Transnistria is a breakaway state located de jure within Moldova’s borders, on the banks of the Dniester river close to the Ukrainian border. The de-facto state of 500,000 citizens possesses everything to be considered as a country, except for international recognition. It is only recognised by three other unrecognised territories: Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Arstakh.

History

Under the USSR, 40% of Moldova’s GDP came from Transnistria, with a standard of living twice as high as that of Bessarabia.

Moldova declared its independence during the dissolution of the USSR. The leaders of the country re-introduced the Latin alphabet and acknowledged the country’s cultural ties with Romania. Russian was banished as an official language, and this decision was sparked a conflict beginning in March 1992. In July of the same year, a ceasefire was signed, and remains in place until today. Russia has kept about 1,000 troops along the demilitarised zone as a peacekeeping force. However many Moldovans see this as a foreign aggression on their land.

In 2006, further normalisation talks between Moldova and Transnistria began, without successful results. The same would occur in 2011; despite the implication of the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) in the talks, and with the US and the EU as external observers. In 2014, after the Crimean annexation from Russia, the president of the Transnistrian parliament, Mikhail Burla, officially asked Russia to annex Transnistria. The demand was never met.

Politics

Despite being called the Soviet Supreme, the national parliament has nothing to do with communism. Although clearly far from perfect with important voting fraud, the election system is considered to be democratic, and allows multiple parties from across the political spectrum to run, unlike communist states.

The Soviet (Council in English) is composed of 43 seats. 35 of these seats belong to the Renewal party, a nationalistic centrist party, for only 1 seat owned by the Pridnestrovie Communist Party (Marxism-Leninism). The communist party has not been in power for over a generation, and the only communist deputy is, as of today, in jail for violence against police officers during a protest. In an ironic comparison, the communist party of Moldova was part of the majority in the parliament from 2001 to 2009, which is has now been replaced by the Party of the Socialists (far-left) as the largest party in the 2019 elections.

The Economy

The economy is much closer to free-market socialism than to anything communist. While the state offers free healthcare, education and a subsidised transport system, they also have a flat tax rate of 10%. Some citizens call it “Wild West capitalism”, as business is unrestricted and everything is for sale. There are so few regulations that crypto mining has bloomed in the region. In a place where it is impossible to get the national currency from an ATM due to its international inexistence, where it is impossible to pay by card and where cryptocurrency is thriving, where corruption is rooted everywhere, it is without surprise that it has fostered the creation of a black market. Not only that this black market eases the lives of everyday citizens, but it also plays a huge role in arms trafficking and money laundering, for which the Transnistrian government is directly accused of.

Sheriff, the biggest Transnistrian company, is suspected of mass money laundering on behalf of the Transnistrian government, which makes most of its profits through arms manufacturing with its high-security plants. The company owns almost everything in the region: petrol stations, supermarkets, a television channel, construction company, etc. The best football team in the country is funded by the company. It was originally on behalf of the first president of the country, Igor Smirnov, and now controls all the region’s political and economic life. The current president, Vadim Krasnoselsky, was backed by Sheriff during the electoral campaign, effectively securing him the seat of president.

All the indicators shift towards an oligarchy rather than a communist regime.

Nationalism and Transnistria

Using communist symbols is far from being considered hypocrisy. It is an essential part of Transnistrian identity. The hammer and sickle became a nationalistic symbol to glorify the past and to differentiate it from the rest of Moldova. Stores sell busts of Stalin and Putin simultaneously and colonels such as Igor Nebeygolova proudly display the USSR flag alongside the flag of Imperial Russia. What seems to be schizophrenic, is in fact that the symptom of a nationalistic identity is that it misses its glorious past.

During the war, the Transnistrian mass media portrayed the conflict as a “sacred war against the genocide by nationalistic Moldovans”. The collective memory is the one of “a war for truth, justice and independence”. The techniques are the same as those used by media in ex-Yugoslavia during the Yugoslavia wars. Politicisation of education played a crucial role in the creation of the Transnistrian identity. This was evident for the leaders who forcibly closed all Romanian-speaking schools in the region; effectively increasing the gap between the region and Moldova. The EU and the OSCE denounced this act as a linguistic cleansing, leading to economic restrictions on Transnistria and a travel ban for all the leading elite.

The Transnistrian Identity Crisis

Historically however, the arguments supporting the independence of Transnistria are not wrong. Bessarabian Moldova has always been under the sphere of influence of Romania, while the Transnistrian Moldova has had strong Russian influence. Moldova had always been a very heterogeneous region, and Russian acted as a common language for a long time. When the USSR fell, the elites wanted to stay in power and effectively used identity and culture to foster this nationalism. The big difference between Moldova and Transnistria is that Transnistria defines its identity very clearly, unlike Moldova. The breakaway state feels part of the Russian sphere of influence and there is no doubt there. Moldova remains today split about its own identity. Are they Romanians or Moldovans? Are they closer to Europe or closer to Russia? These questions remain unanswered and split the political landscape.

However, “identity doesn’t fill your stomach” according to a Transnistrian citizen with the question of identity slowly losing its grip. Even though the region survived on its own with Russia’s economical help, it becomes harder to be ostracised as such by the rest of the continent. Goodwill has emerged from the north side of the Dniester. The current president is pleading for closer ties with Moldova and has suggested the option of federalising the country. The hope for the Sheriff Republic is to be able to export its goods without all the current limitations of being unrecognised.

The post Beyond the Communist Appearance: Transnistria appeared first on My Country? Europe..

Stalin the Revolutionary

Stalin’s revolutionary career began in his native Georgia where he had engaged in various activities: aiding strikers to illegal publishing. It was here that he committed himself to the Bolshevik party, meeting Lenin in 1905. At this stage, he mostly raised funds for the party via bank robberies and went on various trips on Lenin’s behest. He had however made something of a name for himself during the 1905 revolution.

He was in Baku when the Azeris began vicious pogroms against the Armenians. The latter were wealthier and better equipped so they quickly reciprocated. He viewed these events as a Tsarist distraction and used his gang of Bolsheviks to separate the communities while looting printing equipment and extorting funds in the process. Later as leader of the USSR, Stalin would exploit this very divide himself to make the region easier to control. He was brought onto the central committee of the party in 1912 and also edited Pravda until his arrest a year later in 1913.

The October Revolution and Lenin’s government

During the October Revolution Stalin was relatively quiet especially compared to his relatively active role in 1905. This was, however, where he began clashing with Trotsky as Stalin had showed some support to Kamenev and Zinoviev against the wishes of Lenin and Trotsky. Stalin was at this point assigned the role of speaking for the minorities continuing the theme of Lenin using him to demonstrate that non-Russians would also benefit from his state.

From here Stalin rapidly accumulated bureaucratic positions gaining control of the Soviet anti-corruption apparatus and gaining positions on both the Orgburo and Politburo thus giving Stalin considerable power which could be used quietly, in particular, significant control over appointing other officials. Stalin’s rapid accumulation of power was unimpeded by rivals such as Trotsky who dismissed Stalin as ‘creature of the bureaucracy’. Trotsky’s underestimation of Stalin would prove fatal as he failed to act against Stalin’s domination of the party organisational structure with Trotsky only removing Stalin’s military authority.

This failure to realise the dangers of giving one man so much power over the party organisation was not just missed by Trotsky however. Most of the party leadership was more concerned with theory or visible policy than on the structure that supported it. This suited Stalin who was able to start placing allies such as Molotov in important positions. These allies helped Stalin gain the position of General Secretary when the position was created in 1922.

Meanwhile, Trotsky came under increasing protest and dissent from all corners, the military opposed use of the army as a labour force, many opposed his use of former Tsarist officers and Zinoviev and Tomskii attacked him for angering the unions.

Lenin’s Death and Succession

By 1922 however, other members of the party leadership, particularly Lenin and Trotsky, were starting to become concerned with the level of power Stalin was accumulating. Lenin recommended that he be removed from the position of General Secretary in January 1923. However soon after Lenin suffered his third stroke, which placed Lenin in the care of doctors under Stalin’s control. As such Lenin was unable to exert any more political authority before his death in 1924. After Lenin’s death, Stalin allied with Kamenev and Zinoviev to prevent Trotsky from succeeding Lenin. This internal power struggle highlighted the gravity of having underestimated Stalin.

While Trotsky was certainly powerful and influential, Stalin and his allies could and did systematically remove Trotsky’s allies from positions of power and denied them access to the party press. Eventually, Trotsky and his remaining allies were removed entirely with Trotsky being ejected from the Executive Committee. In 1925, he was also replaced as head of the War Commissariat. Additionally, Stalin and his allies used their control over the press to publish brutal accusations against Trotsky and even rewriting official accounts to play down his achievements whilst also creating the impression of Stalin as a main protagonist in the October Revolution.

After this Stalin began to remove his erstwhile allies, removing Kamenev and Zinoviev from positions of power in quick succession in 1926. By 1927 they, along with Trotsky, had been completely removed from the party central committee. Bukharin was next in 1929, when Stalin contrived to have him along with Rykov and Tomskii accused of factionalism resulting in them losing most of their positions (such as Bukharin losing control over Pravda) and were threatened that further opposition would mean expulsion from the Politburo.

Conclusion

Stalin’s rise to power was a cautious and methodical one, he started by gathering bureaucratic and where possible press positions under his control. By the time his potential rivals and even his leader Lenin realised that he had become dangerously powerful, it was far too late. By the end of 1929, nobody was left who could seriously challenge him and most of those who could have been threats in the 1920s, perished in the Great Purges with Trotsky assassinated in Mexico.

The post Stalin: His Rise to Prominence as General Secretary appeared first on My Country? Europe..

The World After Hitler

As the devastating war neared its bloody conclusion, the Allies and the Soviet Union met in Yalta, to debate the future of the world after Hitler. There, they stipulated that Germany in general and Berlin separately would be split into four zones of control under Soviet, American, British, and French administration. Additionally, they agreed that all occupied and former Axis powers were to have free and fair elections to determine their own futures. Whether Churchill and Roosevelt were foolish enough to believe Stalin would honour this agreement, or whether they simply felt they could do nothing about it, remains unclear. It does seem Roosevelt actually trusted Stalin, as he later acknowledged being fooled by him. This didn’t last long: the brutality with which the Soviets treated Eastern Europe, such as the mass purges and massacres even in the territories of those who had never aligned with the Axis, awakened the Western Allies to the true nature of Soviet designs of power. Due to these atrocities, Britain passed the Polish Resettlement Act in 1947, to protect Polish troops who would undoubtedly have been in large part murdered or imprisoned by the Soviet backed authorities upon returning home.

There is little doubt that the Soviets betrayed the Allies’ trust in their treatment of eastern Europe. This heightened tensions, and made it more difficult to reach any positive agreements as to the status of Germany – which even in defeat remained a strategically critical country. The Soviets, in particular,  diligently followed Lenin’s maxim that “whoever has Germany has Europe”. Ultimately, negotiations were hampered by the fact that both sides feared that a unified Germany could end up on the opposing side and therefore hand them a huge amount of power. This is particularly clear when compared to Austria: while occupied in the same four part system for some time, the country was reunified in 1955 without even a requirement to neutrality, although the Austrians embraced it on their own accord afterwards. In Germany, the higher stakes prevented such harmony: by 1947, it was clear to all involved that Germany would not be united. When preparing for the new year, the United States gave up any hope of influencing the Soviet occupation zone, and began to concentrate fully on helping the three western zones to create a functioning economy. Soon after, the Truman doctrine was announced, revealing American intentions to contain Communism everywhere. The opening moves of the Cold War were beginning.

Gloves Off: Berlin Blockaded

Further negotiations at the Moscow conference involved Soviet proposals for a united but neutral Germany, with the industrial Ruhr area under four-power control. However, in large part due to Moscow breaking trust over the rest of the post war restructuring of Europe, the Americans concluded that this was a scheme to get the western powers out and assert Soviet control over all of Germany. Considering the Soviets’ previous record of making apparently reasonable agreements, only to immediately break them in order to ensure their own wider hegemony, the Americans were most likely right to be suspicious. Following the Czechoslovak coup in February 1948, where Soviet backed forces had seized full control of the country and begun purging the opposition, the plans to create a West German state were greatly accelerated.

The Soviets decided to throw the dice and initiated a partial blockade of Berlin on April 1^st 1948. The Soviets aimed to gain a symbolic victory by forcing out the western powers and gaining control of the whole city. The Americans were not intimidated, and doubled down on their plans of economic reconstruction. On the 19^th of June, they unveiled the new Deutschmark currency to replace the old Reichsmark. When the currency was allowed to circulate by the Berlin authorities on the 23^rd of June, the Soviets cut the power supply to the western zones, marking the start of the open attempt to starve out the city. The Soviets then compounded the blockade by cutting communications links and blocking supplies of food and coal.

The western powers retaliated with an embargo on the Soviet zone, cutting off steel and coal from the Ruhr. The official justification was designed to parrot Soviet bureaucratic excuses for the blockade, and accused Moscow of stealing empty railway wagons. British foreign minister Bevin was reasonably confident that supplies would last long enough for a solution to be found: Berlin’s food stocks were expected to last around a month, and fuel even longer. He outright rejected surrendering the city to the Soviets to the extent that he was willing to have the United Kingdom follow the United States into war if bullets began to fly.

A Miracle In Logistics: The Berlin Airlift

Fortunately, war proved unnecessary, in large part due to what had been intended as a mental exercise in planning by RAF air commodore Rex Waite. On being told that supplying Berlin entirely by air was impossible, he decided to prove the opposite. On June 23^rd his plan was rebuffed as not sufficiently detailed, but with more detail added the British and American authorities were inclined to take the idea seriously, at least as a temporary measure. This was largely because nobody else had presented a proposal other than shooting their way to Berlin, which had been vetoed by Washington as ludicrously dangerous as a strategy that relied entirely on the Soviets bluffing.

Very few saw the Berlin Airlift plan as likely to be successful, and with good reason: it required at least 4500 tons of goods to be transported per day, an unprecedented amount by air. And yet, it happened. The operation was a desperate rush to get enough planes carrying enough cargo into the air. Flying and maintenance crews worked tirelessly to ensure this came to be. The western powers had one significant advantage in carrying through such a punishing schedule, the extremely high motivation of the air crews who flocked to the opportunity to carry out such a humanitarian mission. As supplies started to come in, the effects of the Soviet blockade began to inflict negative consequences on the USSR too. The Western Allies embargo of steel and coal, if prolonged, would cripple the Baltic fishing fleet, as well as East German industry in general. As such the Soviets tried various means to frustrate the Berlin Airlift, from physical barriers to buzzing transport planes with fighters.

Despite these obstructions, by September 1948 the target of 4500 tons per day was being hit and, astonishingly, surpassed. On the 18^th of September nearly 8500 tons of coal were brought in, and in the end the Berlin airlift transported a phenomenal 2.3 million tons of goods. By January 1949, a full six months after Rex Waite’s original plan, the average of delivered goods rose to over 5500 tons per day. It was an unprecedented display of industrial might and political will, and it sent a very clear message. On the Soviet side, the reaction was one of muted stupor. Demands for a different settlement of postwar Germany were quietly dropped, and the focus shifted on trying to save face. Molotov took much of the blame, being replaced in punishment for his miscalculation. In the end, Stalin capitulated at the cost of face-saving negotiations. He consoled himself by ordering Soviet bureaucracy to keep being a nuisance to German rail traffic.

Berlin Airlift Successful: Round One To The West

The success of the Berlin Airlift allowed the Western Allies to continue their plans to create an independent state in West Germany, which came into being in May 1949, and holding onto the foothold of west Berlin at the same time. In the opinion of Bevin, failure would have been severe as he expected that abandoning Berlin would have made it impossible for the Western Allies to hold the rest of West Germany, leaving the Soviets the undisputed masters of Europe with a united communist Germany under their suzerainty.

Additionally, the crisis bound the West more tightly together, with Bevin requesting nuclear capable US bombers to be stationed in Britain, and launching a concerted P.R. counteroffensive against Soviet communism. It is also worth noting the attitude of Berliners themselves: despite their economic hardship, few defected to the Soviets. Conversely, Berliners living under Soviet administration did their best to flee, and the Soviets had to build walls and barriers to stem the tide of people leaving. The Berlin Airlift thus provided a great victory for the West – and set the demarcation lines of a frozen conflict that would make the world hold its breath for the next four decades.

The post The Cold War Takes To The Sky: The Story Of The Berlin Airlift appeared first on My Country? Europe..

In many ways, the stunning rapidity of the collapse seemed bewildering to contemporaries. The Soviet Union was one of the powers that defined the 20th Century. With its astounding economic and military mobilization against the Third Reich, it had claimed a place at the very peak of the international community, second only to the United States. Its phenomenal activism in promoting communism made it a formidable opponent in the Cold War against the West, and particularly the US. It was hard to imagine a world without it, let alone a chain of events that would lead to a dissolution so quickly.

And yet, by the time the West was celebrating Christmas in 1991, public opinion worldwide was confronted precisely with that reality. The story of how this happened remains fascinating to this day, and a profoundly insightful lesson in the fundamental fragility of even the mightiest political entities.

The Era Of Glasnost

When telling the story of the fall of the Soviet Union, it is always problematic to choose where to begin. Many events and choices led to this outcome over decades of internal, diplomatic, and military upheavals, as well as economic successes and failures.

It is certainly impossible to entirely separate the discussion from the ascension of Gorbachev to supreme leadership. This came at a time when Reagan’s administration was outspending Moscow to such a degree that the only two options left to the communist leadership were a de-escalation of the military race or the complete end of any semblance of a civilian economy.

Gorbachev’s choice to liberalise the Soviet Union by allowing freedom of speech and uncensored media coverage of political events would also play a significant factor, especially in the periphery, where the Baltic and Caucasian republics immediately began to pursue a path to full independence.

However, none of these events on their own were final and deterministic. At many points along the road, a different outcome was possible – democratic reforms could be reversed, through politics or violence. A Soviet armed response to prevent secession would have been hard to stop.

More importantly, these events explain how the Soviet Union ceased to be a global power, not how it disintegrated. Even if the USSR gave up its competition with the United States, and allowed some republics to break away, that did not necessarily imply outright dissolution.

The point of no return was reached not with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the loss of the Soviet empire in eastern Europe, but when two former political allies became rivals. It is a story that begins with a referendum on the future of the country.

New Union Treaty, the Only Referendum in USSR History

As Gorbachev had already shown with the fall of the Berlin wall and German reunification, his fundamental belief regarding foreign policy was that the Warsaw Pact should be a coalition of willing partners. He was far less accommodating when it came to secessionism within the USSR. But even then, he was not entirely blind to the fact that the Baltic republics – and with all likelihood the Caucasian republics as well – had their hearts and minds set on independence.

Indeed, during 1990, some republics had already unilaterally declared (although not yet implemented) independence. Additionally, as 1990 came to a close, Moscow was confronted with the sharp deterioration of support for the Communist Party, and communist ideology in general, all over the country.

To answer these issues together, Gorbachev decided to seek public support for his own reforms. This strategy had served him well with the introduction of freedom of speech and other civil rights. In 1989, the Soviet Union had held its first democratic elections, if only limited to choosing candidates from the Communist Party.

However, the quest for public support also entailed risks. In 1990, the first truly competitive elections were held in the USSR, and Gorbachev suffered a severe setback, with the Communist Party losing control of six out of fifteen of the USSR’s constituent republics.

In addition to these losses, a seventh republic, Russia, turned politically against Gorbachev by electing Boris Yeltsin with over 70% of votes. Originally a pupil of Gorbachev, who had inducted him into the Central Committee, Yeltsin had later built his career as an anti-establishment firebrand, leaving the Communist Party and running on a platform of anti-centralism.

At the time when Gorbachev was busily working on the New Union Treaty which he meant to submit to a public referendum, Yeltsin ascended to power in Moscow. He promised to antagonise Soviet control of the constituent republics. The subsequent political rivalry between Russia and the central government of the Soviet Union was to greatly complicate Gorbachev’s plans.

Nevertheless, Gorbachev was undeterred. His plan for the future envisioned a radical reshaping of the Soviet Union as a federation of independent republics, with a common president, military, and foreign policy. This new country may or may not necessarily be communist or market socialist. To win support for this New Union Treaty, he put forward a referendum, containing five separate questions, each dealing with a different issue (the role of the Communist party, whether the new country should maintain or abandon the socialist system, etc). The key question, however, was undoubtedly the first:

Do you consider it necessary to preserve the USSR as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, which will be fully ensured of human rights and freedoms of any nationality?

The Baltic and Caucasian republics boycotted the referendum, but across the rest of the country, people rushed in to vote in the very first referendum to be held in Soviet history. With a turnout of 80% and a vote in favour of nearly 70%, Gorbachev’s referendum was, on paper, a complete success.

The New Union Treaty, as it was called, would replace the USSR with the Union of Sovereign States. The treaty was also known as the 9+1 agreement, after its signatories: nine constituent Soviet republics, and the central government. The remaining six republics (the three Baltic states, Moldavia, Georgia, and Armenia) refused to participate in the drafting of the treaty, and were already well on their way to independence in spite of armed opposition and crackdowns by Soviet soldiers.

Over the subsequent months, and with popular approval to spurn them on, the negotiating parties worked on hammering out their differences and producing a complete text. The first complete draft was published in July 1991 and reintroduced the word “Soviet” in the name. The country would thus be known as the Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics, although this didn’t immediately translate to a guarantee that communism would be preserved.

The central government and eight of the nine republics approved the draft. The ninth republic, Ukraine, did not, as it still had reservations it wished to see addressed in an amended draft. The approval of the treaty sent hardliners in the Communist Party into a panic. Fearing that the treaty would encourage smaller republics to seize the initiative and pursue independence, precipitating a potential civil war, the hardliners decided to act. In so doing, they would finally doom the USSR to extinction.

Put Back The Clock: The August Coup Of 1991

The coup was set in motion on the 19 August 1991, with participation from party zealots as well as conservative elements in the military, and senior government members. These included Gorbachev’s vice president, the prime minister, the defense minister, and the leadership of the KGB.

The chosen date was no coincidence: on the following day, 20th August, Russia was scheduled to sign the New Union Treaty. As the largest constituent republic in the Union, Russia’s signature would make the devolution process effectively irreversible, even more so when the republic was headed by Boris Yeltsin. As a supporter of rapid market reform, and with an eye to his own ambition of ruling an independent Russia as its president, Yeltsin was not fond of Gorbachev and the treaty – but he opposed conservative communists even more.

The conspirators sought to prevent the signing of the treaty by securing both Gorbachev and the city of Moscow. The president was holidaying in Crimea at the time and he was put under house arrest, prevented to communicate with the outside world, while the conspirators moved to try and take control of the country.

They were met with significant popular resistance, however, spearheaded by Yeltsin, who delivered speeches in front of the Russian White House while sitting on top of a Red Army tank. The coupists also neglected to jam foreign communications, allowing foreign correspondents to report on and broadcast events; the coup was televised, with many Russians following the events live on CNN. This multiplied resistance to the conspirators.

Within three days, the coup had been frustrated and had largely failed. Gorbachev was reinstated, and the conspirators arrested. For the Soviet Union, however, it was already too late.

The Twilight Of The Soviet Union

The failed coup sealed the fate of the USSR. No constituent republic, no matter its previous openness to a new founding treaty, was willing to risk another coup. If it were to succeed, all republics would once again find themselves tied to a totalitarian dictatorship based in Moscow. The only way to prevent this was to secede, while there was still time to do so.

Between August and December, ten constituent republics declared their independence. Another, Russia, took the view that the USSR no longer existed, and that secession from a non-existent entity was impossible. Together with other republics, like Belarus and Ukraine, Russia took steps to translate this view into reality. Ultimately, it would be the member states themselves to declare the Soviet Union dissolved, with Gorbachev accepting the decision and proceeding to declare his own post extinct.

In the place of the old union, the newly independent republics created the Commonwealth of Independent States, a regional organisation meant to ease the transition to a market economy and enhance cooperation between former members.

The Commonwealth was primarily designed for Central Asian republics, whose governments wished to maintain close ties with Russia. With the Baltic republics decisively steering away from Moscow and towards Europe and the United States, and the Caucasus in an ambivalent position, strong ties in Central Asia seemed to offer stability in a scenario of uncertainty for both Russia and its new partners.

The Commonwealth of Independent States exists to this day, although the rise of the Eurasian Economic Union has in effect superseded many of its competences.

On 25th December, the Soviet flag was lowered for the last time, a Russian flag rising afterward in its place. Commenting on the hectic six months of disintegration that followed the coup, Gorbachev conceded the death of his grand political project, saying that the old system had “collapsed before a new one had the time to start working.”

The post The Last Christmas of the Soviet Union appeared first on My Country? Europe..