By Published by the
Foreign Policy Research Institute
Written by John R. Haines
UNFREEZING
ALL OF THE ‘FROZEN’ CONFLICTS INSIDE THE OLD BORDERS OF SOVIET MOLDOVA – A
PANDORA’S BOX
A RUSSIAN
commentary—substituting the intentionally provocative BESSARABIAN for “MOLDOVAN”—asked
rhetorically:
“Are BESSARABIAN
authorities seeking civil war [in GAGAUZIA] given the likelihood of escalating
the conflict beyond the region—primarily in TRANSDNIESTRIA and the UKRAINIAN part
of BUDZHAK, home to the second largest GAUGAUZIA community outside GAGAUZ YERI as
well as twice the number of BULGARIANS living in MOLDOVA—and the inevitable
involvement of external forces? The
long-deferred formation of a GAGAUZ-BULGARIAN BUDZHAK republic could gain quite
tangible contours in the event of BESSARABIA’S absorption into ROMANIA. Unfreezing all of the ‘frozen’ conflicts
inside the old borders of SOVIET MOLDOVA may sweep away not only GAGAUZIA and TRANSDNIESTRIA,
but also MOLDOVAN statehood along with NORTHERN BUKOVINA and UKRAINIAN SOUTH
BESSARABIA.”
Novorossiya Imagined c.
1913
A 1913 map of an imagined
NOVOROSSIYA shows a unified BESSARABIA—the demarcated region on the far left
labeled Бессарабская (BESSARABSKAYA)—that incorporates both the modern-day MOLDOVA
and ODESSA’S BUDZHAK region.
NOVOROSSIYA Imagined c.
1913
|
A century later, visions
of NOVOROSSIYA redevises might, in TAAVI MINNIK’S memorable phrase, might well
be “a grotesque world reflected in a contorted mirror.” However, its emotive
strength lies in the term’s historical roots. So writes IEVA BĒRZIŅA in an
insightful paper published by the LATVIAN National Defense Academy. The symbol—NOVOROSSIYA—and its historical
referent combine c.2014 as a claim for territorial change, especially among the
sootechestvenniki—literally, “compatriots”—persons who are linguistically and
culturally RUSSIAN but who live within the boundaries of another state.
Historical NOVOROSSIYA |
INSTRUMENTAL
CLAIM FOR TERRITORIAL CHANGE
As the historical map makes
clear, BUDZHAK was never part of NOVOROSSIYA. While this makes the notion of a
“People’s Republic of BESSARABIA” seem absurd from an historical perspective,
it is an instrumental claim for territorial change, not an historical one. In a much-cited January 2015 commentary, MARCIN
KOSIENKOWSKI asked whether BUDZHAK is “next in line” for RUSSIA. Next in line
for what, is perhaps a fair reply. RUSSIA will no doubt continue to interfere
in the internal affairs of MOLDOVA and UKRAINE for the purpose of derailing
their respective ambitions of EUROPEAN UNION and NATO accession. It unlikely
either will be targeted for full-blown military action, however. The lone
foreseeable exception is if the MOLDOVAN government moved formally to unify
with ROMANIA, in which event RUSSIAN armed forces in TRANSDNIESTRIA would
likely support PMR-TRANSDNIESTRIA’S and/or ATU-GAGAUZIA’S secession.
That being said, nothing
precludes the possibility of a small conflict morphing unintentionally into a
larger and hotter one. In May 2014, the ROMANIAN government barred RUSSIAN
deputy Prime Minister DMITRY ROGOZON from using ROMANIAN airspace on a return
flight from TRANSDNIESTRIA to MOSCOW. ROGOZIN tweeted in response,
“Upon a U.S. request, ROMANIA
has closed its air space for my plane. UKRAINE doesn’t allow me to pass through
again. Next time I’ll fly on board a TU-160.”
ROGOZIN’S reference of
course is to RUSSIA’S largest strategic bomber. It must be added in fairness
that RUSSIA has no monopoly on the use of symbols incongruent with their
historical referent. Consider the language used by the post-TRIANON ROMANIAN government
to bind new provinces to the Old Kingdom:
“BESSARABIA torn by RUSSIA
more than hundreds of years ago from the body of the ancient MOLDOVA from now
on and forever joins its mother, ROMANIA.”
UKRAINE
AND ROMANIA
The position of UKRAINE’S
ethnic ROMANIANS today is an interesting one. A June 2014 forum held by a
regional ROMANIAN cultural association known as “BESSARABIA” called for UKRAINE
to disintegrate IZMAIL from ODESSA and reestablish its pre-1954 status as a
standalone region. The attendees balanced this demand by protesting “KREMLIN
plans to create a ‘BUDZHAK REPUBLIC’ behind the leadership of pro-RUSSIA
politicians in GAGAUZIA.” The forum was
conducted entirely in ROMANIAN with no UKRAINIAN translation, and was attended
by ROMANIA’S consul general in ODESSA and the ROMANIAN parliamentary
deputy. It is all the more interesting
since ODESSA’S ethnic ROMANIAN population is reliably estimated at around 700
persons, far fewer than the number of ethnic ROMANIANS in UKRAINE’S CHERNIVTSI and
TRANSCARPATHIAN regions. The ROMANIAN government, however, betrays its regional
ambitions by counting all BUDZHAK MOLDOVANS as “ROMANIANS” which raises the
count to 130,000 people. RUSSIA for its part plays the ROMANIAN question both
ways, criticizing the ROMANIAN government’s alleged territorial ambitions in MOLDOVA
and BUDZHAK while at the same time analogizing the aggrieved state of UKRAINE’S
ethnic ROMANIANS and TRANSCARPATHIAN HUNGARIANS for the purpose of fomenting
ethnic dissent inside the ODESSA region.
IS
NATIONALISM, ORTHODOXY ON THE RISE IN RUSSIA?
In an insightful March
2014 commentary published on Polit.ru, ALEKSEY MURAV’YEV wrote that TRANSDNIESTRIA
and GAGAUZIA today dwell within a “mono-ethnic state”—a ROMANIZED MOLDOVA—and BUDZHAK
within “a pseudo empire”—UKRAINE. As a
result, “these orphan lands…these no man’s lands,” he wrote, cling “to a
pseudo-SOVIET identity which freezes them in the last century.” He concludes with this observation:
“These lands can only be
preserved and their instability can only be quelled by a large empire in which
the idea of ‘the nation’ is strongly grounded in the state and in the
culture. Of course, an imperial
structure is no panacea, but it can allow these ‘no man’s lands’ to exist
without having to define themselves by a single ethnic or a religious
identity. The problem of modern RUSSIA
is that it has moved in the opposite direction—from a SOVIET empire to a
nation-state. The rise of nationalism, ORTHODOXY,
and other phenomena testify to just such a direction. Making these no man’s lands part of RUSSIA
will not solve their problems, and pulls RUSSIA backward instead of allowing it
to move forward.
“Modern RUSSIA, being
neither the SOVIET UNION nor IMPERIAL RUSSIA, tries nevertheless to think of
itself as both. In reality, however, RUSSIA
has nearly returned to its early borders—CENTRAL RUSSIA, coupled to the URALS,
SIBERIA, and the FAR EAST. The continued
existence of the old federal infrastructure only complicates the situation,
along with persons who refuse to accept there no longer is—and never again will
be—a Soviet Union.”
BUCHAREST
AND PRO ROMANIAN GOVERNMENT IN CHIȘINĂU ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO THE GENERAL
DISCORDANCE
Will BUDZHAK join what is
piquantly described as PMR-TRANSDNIESTRIA and ATU-GAGAUZIA’S “theatrical and performativity
form of sovereignty”? That remains to be seen.
It is unfair to blame RUSSIA alone for the territories’ problems, for BUCHAREST
and the pro-ROMANIAN government in CHIȘINĂU undeniably contribute each in its
own way to the general discordance. That being said, there is no moral
equivalence between the status of a RUSSIAN legacy bridgehead located 1300
kilometers from MOSCOW (RUSSIA’S constant references to NATO actions in KOSOVO notwithstanding)
and ROMANIA’S interest in countering the threat to regional peace and stability
posed by its contentious borderlands—and neither has moral equivalence to UKRAINIAN
territorial sovereignty. RUSSIAN-fomented discord in BUDZHAK and neighboring
PMR-TRANSDNIESTRIA and ATU-GAGAUZIA has one goal and only one goal:
“For those in the
breakaway regions, occupation without formally occupying and annexation through
carefully orchestrated, mass participatory endeavors like referenda open new
domains where values, fears, and norms are reconstituted into a daily
experience of threat and there is only one entity capable of restoring “order”:
the RUSSIAN FEDERATION…”
The first line of the
title is from NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN’S statement during the 1938 CZECHOSLOVAKIA
crisis, which reads in full: “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we
should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in
a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.”
No comments:
Post a Comment