Russia – Pike & Hurricane

Eternal Putin

Maya Diekmann — Sun, 06 Dec 2020 18:33:49 +0000

How does one leave the Kremlin after nearly two decades in office? And can one leave it gracefully and even more importantly—perhaps—alive? Russia’s Vladimir Putin has little to learn from his predecessors. Of the nine de facto Russian leaders since Lenin, five died in office, two were more or less officially exiled and eradicated from the Russian political scene, one became one of “the most reviled men in Russia”, and the last one remains nothing but the drunk memory of Russia’s chaotic stumble into the 21st century. Putin, the founding father of post-Soviet Russia, surely has no interest in following in his immediate predecessors’ footsteps or becoming yet another Russian leader among many.

Till death do us part

Recent constitutional reforms in Russia, initiated by the president, have commentators pointing to the possibility that Putin might in fact be choosing the more popular mode of transportation out of the Kremlin—that is in a coffin. With the annulment of his presidential terms, Putin could seek reelection in 2024 and technically stay president until 2036, ensuring him a de facto presidency for life, given that the life expectancy in Russia averages 67.75 years for males—an age which Putin has already exceeded.

Putin’s legacy is withering away, unless he makes one of two decisive moves: Tightening his grip on power or—almost unimaginable—letting go.

But why go to such lengths of reforming an entire constitution to be re-elected president if playing a game of musical chairs with a designated side-kick, in Putin’s case Dmitry Medvedev, is just as effective? Unless, of course, the partner is increasingly weak and no longer suitable for the game, as Medvedev’s plummeting approval ratings after 2014, from which the former Prime Minister never managed to recover, indicate. Only after Medvedev resigned upon Putin’s proposition for constitutional changes, and Mikhail Mishustin assumed his position, have the approval ratings for the new Russian Prime Minister started to recover. Perhaps, Putin has found a new president-in-waiting in Mishustin. Though this still wouldn’t explain the constitutional reform.

More realistically, Putin may have realized that his own image might just never fully recover either, after the 2018 anti-government protests—least when the organizer of these protests and Putin’s main political opponent almost miraculously survives a “mysterious” attempted assassination. And only so many political opponents can end up poisoned before an explanation to the Russian people and the international community is inescapable. Approval ratings will unlikely ever reach those peaks of Putin’s early presidency and opposition is only likely to grow louder. In other words, Putin’s legacy is withering away, unless he makes one of two decisive moves: Tightening his grip on power or—almost unimaginable—letting go.

The last responder

If Putin does in fact want to be reelected in 2024, he needs to have sufficient support from the people of Russia, meaning he needs to stabilize his approval ratings. Those are in fact looking pretty stable—albeit not great—even if one accounts for a temporary corona-induced low. Yet, if he actually plans to retire, doing so with such mediocre ratings—a far cry from his heydays—would leave a bitter aftertaste for the man who has been ranked Russia’s second greatest leader after Stalin by the Russian people. Whenever and however Putin leaves the Kremlin, he will want to do so on a high note. Since Putin first assumed power he has only experienced two major crises in approval ratings—not counting the most recent one triggered by the Kremlin’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. The first were the large scale anti-government protests between 2011–2013, that were, among others, motivated by Putin’s decision to run for reelection. It was essentially Russia’s suspiciously successful performance at the Olympic Winter Games in Sochi—cue: the 2017 documentary “Icarus”—that propelled Putin’s ratings back up after these protests.

The second were the large-scale anti-corruption protests against the government between 2017–2018 and although not immediately linked to Putin’s reelection, these—once again—occurred in the year of the Russian presidential elections out of which Putin would emerge victorious. Unfortunately for him, there were no more major sports events scheduled in the near future that could prove handy to Putin’s agenda. If the Kremlin wants to keep an already strained Russian population under control for the next presidential election—or even just until then—they need to find a remedy for the dissatisfaction. And how better to please the opposition than to give them what they have been asking for ever since the President circumvented the constitution in 2012: a Russia without Putin.

A Piece of Eternity

Enter the constitutional reform. However near or far the amendments project the end of Putin’s reign, it does project it. It is almost a guarantee for no one like Putin to ever happen to Russia again. And Russia was thrilled about that: A sweeping 78 percent of Russians approved Putin’s suggested reforms, even in a time where the President’s popularity itself was scraping at a corona pandemic induced near all-time low, and even at the risk that Putin might in fact run for another term. At least the end is in sight.

“But Putin’s reform might just prove successful, regardless of future presidential terms or even approval ratings.”

Had the corona pandemic not happened, Russians might have even been thankful enough for their president offering his own head, to spare some more positive opinions towards him, too. Then Putin’s master plan might have worked out––he could have left with a bang or ridden his wave of approval a bit longer. But Putin’s reform might just prove successful, regardless of future presidential terms or even approval ratings. In the end, the reforms have gifted Putin with one thing: He has enshrined his legacy—his rediscovered Russian greatness—into the heart of the Russian state, while ensuring that no president after him will even come close to this legacy. And that itself is a piece of eternity for Putin.

Related Articles

Freedom in the Russian neighbourhood

The Grand Chessboard 2.0

Photo credits

Kremlin, Luigi Selmi, CC BY-SA 2.0

Chris Liverani, Unsplash

The post Eternal Putin appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Freedom in the Russian neighbourhood

Maya Diekmann — Mon, 02 Nov 2020 11:01:11 +0000

“Eastern Europe is free. The Soviet Union itself is no more. This is a victory for democracy and freedom.” When US President George H. W. Bush, declared victory over the Soviet Union on December 26, 1991, after a Cold War that had nearly lasted half a century, he set the tone of what would become a given in Western understanding of history. The Soviet Union lost, communism lost, there is no longer any threat coming from the East. Just how wrong this framing of the end of the Cold War turned out to be, would slowly unveil itself over the years to come.

Of geopolitical disasters

Russia’s Vladimir Putin once called the dissolution of the Soviet Union “a major geopolitical disaster of the century.” What he referred to, was the fact that millions of ethnic Russians suddenly found themselves on foreign territory when the Union ceased to be in 1991. Time and time again this disaster turned out to be quite useful as an excuse for Russia to meddle with its neighbours’ politics. It even went so far as to inspire much of Putin’s speech to the Russian Federal Assembly that initiated the annexation of Crimea in 2014. No wonder that in other former members of the Soviet Union, where the integration of ethnic Russians has been rather draggish, fears of the big bad neighbour persist even almost thirty years after the Soviet Union disintegrated.

But would Russia really go as far as to annex a tiny peninsula home to roughly 1.5 million lands-people, despite being aware of the implications of such actions internationally? Of course not. The fact that Crimea’s inhabitants are mostly of Russian descent surely added a nice detail to the story, but ultimately Putin’s real asset on the peninsula were the deep, blue, and, most importantly, warm waters around it––the Russian naval base in Crimean Sevastopol, the only port that does not freeze over in the winter.

Which brings us to the real geopolitical disaster: Russia, like any other country in the world, is a slave to its own territory. There are some developments, which Russia is unlikely to ever accept. Losing the Ukraine would be one of them, and not just because of Sevastopol. Tim Marshall, author of the book “Prisoners of Geography,” writes that if Putin was the religious man he claims to be, he would pray for mountains in the Ukraine. Then, Russia wouldn’t have to worry about security threats from the West effortlessly cruising through the great corridor, the Northern European Plain, straight up to Moscow. Then, Russia wouldn’t have to worry about NATO at their doorstep.

Beware of NATO

And what a worry NATO is. Since its foundation, NATO has been a thorn in Russia’s (western) side. As an alliance created for the purpose of providing collective security against the Soviet Union, not even Mikhail Gorbachev, the ‘liberator’ of the East Bloc if you will, was particularly keen on having the pact’s forces anywhere near the Russian border. Moscow’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy declared that NATO expansion would make “the Baltic states and Ukraine… a zone of intense strategic rivalries.”

Fast forward three decades and we have an armed conflict in the Donbass region of the Ukraine. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has actually listened to the Kremlin’s threats in the 1990s. The case of the Ukraine is a difficult and complex one and it combines the worst of both worlds of Russia’s problems: A big share of its population consists of ethnic Russians and it is of immense strategic importance to Russian territorial security. This makes it virtually impossible for Russia not to act when it sees the Ukraine flirting with the West. With over 3,000 casualties, and roughly 1.6 million displaced persons, the war in the Ukraine and, in particular, potential Russian involvement cannot and must not be justified. But it can be understood. And to understand, we cannot ignore the behaviour of the USA, Europe, and the historic West.

New peace, old fears

Perhaps after the end of the Cold War, one could have attempted what Germany and France managed after the Second World War. A similar mutual distrust, exacerbated by the lack of natural borders protecting against invaders, had kept Germany and France at odds in a similar fashion that Russia is at odds with Western Europe today.

But even if the NATO powers had wanted to, Russia simply could not have been integrated in the existing Atlantic security system after 1991. As Richard Sakwa writes: “In structural terms, Russia was too big, too independent, too proud and ultimately too strong to become part of an expanded ‘West’.” And instead of reforming existing structures and actively seeking cooperation and compromise with Russia, building the ‘Common European Home’ that Gorbachev had envisioned, the capitalist West saw itself to have won the day, leaving Russia with an unjustified sense of defeat, a questionable new ‘Cold Peace’, and old fears of the Great European Plain.

With its continuing “triumphalism”, the USA would go on to unilaterally influence international politics like no other, ultimately turning Russia away from Europe and the West. Sakwa describes 2003 as the year in which Putin decided that US involvement in the Iraq War demonstrated the nation’s true ambitions, its expansionist policies, which were incompatible with his embrace of national sovereignty––a firm position Russia has kept until this day. NATO’s and the EU’s expansion eastwards were a confirmation to Russia of what they were already suspecting. The West was coming for their neighbours, and ultimately, for them. And when the West reached Ukraine, Russia pulled the emergency brake.

Freedom in the Russian neighbourhood

Even as recently as 2014, the USA remains convinced that Ukraine can be anything but Russia’s neighbour. “[T]he future of Ukraine must be decided by the people of Ukraine”, were US President Barack Obama’s words before unleashing sanctions on Russia which, together with those of the EU, nearly “brought the Kremlin to its knees.” But Russia has adapted to the sanctions and proved surprisingly resilient to the external pressure. Rather than forcing the Kremlin to obey, they have been, if anything, marginalized even more, once again turning inwards, relying on no one but themselves––and their Ukrainian buffer.

When we look at a map, one of the first things that stand out are the carefully carved lines that make the borders of a state. The end of the Cold War has added many new lines and shapes to the map of Eastern Europe, but it has not added a new topographical alto-relief, indicating the mountains that Putin keeps praying for. The stretch between Moscow and the Atlantic Ocean remains dark green, and, most importantly, flat. This means that Russia has to rely on other means of creating a defense line––its immediate neighbours. So, when Bush announced the end of the Soviet Union, what he meant was the end of an ideology, rather than the end of geopolitical power struggles. And when he called Eastern Europe “free,” what he meant was: “As free as one can be when sandwiched between Russia and the rest of Europe.”

Related articles:

Ukraine: Revolution of Dignity

NATO Membership: Better Defence at a Lower Cost

Photo credits:

Sam Oxyak, Unsplash

Марьян Блан (@marjanblan), Unsplash

Jeroen, Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 3.0

The post Freedom in the Russian neighbourhood appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

YNTR – June 2020: George Floyd, Antifa, Ebola, and more

EditorChief — Sun, 14 Jun 2020 08:14:30 +0000

USA. On May 25, George Floyd (46) was arrested for allegedly using counterfeit money to buy cigarettes. He died as a consequence of a white police officer, Derek Chauvin, kneeling on his neck for over eight minutes. Protests against racism and racist police violence have erupted throughout the USA, as well as abroad. Unlike as in many other cases, the officers involved in the murder of Floyd have been charged. The charges against Chauvin have been raised from third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter to second-degree murder. His previously uncharged colleagues are now accused of aiding and abetting murder. A few days after the killing of Floyd, hactivist group Anonymous released a video accusing Minneapolis Police Department of “a horrific track record of violence and corruption” in which the murder of Floyd was “merely the tip of the iceberg”.

France. Despite a police-ban thousands of people in France have protested against racist police violence after the murder of George Floyd. The case bares ressemblance to the killing of Adama Traoré (24) in 2016. Official reports claimed he had died of heart failure due to possible pre-existing health conditions. A second autopsy which had been requested by Traoré’s family, however, suggests he died due to the three police officers, that arrested him after he ran from them since e had no ID card with him, holding him to the ground with their bodyweight. They have not been charged. Two days prior to the killing of Floyd, the hashtag #MoiAussiJAiPeurDevantLaPolice has gone viral after singer Camélia Jordana had spoken out against police violence on TV. She stated that “there are thousands of people who do not feel save in the presence of a cop”.

France. Currently, a new law is being debated that would make it illegal to photograph or film police officers (in a manner that makes it possible to identify them). Diffusion of images of this kind could lead to a fine of 15 000€ and even one year in prison. The proposed law is criticised as disregarding the right to inform and making it even more difficult to hold police officers accountable for police violence. At the same time, French police has interrogated Mediapart journalist Pascale Pascariello who frequently reported on police violence and uncovered the lies of president Macron linked to a case of police violence. It is the fourth time in 18 months that police have tried to uncover the sources of Mediapart. Pascariello refused to answer the police’s questions during the one and a half hours of interrogation and criticised the police’s attempt to reveal her sources condemning “a climate of pressure on our profession and of intimidation vis-à-vis our sources”.

USA. In the wake of a disagreement between Donald Trump and Twitter, the US president threatened to introduce legislation that would weaken Twitter’s protection against liability for content by its users. Previously, Twitter had flagged a tweet by Trump on mail-in voting fraud as needing to be fact-checked and flagged another post as “gloryfing violence”. Yet, they decided to not remove the tweet as it is in public interest. The Trump administration had initially responded by retweeting the latter flagged tweet via the White House account which was subsequently hidden by Twitter.

USA. US president Trump has proposed to classify Antifa as a terrorist organisation. Antifa is a loosely organised anti-fascist movement that sees its roots in the radical left groups which resisted fascist dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini. However, Antifa conspiracy theories are wide-spread among groups and members of the political right. Due to its lack of characteristics typical for an organisation, legal experts view Trump’s plan as impossible and even unconstitutional.

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). In the DRC, the eleventh Ebola outbreak was announced on the 31st of May 2020 in the northwest of the country, while in the East the tenth outbreak is not over yet. In the district around the city Mbandaka, 4 people have died. Meanwhile, in the Kivu province the appearance of new case prevented the previous outbreak from being declared as over. The country is under travel restrictions to prevent a spread of the coronavirus. It is a measure which might now also be helpful to fight Ebola.

Russia/Siberia. Near the city Norilsk in Siberia, 15 000 to 20 000 tons of diesel fuel have been spilled into the Ambarnaya river. The waters are heavily polluted and the installed booms will only be able to collect a small portion of the oil that is polluting the environment. The Russian president Putin has declared a state of emergency in Norilsk. The cause is suspected to be the thawing permafrost, followed by the abnormally warm temperatures in the Arctic regions which made the platform sink deeper into the ground.

The post YNTR – June 2020: George Floyd, Antifa, Ebola, and more appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Dead or alive: on Punk and Anarchism

Kristina Bartl — Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:12:13 +0000

Music and protesting have always gone hand in hand. Even Mozart once composed a six voice canon and titled it “Difficile lectu mihi mars et jonicu difficile”, which does not make much sense in Latin, but it sounds like “Kiss my arse!” in German. Why did he do it? Rumor has it that it was solely out of fun. Whilst this form of provocation is not the norm in classical music, there are certain genres that have always been a form of more serious protest. When Punk, a genre fueled by anger and disappointment in society, gained popularity, a new form of protest was born. In the 70s no one in the Rock or Punk scene questioned the necessity of the rebellion, whose soundtrack was provided by The Sex Pistols, Mötley Crue or The Clash. But nowadays, in the time of millennials and avocados, many claim that Punk is dead – for real this time.

Before making any assumptions regarding Punk’s extinction, it’s time to take a step back and remember its glorious early days. Until this day there are many different answers, when one asks for the origin of Punk. Some claim it came all the way from land of Down Under, others would bet their first born that Punk arose from an underground scene in the United States. And people like myself consider the United Kingdom as its origin. Regardless of where it came from, one thing is clear: Punk was the voice for and of the misunderstood and silenced members of society.

Contemporary Punk

Punk is is not a synonym for destructive behaviour or certain aesthetics and it never was supposed to be a specific style or even a particular sound. Punk was and is a rebellious act. When Refused, a Swedish hardcore-punk band, released their new album “War Music” this October the Punk scene welcomed the LP with open arms, because it satisfies its listeners’ nostalgia by taking them back to the early days of punk. The band also made a public statement regarding their latest release, which was full of empowering messages as: “[…] But we still believe that capitalism is cancer. And we still believe it can be cured. We still believe that the patriarchy is cancer. And we still believe it too can be cured. […]”. Even though, their most recent work is without a doubt an anarchistic and powerful piece of art, there are multiple other artists, who have kept Punk alive over the years.

In 2011, for example, a group of young Russian women formed a band called Pussy Riot and wrote protest songs against their politicians. In March 2012, three of those women got arrested for playing their music in front of a cathedral. If you think that their imprisonment for this so-called act of ‘hooliganism’ stopped the band from being vocal about politics, then you are absolutely wrong. Right after her release one of the band members, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, showed that not even a Russian prison can hold her back from being vocal about the political situation in her home country by shouting “Russia without Putin!” in front of journalists. Also the band’s musical protest has continuously been going strong, for example, in 2018 they published a song in protest against the upcoming Putin election that year.

The actions of Pussy Riot are an example of Punk in its purest form. But there are more Russian groups, who use their art to express their thoughts on, not only the Russian, but the worldwide political and social climate. One of them is Shortparis – a group that combines visuals, choreographies, experimental punk and electronic music. Contrary to Pussy Riot, they do not explicitly refer to Russian topics. The group is rather discrete in their lyrical message, but their music videos and live performances are full of powerful images. One could interpret some of the visuals as signs against neo-Nazism, toxic masculinity or social inequality. The band does not comment on those speculations and give their audience room for their own interpretation, because they would rather let their art speak for itself. In my opinion, their work is a balancing act between political and social matters, whilst their sound is flowing somewhere between hope and frustration.

Not only the Russian government inspires artists to articulate their anger. The American government, for example, has inspired the punk scene for years and especially one song became the sound for the protest against the country’s political situation. I am speaking of “American Idiot” by Green Day, which was not dedicated to the current president, but to one of his predecessors – George W. Bush – and yet, it still is as relevant in 2019 as it was at its release 15 years ago.

In the summer of 2018, when Donald Trump visited the United Kingdom, British Trump critics launched a campaign that hyped the song so much that it ended up in the charts during Trump’s stay in the UK. But also the members of Green Day themselves are very open about their opinion on the man in the oval office. At the 2016 American Music Awards the band’s front man Billie Joe Armstrong took the opportunity of having a large audience to express his disapproval by chanting “No Trump, no K.K.K., no fascist U.S.A.!” into the mic during their performance. Those were just some of the many examples of how Punk is being used as a form of protest in different variations.

A small pinch of Anarchism

Since Anarchism means questioning hierarchical systems of power, the overlap between left-wing supporters, anarchistic beliefs and the punk scene are undeniable. Hence, it is not surprising that the most popular Punk artists are rebelling against fascism, capitalism and right-wing politics. From the very beginning Punk has been an anthem for the ones who are fighting against injustice performed by the ones in power.

It should be clear by now, that being Punk does not have anything to do with throwing bricks at police officers or any other kind of vandalism. It is about questioning social constructs. Deciding to stand up against discrimination is just as Punk as rocking a Mohawk. And in a world that constantly tells you who to love and how to look like, simply embracing and loving yourself is Punk.

To come back to my main question: If one defines Punk as a movement run by people, who spend their days occupying abandoned houses, whilst listening to The Ramones, then yes, Punk has probably died a little and no, we might not be able to relive those days to their full extent. But if one defines Punk as a movement run by people who question the constructs of power and articulate their disappointment in society by creating art such as music then it is still very much alive.

by Kristina Bartl

Photo Credits

Boots, Galdramenn

Pussy Riot, Subterranean Chicago, March 7, 2018, Daniel X. O’Neil, CC BY 2.0

Fight Racism Fight Imperialism – Anti-Trump protesters start to gather in London’s Trafalgar Square, Alisdare Hickson, CC BY-SA 2.0

Protest 2, Pxhere

The post Dead or alive: on Punk and Anarchism appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Lithuania – Next on Russia’s Bucket List?

Michael Schätzlein — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:03:40 +0000

If Germany has a “no more” moment that is deeply ingrained into its national consciousness, it is to never allow fascism to rise again. For Poland and the Baltic states, it is probably to prevent any enslavement under foreign dominion. In the light of the situation in Ukraine, where Russia utilised the political turmoil to press its own agenda and to occupy the Crimean peninsula and the Donbass region by disguising soldiers as irregular forces and sending weapons to local insurgents, many states in the Eastern parts of Europe feel somewhat uncomfortable. Lithuania, afraid of its Russian neighbour, is stepping up its defences.

A Panzerhaubitze 2000

Over the course of the last few months, Lithuania has taken up negotiations about several arms deals with its allies. One of the most striking ones is the possible delivery of PzH 2000 self-propelled howitzers from Germany. However, this arms deal has not yet been concluded. Projects like these will be financed from the defence budget, which has increased drastically by 20% from 2013 to 2014 and another 32% from 2014 to 2015. Previously, it had seen major cuts due to the recession caused by the financial crisis in 2008.

Plans to reintroduce mandatory conscription for men have also been announced. Mandatory military conscription had been abolished a few years ago, but since opting for a professional army did not yield a sufficiently high troop strength, this decision will now be reverted. If everything goes as planned, about 3,000 to 3,500 new soldiers will be drafted every year starting from September, with exemptions for university students, single fathers and the like. Before the new recruits can be drafted, though, the law first needs to be passed by the parliament.

Lithuanian soldiers at an exercise

Apart from this military build-up, Lithuania will also receive foreign aid in the form of NATO soldiers that will be stationed there as part of a new task force. While the USA parades around military vehicles in the eastern parts of Europe in a show of force, Germany has agreed to send 500 soldiers. Joint military exercises with the newcomers and neighbouring countries are also in the planning, and new alliances are also on the horizon, most prominently the joint brigade Lithuania will form with Poland and Ukraine.

However, Lithuania has some of those advantages Ukraine did not have. Other than Ukraine, Lithuania has not isolated itself politically. Lithuania is a member of both the EU and NATO and can thus count on the support from Western allies. This diminishes the probability of an actual Russian intervention in the country. Also, it might be difficult for Moscow to legitimise any actions against Lithuania. Here, ethnic Russians only account for 5.8% of the population. Also, they have the same rights as any other Lithuanian. In this regard, Estonia and Latvia are far more prone to be targeted, as they have Russian populations of 25 and 27 percent respectively.

US troops during Operation Dragoon Ride

How, then, will Russia target Lithuania? The answer seems to lie in the Polish minority, which constitutes about 6.6% of the country’s population. While this might not seem like a lot, they are still a political force to be reckoned with. The Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania (AWPL), a political party representing the Polish minority, mostly sides with the Lithuanian Russian Union in elections to form an electoral union, and its leadership has close ties to Russia. Support for the party has risen over the years. In the 2012 parliamentary elections, it accounted for 5.83% of votes, and has since managed to increase its share of votes to about 8% in the presidential, municipal and European elections. Moscow could utilise the Polish minority to destabilise Lithuania politically.

By Michael Schätzlein

Image credit:

Picture 1: Andrew.CZ, licensed under CC BY 2.0

Picture 2: U.S. Army Europe Images, licensed under CC BY 2.0

Picture 3: David Axe, licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

The post Lithuania – Next on Russia’s Bucket List? appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Visiting Transnistria: A Dormant Civil War Inside Europe

Rodrigo de Souza — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:48:53 +0000

Transnistria. Although it is independent, has its own currency, army, public institutions and even passports, much of the world has no idea it exists. It is a self-declared country, a breakaway state from Moldova that is not recognized by any other country in the world. According to the UN, Transnistria is an integral part of Moldova and is recognized by other countries as such. To understand how Transnistria came to be, we should go back in time to the period of the Soviet Union

From the end of the Second World War to the beginning of the 90’s, Moldova was part of the Soviet Empire. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, Moldova then became an independent country. Despite this, a great conflict remained in the new country as those at the east of the Dniestr river, the majority of whom were of Russian and Ukrainian descent, declared themselves independent from Moldova since they felt more allied to Russian interests. Because of this disagreement, there was a brief civil war in 1992. Thanks to the support of the 14th Russian Army, which was based inside Transnistria, the outcome of this war was that Transnistria would be allowed to maintain its independence from Moldova. Russia intervened because it considers the region in its backyard and believes it has the right to intervene at any time once its interests are in jeopardy. In this case it was the “protection” of civilians from Russian descent. However this is probably an excuse to keep its troops in countries that broke away from the Soviet Empire since the same situation happened in other post-Soviet “frozen conflicts” like South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia and Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan. In the case of Moldova and Georgia, this is a clear attempt by Russia to prevent ex-Republics aligning with the West, especially the European Union in Moldova’s case and NATO for Georgia.

Since the end of the war and the creation of this peculiar “country”, there have been rumors about all kinds of shady business within this territory like human trafficking and commerce of organs, drugs and steroids. One of the most widely known stories (and possibly the only reason why some people have heard of Transnistria) is that of the famous arms dealer portrayed in the movie “Lord of War”, Viktor Bout, who got most of his heavy weaponry from the 14th Russian Army in Transnistria. It has been stated that with the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union, a lot of the control over its less sophisticated arsenal was lost or became very lax. Taking advantage of this situation, Bout allegedly used his influence as ex-Soviet Army officer to gain access to part of the Russian arsenal left in Transnistria.

It may seem weird that someone would like to visit a place like this, but since I am a student of International Relations and an avid traveler, a trip like that would be the perfect field experience to understand a micro example of a geopolitical dispute. To accomplish this task I had to go to Moldavia which is probably the easiest way to enter Transnistria, but it is also possible to go in through Ukraine. It was surprisingly simple as I merely took a van from Moldova’s capital, Chisinau which run every 30 minutes to Tiraspol, to the capital of Transnistria.

After 40 minutes on the van I started getting close to the “border”. Since Moldova doesn’t recognize this breakaway province, they also don’t recognize that there is a border between them, so the last authorities on the Moldovan side are not border guards but “normal policeman” who ensures border control.

After passing through Moldovan border control, I saw the Russian “peacekeepers” with their Kalashnikovs and tanks. They wear blue berets and helmets like UN peacekeepers, but without the UN emblem and their status is disputed since they are not part of any UN mission. They are not under UN mandate and according to most Western countries they are there in a violation of Moldavian sovereignty. On the other hand, Russia claims that its presence there is part of a 1992 cease-fire agreement between Moldova and Transnistria, stating that they are there to prevent a conflict between both sides. This is an illusion since in the event of conflict the barrels of the blue helmet’s guns would most likely only point to one direction.

After driving past the “peacekeepers” and their tanks, I arrived at the border control of Transnistria where everyone had to get out the van to have their documents checked. Outside everything is controlled by the serious eyes of the police but inside the immigration office is chaotic with people pushing in line to get their entry papers ready. Since no “real” country has diplomatic relations with Transnistria, the officials stamped a sheet of paper instead of my passport[1].

Shortly after, I reached the main bridge crossing the Dniestr River. In 1992, this was the bridge where Russian tanks crossing into the Moldovan side could be seen during the war. Today, however, this is yet another check point manned by Russian troops.

Once in the center of Tiraspol, I started to walk through the main avenue. On one side I could see the imposing statue of Lenin with his clenched fist and on the other side I could still see an old Soviet tank with the classic letters CCCP on the side, which is the Russian Cyrillic abbreviation for the USSR. Continuing down the avenue I saw a memorial to victims of the 1992 conflict as well as other nationalist symbols such as flags and communist red stars. Everything seemed almost deserted, without many people, stores, and less cars than you would expect for such a large avenue. I had to be careful when taking pictures, especially of Lenin’s statue. While I was trying to take a picture a soldier came out from the building behind it and made a clear gesture for me to stop. This attitude from the soldier is quite understandable since there are no other tourists around and they are not used to people photographing monuments. Anyone taking pictures may be thought of as Moldavian spy.

I tried to strike up some conversation with the locals on the street but most of them did not speak English. It was a little bit easier to have some interaction with the youngsters who were very curious to know more about me. The ones I could talk to always asked me what I was doing there since they are not used to seeing outsiders. I was also told that everyone in Transnitria held dual citizenship, usually from Russia, Ukraine or Moldova since otherwise they would be a stateless person, with a passport that is not recognized around the world. Furthermore, I learned that such an unrecognized county can only survive because it has full economic and military support from Russia, which was obvious by all the Russian products and brands I saw on stores around Tiraspol.

Leaving this self-declared country at the end of the day, I wondered how long this bizarre situation would last. Last November Moldova signed an association agreement with the EU which usually represents the first steps for a future full membership with the European Union. However, Transnistria has said it has no interest in the EU and prefers an association with Russia. This situation gives Russia a partial victory. Since it cannot stop Moldova from joining the EU, it can at least stop it from joining NATO which is usually a natural step. But since NATO would probably not accept a country that has no full control of its own territory, keeping Transnistria on Russia’s side would definitely deny Moldova from joining NATO any time soon and thus avoiding Russia’s old enemy of getting even closer to its Southwest border.

This same attitude of Russia seeking to enforce its military and economic power over ex-Soviet republics is what led to the civil unrest we are seeing in Ukraine in the last few months. Instead of following Moldova and signing the association agreement with EU, Ukraine prime minister preferred to keep its alignment with Russia in exchange for a 15 billion dollars package from Russia. The only problem is that the majority of the Ukrainian population wants to progress towards the West and EU and the Ukrainian government together with the Eastern part of the country prefers the Russian side. This tug of war between both sides reflects nothing more than a geopolitical dispute between Brussels and the Kremlin for the power over ex-Soviets republics. The unrest in Ukraine’s capital Kiev has been unravelling for almost three months. Barricades were formed by the protesters at Kiev’s main square and there is no end in sight (I will leave it to change at the last minute). We can only hope the same situation doesn’t happen in the “border” between Moldova and Transnistria because unlike Ukraine, there are more weapons available and the consequences can be dire.

1 South Ossetia and Abkhazia recognize Transnistria as an independent country.

This article was based on a previous version originally published by http://outofyourcomfortzone.net/ where it explains how to visit Transnistria.

By Rodrigo de Souza

Image credit: Rodrigo de Souza

The post Visiting Transnistria: A Dormant Civil War Inside Europe appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.