On May 17, 2021, former Trump-era National Security Adviser to the President of the United States, John Bolton, made provocative statements, which were immediately quoted numerously by the media.
He said that the new leadership of Moldova was loyal to America, so the conflict in Pridnestrovie could be safely "unfreezed". And he added:
“Moldova, squeezed between Ukraine and Romania, is a frozen conflict, ready to be “unfreezed ”. The supposedly independent Pridnestrovie, invented by Russia, only exists apart from Moldova thanks to Moscow's continued military presence. Merely drawing global attention to this post-Cold War anomaly would shock the Kremlin, while a determined new Government in Chisinau is now giving Washington an opportunity to intensify its actions.”
As we can see, the well-known "super-hawk" of American foreign policy extremely focuses on stereotypes, believing that the proclamation of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic was exclusively a combination of Moscow. In terms of his level of thinking, he is pretty close to the nationalists of Chisinau, who declared the popular movement for the creation of the Pridnestrovian statehood and a series of referendums, gatherings of citizens and elections of the PMR authorities as a "conspiracy of white collars." Such thinking makes it easier to fight the opponents of Pridnestrovie, who, even 31 years later are unable to understand that the cave nationalism encouraged by the USA, under the banner of which official Chisinau tried and often tries to subjugate the PMR, causes absolute rejection of our republic`s inhabitants.
But now we are interested in something else. What is behind this blatant provocation by John Bolton, whom Donald Trump was forced to dismiss from the post as his adviser?
Yes, Bolton is an unofficial person on the surface. However, the difference in foreign policy between Republicans (whom the now ex-President Trump belonged to) and Democrats (personified by the current Head of the White House, Joe Biden) is relatively small. Both are expansionists, and often open aggressors, as shown by the bloody experience of Iraq, Yugoslavia, Panama, etc.
What Bolton said fits into the line common to all Washington administrations to ring Russia with hostile regimes and armed conflicts, designed to maximize Russia's strength and weaken it. Today, Russia has 2 allies in Europe - the Republic of Belarus and the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. Since August 2020, following the presidential elections in Belarus, won by President Alexander Lukashenko, the collective West has tried to bring him down through a “color” scenario of street riot. However, the authorities in Minsk, supported by the vast majority of the people, suppressed the rebellion. An attempt to tear Belarus away from Russia and thus destroy the Union State of Russia and Belarus failed.
Now the West and the right-wing forces of Moldova "supervised" by it, with the support of Romania, can take up Pridnestrovie. The question is in what form. Let's try to analyze the situation.
First, one should not forget that presidential elections are to be held in the PMR this year. It is very likely that Westerners will try to run “their” candidate like Viktor Babariko or their own candidate like Svetlana Tikhanovskaya for the electoral distance in order to blow Pridnestrovie up from the inside, and then “turn on” our state under the authority of Washington, Brussels, Bucharest and Chisinau. But such a scenario is doubtful, since in these capitals they know that Pridnestrovians can criticize their authorities, but they do not want to give up their rights and go under the nationalists` authority.
Secondly, Western "hawks" may be tempted to unleash a new conflict on the Dniester by pro-Romanian nationalists, taking advantage of the fact that Russia and Pridnestrovie do not have a common border. However, even the existence of such a border between Russia and Belarus did not prevent the West from trying to bring the legitimate government in Minsk down by force through the pro-Western "incredible". And at the same time try to shatter Russia itself through the "fifth column" in the person of Navalny and his entourage. It is possible that John Bolton is voicing the opinion of that part of the American establishment that has decided to start a battle against Russia (and possibly China) on every front at once.
“There is no such thing as the UN. There is only the international community, which can be led by the world's only superpower, which is the United States."
However, any plan is bad without specifying its ultimate goal. If the strategy of tying Russia up in all directions looks more or less clear, then what exactly do the Western "hawks" want to achieve on the Dniester?
A military defeat and occupation of Pridnestrovie are hardly possible, because if Russia, even in 1992, did not sit around and watch the Chisinau aggression, then today's Russia, all the more, will not be inactive... One can assume that figures like Bolton would like to fight against Russians and Pridnestrovians through somebody else. But more moderate US politicians see all the risks of such a line, which will only lead to an even greater drop in US authority in the post-Soviet space and make it impossible for America to participate in the 5 + 2 negotiation format, even as an observer, as it is now.
Perhaps Bolton does not directly mean a military conflict, but reflects on the political, diplomatic and economic pressure on the PMR, which should reach unprecedented proportions. But this also leads to a breakdown in the negotiation process and an increase in tension between the parties to the Moldovan-Pridnestrovian conflict, and at the same time - between Russia, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the United States with the EU.
Whatever John Bolton means, a possible "new old" point of geopolitical confrontation has been identified, and this prompts the need to be vigilant. It would be useful to receive at least a formal confirmation of the course towards a peaceful settlement and the implementation of the previously signed agreements between Chisinau and Tiraspol from American diplomacy. And at the same time, once again, we can conclude: de facto allied relations between the PMR and Russia should only be strengthened.
This is the only guarantee of maintaining stability and peace on the Dniester.
Andrey Safonov, political scientist
