Tiraspol - Moldova - Mafia in Uniform

Originally posted by maloy
Well this guy is popular either way, and would likely win the election even if it was "free and fair". Of course people know little alternative choices, but thats another matter (same with Belarus). But the fact that Belarus and Transniester keep electing these political dinosaurs, probably means that people there are to some degree content with their standard of living- and thats what matters the most to them.

As things stand now, even if they won't rig the election, Smirnov will undoubtedly get elected (altough without the riging he'll have a small, unconvincing victory). But if the régime would allow the development of free media and renounce its use of force for intimidating opponents then Smirnov wouldn't stand a chance at reelection.

The West is making such a big deal about the absence and democracy there, and the absence of holy capitalism - but those countries survive and its not like they are starving to death craving some burgers.

They could do much better than just survive, but the "leaders" deliberately keep them in this state for their selfish reasons (=profits from criminal activities).

People criticize Putin for being "way too popular". Maybe whats wrong is that Western politicians like Bush and Blair have such a low levels of support (percentage-wise).Come to think of it, Reagan was probably the one US president in recent times who was supported by at least something close to 2/3 of the US citizens.- but I am not sure about this.Who cares if Putin's opponents are left on the sidelines - it's not like they are persecuted or have no access to the media.

You're joking, i hope.

Everyone adopts democracy the way it best fits into their culture and into established traditions. Why not have US worry instead about American elections which are turning into a circus, instead of being concerned for the poor people of Transdnniester.

The Transnistrian régime is just mimicking democracy (and sadly, some people actually believe them).

Originally posted by taseg
As things stand now, even if they won't rig the election, Smirnov will undoubtedly get elected (altough without the riging he'll have a small, unconvincing victory). But if the régime would allow the development of free media and renounce its use of force for intimidating opponents then Smirnov wouldn't stand a chance at reelection.

Development of free media you say... No media, in any capitalist society is free. It's all paid for by somebody, and in many cases you are left guessing who that somebody is by the spin of that media. Lets hypothetically say they open their media up for "free" access by politicians. Sources in the West (Europe and US) will immediately pour their "democracy funds" into this "free" media, to place as much spin as possible on the party or side they support. And God knows these funds are huge - large enough to purchase Yuschenko and his supporters in Ukraine and Saakashvilli in Georgia. Of course locally supported politicians wouldn't stand a chance when the new "free" media is going to be all but bought out by Western interests.

So the only net effect would be the transfer of control of the media from local interests to outside interests. And basically the media, and the resulting elections will be up for sale to the highest bidder. Regions like Transdniester and Belarus are simply trying to stay in control of their country. Russia can do it either way, because its too large to succumb to foreign influence. Ukraine and Georgia however proved to weak to resist Western bait.

Originally posted by taseg
They could do much better than just survive, but the "leaders" deliberately keep them in this state for their selfish reasons (=profits from criminal activities).

Smirnov's link to criminal activities is indefinitive and mostly attributed to by the Western media - and how may I ask you do they know so much about an isolated society such as Transdnieter and what goes on there. All they present is someone's opinion about something they don't know for a fact. And how do you classify the reasons for Lukashenka staying in power in Belarus, since he certainly has no affiliation with organized crime.

Maybe what they are trying to do, is not dump democracy on their region and leave it to the "highest-bidder" to sort out. Thats what happened in Russia in the 90's, and it took a tremendous toll on the economy and the people. Maybe what they are trying to do is slowly initiate changes while staying in firm control for the time being (like China). Maybe they want to make sure that in the "democratization" the control and influence of the country stays locally, with local interests in mind.

Originally posted by taseg
You're joking, i hope.

No I am not joking. I think I have a better perception of what is going on where I live, than some journalist in the US writting about Russia without even visiting the place. As Putin said- the current party owns much of the tv media, but they cannot even hope to control all of the media or the news that people recieve. Everyone has free unrestricted access to internet and independent Russian news there (unlike China no restrictions or regulation of the internet). Radio and newspapers are fairly diverse and publish independent opinions. But so what. Murdoch and a few corporations increasingly owns much of the US "free media". The news in the US are spun no less than they are in Russia. Every country has biased news, the US not the least.

And I assure you that Putin would have majority of support no matter what. Economy is quickly improving, people can demonstrate and critizise all they want on the internet or private media outlets, population is on the rise for the first time in the last 15 years (a good thing for Russia), GDP and foreign investments are growing, and no major conflicts are taking place currently (Chechnya war ended years ago). So what is the reason for people to be upset with Putin?

Remember that he is trying to correct for the multitude of mistakes Gorbachev and Yeltsin made- and those were some huge mistakes.

Originally posted by taseg
The Transnistrian régime is just mimicking democracy (and sadly, some people actually believe them).

No one claims its a democracy. Maybe it has no reason to embrace democracy at the current time. A coutnry should never go strait from dictatorship or communism to pure democracy (unless a very bloody and likely long struggle takes place). Look what is happening in Iraq. Look what happened in Russia. You have to accomplish the transition gradually, or there will be rapid take over of power and a resulting violance between old and new factions. They have voting for multiple parties in Transdniester - fine. The rest of the parties get no media coverage or chance to spin their propaganda- alright give it some time.

Today's American democracy wasn't created in a day, or in a year, or even in one century. It took over two centuries with gradual progress, and is still changing (positive or negative - ?). Maybe the whole pressure on these developing regions (mostly from Us and Europe), is what is preventing further change and locking the current rules and leaders in power - because of the threat of take over of power.

Originally posted by maloy

Development of free media you say... No media, in any capitalist society is free. It's all paid for by somebody, and in many cases you are left guessing who that somebody is by the spin of that media.

Yeah, that's'true, but the point is that they should stop harassing (or actually aggressing) people that write or talk critically about the regime.

Lets hypothetically say they open their media up for "free" access by politicians. Sources in the West (Europe and US) will immediately pour their "democracy funds" into this "free" media, to place as much spin as possible on the party or side they support.[...]Ukraine and Georgia however proved to weak to resist Western bait.

That's oversimplyfing the issue. I don't think that "Western funding" was the main reason for what happened in Ukraine and Georgia: if things were actually going great there it would have been hard to gather so much support for changes.

Smirnov's link to criminal activities is indefinitive and mostly attributed to by the Western media - and how may I ask you do they know so much about an isolated society such as Transdnieter and what goes on there. All they present is someone's opinion about something they don't know for a fact.

I agree that the Western media might show this matter in a distorted and sensationalistic manner. However the ideea that Transnistria is so isolated and untouchable is exactly a Western media cliche. Investigation into it is not that impossible.
If the political establishment there is actually involved in criminal activities or simply benefits from tolerating them is open to debate.

And how do you classify the reasons for Lukashenka staying in power in Belarus, since he certainly has no affiliation with organized crime.

Sorry, I meant the other separatist territories.

No I am not joking. I think I have a better perception of what is going on where I live, than some journalist in the US writting about Russia without even visiting the place.[...]Remember that he is trying to correct for the multitude of mistakes Gorbachev and Yeltsin made- and those were some huge mistakes.

There are many types of censorship, the most destructive being self-censorship:"Will I lose my job if I write this article?Will I get shot?etc". A government should create an environment in which journalists wouldn't ask themselves these questions (not that the US government did .

No one claims its a democracy. Maybe it has no reason to embrace democracy at the current time. A coutnry should never go strait from dictatorship or communism to pure democracy (unless a very bloody and likely long struggle takes place)[...]Maybe the whole pressure on these developing regions (mostly from Us and Europe), is what is preventing further change and locking the current rules and leaders in power - because of the threat of take over of power.

Usually this "long period of transition needed" is just an excuse used by the elites of the former totalitarian regime to get enough time to grab anything of value and to convert themselves into capitalists. And you're absolutely right, it's the fear that they might loose everything they've stolen that prevents "further change" in those regions.






[edit on 9-11-2006 by taseg]

Originally posted by taseg
Yeah, that's'true, but the point is that they should stop harassing (or actually aggressing) people that write or talk critically about the regime.

After what happened in Ukraine and Georgia (a forced reelection, and basically a covert coup - clearly funded by the US), and constant pressure and allegations from the West, many of the leaders of these regimes are very cautious right now. I can tell you for a fact that before what happened in Ukraine, in Belarus there was more freedom of speech and less harassment of opposition by Luka's administration. After seeing what happened in Ukraine (an ILLEGAL reelection), they are determined to keep Western interests at bay. Yes it's wrong to harass the opposition and keep them from getting their word out, but on the other hand it was US that provoked this centralization of power in those regions.

Leaders and politicians of those regions fear the US now, after seeing how the US installed their puppet governments elsewhere. WTF may I ask you is US and NATO doing there anyway? WTF is NATO interested in Ukraine. These issues are troubling to alot of people, and US is seen as an aggressor by the politicians who are in power. US and their NATO pals should just stay out of CIS - they have the whole world under their thumb and there are enough dictatorships elsewhere for them to play with.

CIS was created so that NATO and US don't interfere in Russia's historical sphere of influence. There was an unsigned mutual agreement about this when Soviet Union fell apart. US however seems not bound by any international agreements (including the Geneva convention) after the start of WOT.

Originally posted by taseg
That's oversimplyfing the issue. I don't think that "Western funding" was the main reason for what happened in Ukraine and Georgia: if things were actually going great there it would have been hard to gather so much support for changes.

Things naturally weren't going great in Ukraine, and the same goes for all of CIS nations. The transition to a market economy and democracy was very tough, and took a heavy toll on economy. So the pro-US Yuschenko and other pro-US politicians blamed this on who else- the current leaders in power and on Russia (Yanukovich in case of Ukraine). This was completely not the case, as people see now. Economy worsened if anything after the transfer of power. US didn't shower them with money and investments like people though it would. They were simply duped and fooled by Yuschenko, who was pushed forward by the US. If not for US Yuschenko and Saakashvili would have never came to power - because they had nothing to offer to the people (and still have nothing to offer except for lies).

thus people wanted a better life, and were falsely assured that the tough conditions were the fault of current politicians, and that by becoming friends with the US they are gonna live rich and happy. It was all lies. Nothing changed for the better except for who is in power.

Originally posted by taseg
I agree that the Western media might show this matter in a distorted and sensationalistic manner. However the ideea that Transnistria is so isolated and untouchable is exactly a Western media cliche. Investigation into it is not that impossible.
If the political establishment there is actually involved in criminal activities or simply benefits from tolerating them is open to debate.

What about leaders of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno Karabakh? Did the Western media not yet find some reason to bash on them? Oh but don't worry they'll always dig up a reason. If not from facts, them from what the White House tells them- and we all know how happily the media jumps on what the White House tells them. If they are told that there are WMD's in Abkhazia, and that thats where Bin Laden and all the evil men in turbans are hiding, guess what you'll hear on breaking news.

And god knows Western politicians are mixed up in some questionable activities as well- and likely activities that have far more consequences than what some leader is assumed to be doing in tiny Transdniester. No one there tolerates "criminal" activities. And what are criminal activities? Selling weapons (non-WMD- and I assure you that there are no WMD's in Transdnieter) to third world countries is a crime? Well them lock up Uncle Sam and throw away the key. Transdnieter is doing nothing illegal from the political standpoint of view. China, US, Russia, have all done much much worser things than Transdniester could ever hope to do.

And by the way- the Russian army officials are still stationed on military bases in Transdnieter, and they are the ones in control of much of the Soviet Era weapons there.

Originally posted by taseg
There are many types of censorship, the most destructive being self-censorship:"Will I lose my job if I write this article?Will I get shot?etc". A government should create an environment in which journalists wouldn't ask themselves these questions (not that the US government did

.

I assume you are talking about the journalist murdered in Russia recently, and many others who shared her fate. Do you really believe it was Putin or his contacts that killed her. It was some faction of organized crime, which has in some instances more power than the President. This crime is a big problem, but it is being fought with. There are many politicians mixed up in it, and it will be a long fight. There is absolutely no indication that the current administration had anything to do with it.

Originally posted by taseg
Usually this "long period of transition needed" is just an excuse used by the elites of the former totalitarian regime to get enough time to grab anything of value and to convert themselves into capitalists. And you're absolutely right, it's the fear that they might loose everything they've stolen that prevents "further change" in those regions.

What have they stolen? People's votes? We can say that any elected politician "steals" people's votes. These regimes aren't exactly sitting on bags of money like Saddam was, nor do they possess rich resources or industries under their control. So what is their reason for staying? Some say it's not money and not power- it is the existing hope of uniting with Russia.

Originally posted by maloy
I can tell you for a fact that before what happened in Ukraine, in Belarus there was more freedom of speech and less harassment of opposition by Luka's administration. After seeing what happened in Ukraine (an ILLEGAL reelection), they are determined to keep Western interests at bay.

That may be true for Belarus, but in Transnistria things evolved differently: the pressure on the opposition has apparently (just apparently) decreased in recent years, so that the authorities there could pretend they're moving towards democracy.

WTF may I ask you is US and NATO doing there anyway? WTF is NATO interested in Ukraine. These issues are troubling to alot of people, and US is seen as an aggressor by the politicians who are in power. US and their NATO pals should just stay out of CIS - they have the whole world under their thumb and there are enough dictatorships elsewhere for them to play with.
CIS was created so that NATO and US don't interfere in Russia's historical sphere of influence.

Well, if Russia still behaves according to the obsolete concept of "spheres of influence", why shouldn't the US and NATO do the same?

Things naturally weren't going great in Ukraine, and the same goes for all of CIS nations. [...]Nothing changed for the better except for who is in power.

I think that the West simply speculated (without initiating it) a genuine opposition movement that developed in the two countries against corrupted and incompetent politicians,as well as against a precarious economic situation. Of course, it's wrong that the reformists played on the population's naivety and promised them an immediate improvement but that doesn't mean that after some hardships the situation won't get better.

If not from facts, them from what the White House tells them- and we all know how happily the media jumps on what the White House tells them.

I'm not denying that there is occasional political intervention in the way the Western media reflects events, but the main factor here is that the Transnistrian story sells better than those of the other separatist territories.

I assume you are talking about the journalist murdered in Russia recently, and many others who shared her fate. Do you really believe it was Putin or his contacts that killed her.

Of course I don't believe that, but I wonder if they have the political will to actually catch the people responsible for such acts. And I'm more concerned about everyday self-censorship than about such extreme events.

What have they stolen?[...]Some say it's not money and not power- it is the existing hope of uniting with Russia.

No, I didn't mean the votes, I meant that they've taken over everything valuable. It's naive to say that the regimes don't have control over industries or lucrative businesses in those regions - obviously their turnover is much smaller than Saddam's, but still it's something. And they're seeking unification with Russia in the hope of preserving their dubiously acquired wealth and social positions.

Meanwhile Transnistria seems to have opened an embassy in Moscow:

Moldova Azi - Foreign ministry is asked to take attitude over opening of a Transnistrian embassy in Moscow

The Parliament asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration to take attitude towards Transnistrian authorities’ intention to open an embassy in Moscow.
The Moldovan MPs made the request after learning from the Transnistrian press reports that Tiraspol officials will take part in the inauguration of a diplomatic representative office in Moscow on November 9.

Originally posted by taseg
That may be true for Belarus, but in Transnistria things evolved differently: the pressure on the opposition has apparently (just apparently) decreased in recent years, so that the authorities there could pretend they're moving towards democracy.

Although this topic is not about Belarus, most Americans and Westerners are of the same opinion about Belarus as they are of Transdnieter. In fact all these separatist states are viewed as a single, evil, anti-democratic, and despotic entity. This is simply not so, and these people still view some alternatives to democracy as being viable.

The West keeps preaching tolerance and understanding of cultures of others. Well why not tolerate alternative political systems? Why not stop this criticizm of all thats non-Western, and try to gain an understanding why these regions refuse to be Westernized. Why not analyze communism for its positive points, rather than just dismissing everything about it as evil. Why should Transdniester and Belarus, and even Russia embrace "American style democracy"? Is the world so homogeneous now that we have no room for alternatives and for new ideas? These regions are not yet assured that Democracy is the right way to go, and all US and Europe does is confuse and alienate them even more.

Originally posted by taseg
Well, if Russia still behaves according to the obsolete concept of "spheres of influence", why shouldn't the US and NATO do the same?

Thats the thing- Russia doesn't behave by this concept. In fact Russia has put up no pressure whatsoever to resist transfers of power in Ukraine and Georgia (oil scandal is not pressure, but an expected political backlash). It is the US thats so actively seeking to expand its influence to the CIS regions, that forces Russia to also get involved.

With CIS, Russia simply wanted to be insured that it would not be threatened by US in the future- this threat being American military bases in Russia's backyard. Russia has been invaded far too many times, to passively stand by while the potential enemy is positioning around its borders. I am fairly sure, that if Russia actively began building ties, recruiting politicians, and setting up military bases in Latin America, Canada, and the Carribean today- the US would react far from passively.

But there is no balance in the world to check the American advance into everyone's backyard- and it is up to Americans to oversee that their actions are not creating potential peril for other nations. This is not being done. Eventually these other nations will get fed up, and there will be violence. History has shown this to always be the case, and the US empire will suffer a fate no different if it keeps acting in this selfish manner.

Originally posted by taseg
I think that the West simply speculated (without initiating it) a genuine opposition movement that developed in the two countries against corrupted and incompetent politicians,as well as against a precarious economic situation. Of course, it's wrong that the reformists played on the population's naivety and promised them an immediate improvement but that doesn't mean that after some hardships the situation won't get better.

Yuschenko had little political or social credit or popularity before the election. He became popular overnight. And over the same small time period, this happened in several other CIS countries. Coincidence? Their movements where overseen by the West from the very start. All these colored revolutions and the elections leading up to them were so eirily similar to each other (their slogans, their protests, their promises), that its clear their were done using the same guidebook. It was really a genious strategy - US has outdone itself.

But things were getting better under Yuschenko and Shevarnadze. Economy was improving thanks to good relations with Russia. There was little threat of war in Georgia, and no talk about separation of Crimea in Ukraine. After economy reform, democratic reform would follow naturally- all it needed was time. But the West is too impatient to capitalize on the new regimes.

Originally posted by taseg
I'm not denying that there is occasional political intervention in the way the Western media reflects events, but the main factor here is that the Transnistrian story sells better than those of the other separatist territories.

Why all the interest in Transdniester all of the sudden? Years ago it was an empty place in the middle of nowhere. Now its the center of attention. Has Europe and US really ran out of problems to solve on their own turf, that they are interested in a place like Transdiester? I guess its just a bad guy that everyone can agree on- similar to Russia in that respect. Got no one to blame for issues in your country? -Blame it on communists. Don't let the fact that they don't exist anymore, and that your problems are within your borders get in the way.

Originally posted by taseg
No, I didn't mean the votes, I meant that they've taken over everything valuable... And they're seeking unification with Russia in the hope of preserving their dubiously acquired wealth and social positions.

And what regime doesn't steal from its people? I am sure some American tax payers are less than thrilled about their money going to fight yet another war. Do know how many tax subsidies and other concessions are given to large corporations in the West, who have intense lobbying powers? Do oil firms, defense contractors, and global conglomerates really need these concessions more than the people? You could say the Iraq war is a concession to those corporations. So in the West- the politicians are not stealing for themselves- they are stealing for their corporate supporters.

How are those leaders you are talking about getting rich from staying in power? Shevarnadze isn't a very rich man. He stepped aside in Georgia, to avoid a violent struggle by Saakashvilli. He had nothing to preserve. Has it ever occured to anyone, that some "despots" may actually be patriots? That people like Lukashenka or Milosevich (his mistakes aside) or Shevarnadze are well knowledgeable and cunning, and could be millionairs and oligarchs if they wanted to? Their job is/was certainly no easier than that of Abramovich or Berezovsky.

Originally posted by maloyAlthough this topic is not about Belarus, most Americans and Westerners are of the same opinion about Belarus as they are of Transdnieter. In fact all these separatist states are viewed as a single, evil, anti-democratic, and despotic entity. This is simply not so, and these people still view some alternatives to democracy as being viable.

Yes, that's probably the simplistic opinion many Westerners have about these regions, but in reality the situation is very different: Belarus is an authoritarian (to put it mildly) state while Transnistria, on top on having an authoritarian regime (to say the least) is also a separatist region within another state - and that puts it into a whole other category.

Well why not tolerate alternative political systems? Why not stop this criticizm of all thats non-Western, and try to gain an understanding why these regions refuse to be Westernized.

Because these "alternative political systems" don' t seem to be paying much respect to stuff like human rights, free economy, fight against corruption etc.

With CIS, Russia simply wanted to be insured that it would not be threatened by US in the future- this threat being American military bases in Russia's backyard.

But what about the interests of the other countries in the CIS? Are they automatically bound to Russia ?

Yuschenko had little political or social credit or popularity before the election. [...]It was really a genious strategy - US has outdone itself.

Why would it be surprising that these revolutions had similarities ? It's not that those countries have so different backgrounds...People simply saw what happened in Georgia and tried to copy it in Ukraine.

Why all the interest in Transdniester all of the sudden? Years ago it was an empty place in the middle of nowhere. Now its the center of attention.

Well, in just two months time Transnistria will be just a short distance away from the EU's eastern border.

And what regime doesn't steal from its people?[...] So in the West- the politicians are not stealing for themselves- they are stealing for their corporate supporters.

That's no excuse for others to do the same.

How are those leaders you are talking about getting rich from staying in power?[...] Their job is/was certainly no easier than that of Abramovich or Berezovsky.

It's hard to investigate and expose the links with criminal activities that these people have.

Here is an interesting documentary. It's in dutch, but worth watching even if you don't understand dutch. Links to the video is found at the top of the page (choose between low-bandwidth mode or broadband - Windows Media Player)

Video is found here: Het zwarte gat van Europa


Here is an article in english:
www.azi.md...

The year: 2005. A small pre-documentation in Geneva among the most important international agencies for weapons traffic monitoring. The subject: Transnistria – manufacturing and traffic of weapons.

Originally posted by Hellmutt
Here is an interesting documentary. It's in dutch, but worth watching even if you don't understand dutch. Links to the video is found at the top of the page (choose between low-bandwidth mode or broadband - Windows Media Player)

Video is found here: Het zwarte gat van Europa

Yes, the images are enlighting enough.

A funny letter from Vasily Yakovlev, one of Transnistria's founding fathers, to Smirnov:

puls.md - Accusatory statement

I, Yakovlev Vasily Nikitovich, on behalf of myself and of the gone toilers, creators of the multi-departmental highly-mechanized and economically strong and rich kolkhoz "Biruintsa", and also on behalf of the now living collective-farmers and rural intelligentsia, I accuse THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNACKNOWLEDGED Transnistrian MOLDAVIAN REPUBLIC IGOR Nikolayevich SMIRNOV for intentional determination and enforcement of the antinational social and economic policy, which led to the following intolerable consequences:...

OSCE's year-end conference opened December 4th in Brussels. The main unresolved European security problems seems to remain unresolved: Russian troops to withdraw from Moldova and Georgia, and a ratification of the adapted CFE.


So I guess there will be no ratification of the adapted CFE. Russia has no intention of withdrawing their troops from Transnistria...

Originally posted by Hellmutt
So I guess there will be no ratification of the adapted CFE. Russia has no intention of withdrawing their troops from Transnistria...

I doubt they ever had that intention.

Meanwhile Smirnov's reelection drive is going on as usually...

There has been an explosion at a secondary school in Transnistria. They say people are believed to have been injured.


I'm looking for more links...

Turns out only one student was wounded. Apparently it was a grenade brought to the school by an "older pupil". It was a "military education class"...

School Explosion In Renegade Moldova Province Injures Students


The blast took place at School Number Thirteen in the Transnistrian municipal centre Bendery. Participants in school- sponsored military training for senior students were among the injured.

One student suffered flying debris injuries to the upper thigh. Police investigating the incident described the number of other class participants injured as "numerous." There were no early reports of fatalities.

[---]

A home-made bomb severely injured a woman in a village north of Tiraspol in late November. The woman most likely triggered the device by accident while attempting to set a trap for thieves, according to the report.

The breakaway Trans-Dniester region of Moldova is voting in elections, with incumbent President Igor Smirnov tipped to win five more years in power.

BBC News story
YLE News, in finnish

Vote is been supervised by officials from Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. No western officials are present and it is queastionable how fair the election will be.
And anyhow, voting a president to a non-recoqnised area, with a rigged vote, should be considered as a bad PR move by the transdniestrian leadership (I refuse to say goverment, as they have no legal backing)

A bad PR move means nothing anymore, since Transdniester only has bad PR now. It has been reduced in the eyes of the West to a dilapidated criminally-inclined rogue state. With NATO soon-to-be vitrually surrounding it, it has no future. All that remains to see is how long it'll hold up.

Russia does not support Transdniester enough to interfere for its cause. If Ukraine and Moldova continue rolling towards the West, Transdnieter will be totally out of place. Personally I had some hopes for a successful socialist state there, but now it's just useless. They are playing an outdated game, and no one cares anymore. If communism was still considered a big bad threat, at least Transdniester could rally behind their government to "face-off against" the West. However they have no oil and no extremist Muslims now - so they might just as well disappear. This goes for Belarus as well.

I still agree in some part with what they are doing. But I think they would be better off going the way of Russia, given the current circumstances. Make-up with the West, open your borders economically, and maybe form close ties with Moscow or whoever else you want. This way the West won't hate you as much, and Russia will be more inclined to protect you. What they are now though is neither like the West, nor like Russia, thus they are out of place.

You give sound advice to their learedship Maloy...
And only thing they do is export arms... do that for too long and someone will get angry. But in any case their future looks dark, unless they open up and offer their manufacturing base for the western comppanies... as a tax free zone maybe...

US and Russia export arms too. You don't hear much accusations surrounding that- although the recipients in that case are sometime questionable as well. I you really look at it, Transdniester issue has more to do with economy and European sphere of influence than with arms trading and terrorists. The arms trade accusation is just a good reason to place Transdniester in the news.

You can tie this to what happened in Yugoslavia/Serbia. Serbia was a thorn in the side of EU and NATO in the 90's, so it got rooted out. Never mind that NATO attacked it illegally, violating their own protocol. Transdniester faces the same situation, and maybe Belarus in the future. Europe is being homogenized and there is simply no place for those who do not cooperate. Look at the recent expansion of NATO, and consequently the expansion of EU into Eastern Europe and ex-Yugoslavia.

Originally posted by maloy

Everyone adopts democracy the way it best fits into their culture and into established traditions.

***

Dermokrati