him. Putin wants to redraw the map, the debate is whether it is the USSR he wants to recreate or the former Russian empire (which is larger than USSR).
Putin won’t live forever, but whoever comes behind him could easily be as bad if not worse. I am not saying we should get into a war in Ukraine, indeed I think this sort of thing make it more important to freeze the conflict where it is so that the Russians do not control a land or sea bridge to Moldova (Transnistria is land locked but is not far from the Black Sea coast of Moldova).
I never said the EU is responsible for the Russian invasion into Ukraine.
If it’s a direct quote, then the author can hardly be blamed for hyperbole.
If you haven’t looked at a map. I suggest you do so: if Russia establishes a permanent military presence in Transnistria, it would compromise the western half of Ukraine’s Black Sea coastline, in addition to the eastern half that is already now effectively under Russian control. It is strategically significant, and in my opinion would make any Ukraine peace deal with Russia not worth the paper its written on.
With or without Transnistria any Ukraine peace deal with Russia not worth the paper its written on.
Jim Veenbaas will not be able to understand this simplest and most obvious idea. It’s something of a blind spot for him.
Geez. That’s not how journalism works. The quotes they choose to include are a reflection of themselves – end of story. Journalists create their narrative using quotes from other people. That’s how the craft works.
I guess you’re in the camp that Moloova is worth going war over. I’m not.
Of course it is in our interests that Russia has defined and stable borders. And that these are not greater than today’s borders. And do not expand to include ex Warsaw Pact states who a) aren’t Russian and b) don’t want to be Russian.
Moldova isn’t really a separate country from Romania. It’s only split off because the Russians stole it in 1945 (like Kaliningrad, a large German city for many hundreds of years, stolen off the Germans and effectively ethnically cleansed).
There’s no lasting, stable peace in Eastern Europe while Putin lives and illegal self-declared states like Transnistria (which no one recognises) survive.
But the Transnistrian population is rapidly aging. The the Kaliningrad Russians are starting to question the value of remaining within Russia.
Frankly, the Russians in Transnistria should be offered relocation back to Russia or the Donbass. There’s enough space there now with the declining population and war losses. Then – certainly not immediately – it will take a generation to normalise Moldova – reunite Moldova with Romania.
Moldova was annexed by Stalin in 1940; it was part of romania. Stalin threatened war unless it was handed over.
Romania’s borders were guaranteed by France and the UK but they were losing France to Stalin’s ally Hitler.
Putin’s imperialist ambitions did not start with Ukraine or even the annexation of Crimea. Putin has been doing this sort of thing ever since he came to power. The 2022 invasion of Ukraine is the first time he has met with serious unified resistance from the west. Up until then it has always been a very weak and divided response. Given the state the west is in post covid and riddled with divisions, the strength and unity of the response has probably taken him by surprise. Had his invasion of Ukraine succeeded then Moldova would most likely have been next on his list former USSR / Russian empire states he would have attacked. If the war in Ukraine is allowed to continue to the point where Putin has a land bridge to Transnistria then it will be just a matter of time before Moldova falls. Where next after that?
I hate to mention the ‘H’ who will forever be used as a touchstone in these type of discussions, and I do think the US and the EU are always up to their own games (who isn’t? Saints are in short supply as ever)…..
But Putin is clearly playing the same game as Hitler before the Second World War; exploiting existing weaknesses in bordering regions and testing everybody else’s resolve to do anything about it.
And, guess what? It worked a dream until the concerted pushback over Ukraine, but even here it looks remarkably unlikely Ukraine will ever get all that territory back.
Meanwhile, Russia has successfully resisted the sanctions, even using them as an opportunity to become more self-sufficient and onshore production (something Western nations waffle about but never actually do much to achieve). The country even now has debt levels that Western economies could only dream of and a largely compliant population. It also is self-sufficient in energy and food. The list is endless.
Putin may have grand delusions about restoring Russia to greatness, but his analysis of the travails and ills of our societies are not far off the mark, and as the largest country on the planet, Russia is far more likely to weather any storm and achieve greater future importance than the UK for example or even the EU.
The biggest threat to Russia, of course, is Putin himself but Russia can survive Putin, just like it survived all the previous big men and despots.
Whatever happens in Ukraine, the damage to everybody else may be far worse than the damage to Russia in the long term.
Nonsense. Russia won’t ever be truly wealthy until it establishes rule of law government. They haven’t once succeeded after 1000 years. These sort of autocracies cannot produce technological innovation (real innovation – not stealing technology from abroad or buying in expertise). It’s simply not possible in a society where it’s unsafe to think freely and challenge the status quo (which innovation necessarily requires).
I’ve said it here many times – and getting tired of repeating it – what products or services does Russia produce that you would voluntarily buy ? Other than raw materials like oil, natural gas or minerals. You don’t get wealthy in the modern world without some value add.
Putin’s leading Russia down a dead end. There’s been a massive brain drain out of Russia. What talented young Russian would want to hang around in a country like that when better, safer opportunities are available abroad ?
But if they’re right about AI here, then the middle classes will soon suffer the same fate as the working classes and the majority of our populations will be reduced to the level of 19th Century Russian serfs albeit with Tik-Tok to cheer them up.
No-one will own anything and money will be virtually worthless after all the money printing our governments have indulged in to dodge taking any tough decisions.
Meanwhile, what happens should Putin decide to ‘liberate’ the 24% of the population of Estonia that is ethnic Russian ?
Will NATO actually do anything or will it all turn out to be noise and no activity ? Would we even fight a real war ?
You may well be right in the long term about Russia but it can do a load of damage to our countries in the meantime.
Sorry – delay in replay – something wrong with the comments on this site for the last 12 hours and couldn’t post anything.
Who’s “they” in the “right about AI” ?
AI will automate away some jobs. And create some new ones. We’ve been through these changes before.
Don’t believe this catastrophism.
There isn’t a clear 24% of Estonia to be “liberated”. Nor are all those Russian speakers “Russian” or wanting to be part of Russia, There’s no simple line on a map you can draw here. If Putin goes into Estonia, that’s starting a war with NATO. Simple. Would NATO respond ? Yes. You seriously imagine the Baltic States and Poland would just sit back and watch it happen ? Baltics + Poland + Finland + Sweden is already more than Russia can handle, before you add in any of the other NATO countries. Remember, Ukraine had basically no navy or air force. Then factor in the blowback in Belarus which is being held down against its own population today. Putin would be mad to go into the Baltics.
What member of the EU wants Moldova as a member of the EU, or indeed Ukraine as a member of the EU. A monetary union of budgetary sovereign states cannot and is not working.
That 2014 ‘revolution’ is looking worse by the day. Over here, the warmonger Victoria Nuland is calling it a career. While I can’t see into Putin’s mind, the guy has been in power for two decades without embarking on a reign of conquest, yet every other article is some breathless prediction of his empire-building desires.