A Harsh Critque of the OCSE Moldavan Mission

The Transnistria conflict is not one between two parts of Moldova, or the two banks of the Nistru River and their respective populations, or some kind of inter-communal conflict. The OSCE will continue to fail unless it recognizes the conflict’s real nature: An inter-state conflict in which Russia has seized a part of Moldova’s territory by military force and installed its political and administrative appointees there. The ongoing “negotiating process” and diplomatic terminology long associated with it are obscuring that reality. Imposed by Yevgeny Primakov in 1997 on a then-isolated Moldova, and supported by a line-toeing OSCE Mission to date, that process and that terminology misdefine Transnistria as a “party to the conflict” (ostensibly co-equal with the rest of Moldova); and Russia as “mediator” between two parts of Moldova, ignoring Russia’s actual role as initiator of and party to the ongoing conflict. Moreover, Russia claims the role of “guarantor” of an eventual political settlement of the conflict thus defined.

A timely article based on what was posted over at A Fistful of Euros.

I disagree with Jonathan over his conclusions of Russia's goals, but I don't have time to write a rebuttal at this point. I think Russia really does want to annex Transdnistria, and other chunks of states, rather than what Jonathan states. I also think that Eastern, or perhaps even the whole of, Ukraine is also on Russia's menu as well.