Story
Public opinion in both Romania and Moldova was ambivalent about the idea of unification and fluctuated noticeably over time. In Moldova, the ideas of unionism have historically had much less support. In the Middle Ages, this was partly explained by the period of feudal fragmentation, when local Moldavian princes did not want to lose their independence. The Principality of Moldova became a refuge for many Wallachian families who did not want to put up with the dominance of Hungarian and German feudal lords in Transylvania, as well as Turks and Greeks in Wallachia.
XX century
The greatest opposition to the union with Romania was demonstrated by the Gagauz, Bulgarians and Jews. Active resistance The Russian-speaking population also supported it. Among ethnic Moldovans, there is little support or indifference to initial stage quickly gave way to open discontent, especially among the Moldovan peasants. The oligarchic-bureaucratic traditions brought from Romania made many regret joining.
Collapse of the USSR
A new rise in unionist sentiments in Moldova occurred at the end of the 1980s. The unification movement experienced significant growth in both countries after the proclamation of the Glasnost policy in the Soviet Union and after the Romanian revolution of 1989. But Romania was experiencing a severe political and economic crisis due to the overthrow of the Ceausescu regime. The unionists, however, managed to achieve the translation of Moldavian writing into Latin and the proclamation of the Moldavian (Romanian) language as the state language. The rising tide of Romanian nationalism in Moldova led to a separatist reaction in the predominantly Gagauz and Russian-speaking regions of Gagauzia and Transnistria, the latter of which actually separated as a result of the Transnistrian conflict.
Present tense
Moldova
There are political parties in Moldova that advocate unification with Romania. In () among the political elite of Moldova there was also a desire to integrate the country into the European Union while maintaining the independence of Moldova. In October, Moldovan Prime Minister Vlad Filat said that “Moldova has established itself as a state, and the people who live here consider themselves citizens of this country. The population does not want unification, and it is legally impossible.”
The ideas of unionism are at times expressed by many Moldovan politicians, however, these ideas became more and more symbolic over time. Over the twenty years that have passed since the collapse of the USSR, Moldova, Gagauzia and the PMR have managed to form their own political and economic elites who do not want to share their power with the Romanian ones. The unification would lead to the automatic elimination of all duplicating positions (president, parliament, ministries, etc.), and Moldovan and other national-regional politicians, who feel like masters in their country or region, are no longer ready for this. However, on March 25 of the year in Chisinau there was a clash between unionists and Moldovanists.
Transnistria and Gagauzia
Plans for unification with Romania became one of the causes of the Transnistrian conflict in 1989-1992, and also stimulated the Gagauz to obtain national-linguistic autonomy. In the event of a union with Romania, these two entities will receive a strong argument in favor of their secession from Moldova. This position of national-territorial minorities complicates the position of unionism in Moldovan society.
Romania
Polls
According to a sociological survey conducted in 2006 in Romania, the idea of Moldova’s annexation was supported by 44% of the population, while 28% were against it.
In October 2009, IMAS-Inc conducted a sociological survey in Moldova. Respondents were asked to rate the relationship between Moldovans' identity as Romanians on a scale from 1 (entirely one people) to 5 (two different peoples). The survey showed that 26% of all those who took part said that Moldovans and Romanians are completely one people, and 47% said that this is partially or completely different peoples. The results varied among different categories of respondents. For example, 33% of young respondents (18-29) indicated that Romanians and Moldovans are one people, 44% - that they are different, among older respondents (more than 60) the percentages were different: 18.5% and 53%. The percentage of those who consider Romanians and Moldovans to be one people is higher among people for whom Romanian is their native language (30%), among urban residents (30%), among people with higher education(36%) and among residents of the capital (42%).
Hypothetical results of the merger
Expected results of the merger based on statistical data for 2010:
Notes
- “Dances of Gagauz aborigines before the Moldavian conquistadors”: Gagauzia in a week - News from Moldova - REGNUM news agency
- “Unionistii trebuie pedepsiti din toate punctele de vedere!”
- I. A. Burn, I. M. Sharov A short course of lectures on the history of Romanians. New story . - 1992.
- Oleg Grom. Regional, ethnocultural and imperial projects of national identity in Bessarabia (1905-1912), 2007
At the party congress " People's movement» ex-president In Romania, Traian Basescu proposed to save Moldova from the “torments of the transition period.” In order not to suffer, Moldova should unite with Romania. Only this will give her a chance to be in the European Union. To launch the unification initiative, all you need to do is hold a referendum.
Speaking at the conference of the People's Movement party, ex-President of Romania Traian Basescu put forward an initiative to hold a referendum on unification with Moldova, reports. He recalled that he suggested doing this to his Moldovan colleagues: Vladimir Voronin, Mihai Ghimpu and the current leader Nicolae Timofti.
At the congress, Basescu explained his position: “Moldova’s chance to join the European Union is unification with Romania. I told Voronin, Ghimpu and Timofti that this is a decision for both states.”
In addition, Basescu criticized the current Romanian President Klaus Iohannis (who, as is known, declared the country's main goal to join the euro zone). “You can’t imagine anything funnier,” Basescu said about this decision. - An obligation under the EU accession treaty cannot be a country's goal. The country’s goal should be the unification of Romania with Moldova.”
Previously, Basescu called Moldova “Romanian land” and proposed making “the reunification of the two states the third largest national project for Romania after joining NATO and the EU.” As shown by the results of a recent study, TASS recalls, in Romania, Basescu’s project was supported by about 68% of citizens.
Other statements the ex-president made at the congress are given.
According to Basescu, “Romanian politicians lack the courage to discuss this topic, and Moldovan ones even more so.” However, the ex-leader of Romania is convinced that the right moment to prepare the appropriate referendum in both countries has already arrived. This decision promises benefits for both Moldova and Romania.
“Romania will strengthen its position in NATO and the EU, the Republic of Moldova will be able to get rid of the pain of the transition period, which, judging by the events in Ukraine, will never end,” Basescu said.
Romania, he said, must “set about correcting historical mistakes.” Traian Basescu said: “Romania today cannot live under an agreement between two criminals, Stalin and Hitler, signed by two other criminals, Ribbentrop and Molotov. Today we live according to their treaty, which divided the Romanians into two states.”
It is clear, let us add on our own behalf, that the mentioned Basescu, and with him 68% of the surveyed Romanian citizens, do not consider Moldovans a nation. And if there is no separate Moldovan people, there cannot be a state with its borders and government. There must be one and indivisible Romania. Hence Basescu’s project called “Greater Romania”. After all, the majority of Romanians approve of this idea, so why not hold a referendum?
However, Traian Basescu is disingenuous. Even if we discard the known historical events, forget about the conflicts and the Nazi past, which seems to be threatening to return in some places, then it will be impossible to ignore the mood of the citizens of Moldova.
If among Romanians 68% would like a “Greater Romania”, that is, simply put, the annexation of Moldova, then among the overwhelming majority of Moldovans Traian Basescu’s projects do not meet with approval.
Public opinion polls consistently show that the majority of Moldovans oppose unification with Romania. In addition, according to various sociological surveys, the majority of the country's population wants integration with the Customs Union, and not with the EU.
It’s important to know something else: among those Romanians who are ready to vote for “Greater Romania,” many have no idea how Moldova lives. An Inscop survey conducted on July 9-14, 2015 shows that a significant part of Romanian residents (more than 40%) do not follow the situation in Moldova and know nothing about the events taking place there!
Of course, these forty percent are unlikely to be aware of the political news in Moldova. And the potential “unifiers” would be worth knowing about them.
Back in the spring, the Moldovan Party of Socialists in parliament advocated banning organizations promoting the ideas of uniting Romania with Moldova (so-called unionism). This initiative was a response to the May march organized by small supporters of the unification of Moldova with Romania in Chisinau. The press wrote that the protesters shouted not only calls for Moldova to join Romania, but also anti-Russian slogans.
“The PSRM has registered a bill declaring illegal all organizations political parties who advocate the overthrow political system, - party leader Igor Dodon. “We insist that this issue be included on the agenda of parliamentary meetings.”
They remind you that on June 5 in Chisinau, supporters of “unification” held a simultaneously rally and march (5 thousand participants), dedicated to the 203rd anniversary of the Bucharest Peace. The organizer of the action was the public organization “Action-2012”. Its supporters claim that who completed the Russian-Turkish War of 1806-1812. The Treaty of Bucharest between the Russian and Ottoman Empires "led to the occupation of Romanian territory between the Prut and the Dniester." Some politicians in Chisinau hold a similar opinion, despite the fact that Romania as a state did not exist at that time.
The collection of PSRM signatures for a ban on the activities of supporters of “unification” began at the end of July 2015.
But forty percent of Romanians are apparently not interested in this issue. Just like the former Romanian president.
There is also an opinion that Moldova could turn into a new hot spot. Worse than Ukraine. However, Ukraine will also be tied up here - what would “Greater Romania” be without a piece of Ukraine? Basescu already knows that one and a half hundred thousand Romanians live in Ukrainian Bessarabia. This means that we must, like the Moldovans, give them a “chance”.
Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjörn Jagland recently wrote in the New York Times that Transnistria could become the next Crimea.
Both Moldovan adherents of European integration and supporters of the Eurasian Economic Union are now indignant towards the Moldovan elites, Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The country could face serious economic turmoil in the near future if authorities fail to do what is necessary to restore external funding that has been suspended pending concrete action to combat corruption.
According to Jagland, there is a deterioration in relations between Moldova and Transnistria. A full-scale conflict is unlikely, the politician believes, but “in such a tense environment” the situation could get out of control.
As a result, we would add that the topic of a possible international conflict, which will involve not only Romania, Moldova and Transnistria, but also Ukraine, has already reached the level of pan-European discussion.
Apparently Basescu and forty percent of Romanians are not interested in this. The main thing is to annex, and then at least fight with Russia. Romania is “great” after all.
Leading researcher at RISI Vasily Kashirin said that in Moldova there is an ethnocratic model of the state, but the ethnocracy has problems of its own self-identification: “Currently the government includes the liberal party of Mr. Mihai Ghimpu, which is absolutely pro-Romanian, that is, advocating unification with Romania. They don't hide it. Their electorate, which consistently votes for this party, fluctuates around 10% from election to election. These same 10% of the population of Moldova have a clearly defined Romanian national identity. They consider themselves not Moldovans, but Romanians. Another thing is that their party is still a minority; of course, they do not have a majority.”
Just ten percent.
At the same time, Kashirin emphasized that influential politicians in Moldova understand that they are completely dependent on the West. And of course, Washington and Brussels will not give the green light to changing borders in Europe now. Therefore, the Moldovan authorities are pursuing a policy of gradual de-Russification of Moldova, which leads to the construction of a second separate Romanian state.
The President of the Association of Independent Political Scientists of Transnistria, Andrei Safonov, spoke about exactly how Romania plans to make itself “great” at the expense of Moldova. According to him, Romania intends to unite with Moldova in the EU only together with Transnistria.
Bucharest intends to prevent Moldova (including the PMR) from becoming a buffer zone between Russia and NATO. The expert explained that Romanian politicians see the following scenario: Russian troops withdrawn, and instead of peacekeepers on the Dniester - civilian observers. The latter will turn a blind eye to attempts to resolve the Transnistrian issue by force. “In a word, the entire former MSSR should become part of Romania (no matter under what sauce), and after that the united “Greater Romania”, which reached the left bank of the Dniester and on the approaches to Odessa, can safely, with the Transnistrian “makeweight”, enter into NATO. Perhaps this is how the Romanians pose the question to the United States, hoping to receive gratitude for the fact that Bucharest, after the decision to deploy US missile defense elements on its territory, became America’s closest ally and confidant in the region,” the analyst believes.
To summarize: the source of Romanian greatness is the United States of America. And if so, Romanians and their politicians may indeed not be interested in the opinion of the majority of Moldovans. You may even know nothing at all about Moldova. For what? Let's join and we'll figure it out.
They just forgot about this: Uncle Sam doesn’t like “greats.” There is only one “Great” on the planet.
It’s easy for a lazy and incurious Moscow citizen to call a Moldovan builder who laid tiles poorly a “Romanian.” Ask him why he said that, and he will shrug his shoulders in bewilderment: “Well, what’s the difference?” Really, but in what way?
The question is actually far from idle. To begin with, let us recall that in Moldova, with EU money, a tough campaign has been waged for 25 years in favor of the absorption of this country by Romania. Serious money is being invested in unionist parties, public organizations and the media in Moldova. Annual quotas of several thousand people are created for Moldovan students in Romania. Almost everyone in Moldova is given Romanian passports. There are statements that Romanians and Moldovans have a “common” language, culture and destiny.
The goal of this campaign is to force Moldovans to change their self-name and internal identity. However, almost all Moldovans speak out against the renunciation of national statehood and “reunification” with the Romanians. This means there is something that prevents Moldovans from recognizing themselves as such. What exactly? First of all, history.
Released, but not everyone
The Principality of Moldova arose in 1359, when neither Romania nor the concept of “Romanians” existed. On the site of present-day Romania was the Principality of Wallachia, also created in the 14th century. Then they said so: Moldovans live in Moldova, Wallachians live in Wallachia.
Both principalities considered themselves related, which, however, did not prevent the rulers of Wallachia (together with the Turks who captured it in 1415) from fighting against their Moldavian brothers by blood and faith. For this, the Moldavian ruler Stefan cel Mare in 1473 betrayed Bucharest to fire and sword.
In 1812, after another Russian-Turkish war, the Moldovans and Wallachians turned to Russian Empire with a request to save them from the rule of the Ottomans. But before the clash with Napoleon, Russia was able to wrest from the hands of Turkey only part of Moldova - Bessarabia, between the Prut and Dniester rivers. Behind the Prut there remained a truncated Principality of Moldova with its capital in Iasi.
Peace reigned in Bessarabia for 106 years, and the “across the Prut” Moldavian principality, deprived of part of its territory and population, weakened. Therefore, when there was talk about the unification of Moldova and Wallachia, Bucharest began to play first fiddle, and Iasi - second.
In 1859 this unification took place. Romania and the definition of “Romanians” in relation to the people of the new state arose. At the same time, a significant part of the inhabitants of the former Moldavian principality continues to consider themselves Moldovans today. As for Bessarabia, no one was in a hurry to register as Romanians throughout the entire 19th and early 20th centuries. There was no talk about Transnistria in this context at all.
Word and letter
Are modern Moldovan and Romanian languages identical? Among scientists there are different opinions on this matter, but Moldavian has been spoken for several centuries, Romanian for a little over a century.
This is how the ruler of Moldova, Dmitry Cantemir, saw the relationship between the Moldovans and the Wallachians in the linguistic sphere (and not only): “The Wallachians use some words unknown to the Moldovans, which, however, are omitted in the letter, and in everything they follow in the footsteps of the Moldovans in terms of language and spelling and by this they admit that the Moldavian language is purer than theirs, although they are held back from openly declaring this by the ill will that exists between the Moldavians and the Vlachs.”
And here is what a group of Moldavian peasants from the Orhei district of Romanian-occupied Bessarabia wrote to the Romanian authorities in 1921: “What does the word “volumul” mean? We guess it’s some kind of brochure (book). If you guessed right, then please don’t bother sending it again, because there is no one to read it. We tell you again, if the book is useful for us, write it in Moldavian or Russian (don’t shy away from the Russian language like the devil from incense), and not in Romanian, because we have a weak understanding of the Romanian language, not that and understand it."
With writing everything is much simpler - it is different. Although this was not always the case: from the moment of the formation of the Moldavian Principality, the written language of the Moldovans (not to be confused with the Vlachs) on both sides of the Prut was Cyrillic, and the official language until the 17th century was Old Church Slavonic. The Latin alphabet replaced the Cyrillic alphabet west of the Prut, in Iasi, only after the creation of Romania in 1862.
As soon as Romania captured Moldovan lands in 1918 and 1941, it began to eradicate the Cyrillic alphabet under the slogans of a “united Romanian nation” and a “common Romanian language.” In 1944, the territories were liberated, but with the collapse of the USSR, politics resumed: the Cyrillic alphabet was replaced by the Latin alphabet, and the existence of the Moldovan nation was denied. This is a question of civilizational orientation: if the task is to reorient the former Soviet Moldova entirely towards the West, the clichés about the “single Romanian language” and the “original” Latin alphabet become very important.
However, I repeat, the vast majority of Moldovans still retain their identity. As for Transnistria, while rejecting in principle rapprochement with Romania and entry into the geopolitical space of the West, it has retained the Cyrillic script of the Moldovan language.
Where is the front
According to the results of the 2004 census, 94% of Moldovans said that they considered themselves Moldovans, and not Romanians. The leaders of the ruling Alliance for European Integration in Chisinau represent an “overwhelming minority”, behind which stands Bucharest (a situation very similar to the Ukrainian one). The unionists need “commonality” in order to, at the right moment, raise the question of “reunification” of all the lands where, in their opinion, Romanians live.
The Ambassador of Romania to the Republic of Moldova, Marius Lazurca, publicly declared himself a unionist, and the President of Romania, Traian Basescu, stated that sooner or later Romania and Moldova will unite anyway. The President also explained the ideological basis of the possible unification: “Romania and the Republic of Moldova are two independent and sovereign states, but mostly inhabited by Romanians. We are united by language, traditions, joys and misfortunes that Romanians have gone through over the past centuries.”
However, neither the Romanian occupiers in 1918-1940 and 1941-1944, nor their successors in Chisinau and Bucharest have yet proven that the Moldavian nation does not exist. The front of the fight against unionism runs not only along the Prut or the Dniester, but also in the hearts of the Moldovans themselves. The majority of Moldovans reject the Romanian name imposed on them. This largely disrupts plans to absorb Moldova, Transnistria, as well as Ukrainian Southern Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina by Romania.
Andrey Safonov
After the change of power in Moldova in 2009 and the departure of the communists to the opposition in the republic, the discussion about the possibility of uniting with Romania into one state, following the example of the GDR and the Federal Republic of Germany, which became a united Germany, resumed with renewed vigor. On March 27, 2012, Moldova once again celebrated the day of the reunification of Bessarabia with Romania in 1918. On this occasion, supporters of the unification of the two states held a unionist march in Chisinau. This, in turn, was preceded by the first joint meeting of the governments of the two countries. How likely is it that Moldova will eventually become part of Romania? In what format can this be done? Are there many supporters of the unionist doctrine in the republic? These and other questions from Lenta.Ru readers were answered by the executive director of the Association of Historians and Political Scientists "Pro-Moldova", Candidate of Historical Sciences, Doctor of Political Sciences Sergei Nazaria.
Vladimir
Sergey Mikhailovich, good afternoon.
What is the benefit, in your opinion, for the leadership of Moldova from unification with Romania? Will Moldovan politicians enter the Romanian government based on some quotas or is this a maneuver by Moldovan business in order to ease the tax burden on the part of the state with the possibility of easier development of the markets of Romania and the EU?
How might such a change in borders in post-war Europe affect political stability? economic development countries of the Balkan and Black Sea regions?
Leonid
Is unification with Romania economically beneficial for Moldova?
What are the economic interests of the Moldovan business elite in the light of the unification?
Lathos
Have you heard the joke? Before the war, an old peasant was asked: “When was it better, under the Romanians or under the Russians?” And he answered evasively: “It was best when the Romanians left and the Russians did not come.”
Many people do not remember the first unification in the best way; the “second coming” of the Romanians is unlikely to be more comfortable. Why is Moldova bad in itself? It has all the potential to become a second Switzerland and be attractive to immigrants if the “cantons” come to an agreement.
Answer: Firstly, I will start with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the population of the republic does not support the idea of unification with Romania. According to surveys of ideological supporters of the unification, who will support it under any circumstances, only four percent. Another few percent, about eight, are also ready to unite with Romania for various economic reasons (if their economic situation improves, their professional status increases, opportunities for social growth appear, and some prospects open up for their children). They believe that if the socio-economic situation improves as a result of unification, then they are in favor of unification. Everyone else is against it, albeit in varying degrees. That is, the overwhelming majority of our citizens do not support this idea.
Now the question is about the so-called political elite, about the leadership. The fact is that not everything is clear there either. I would not say that the entire Moldovan elite (at least those people who are now represented in power) is for unification. This is wrong. The Ghimpu party is openly in favor of unification, this is the so-called Liberal Party, Romanian nationalists, who make up less than a quarter of the entire alliance, if we take the percentage of those who voted for them. Of course, in government they have somewhat greater leverage than the percentage they received in the elections.
As for the Lupu party (Democratic Party of Moldova), it is against unification. True, at the same time they remain in an alliance with the unionists, apparently due to fear of the return of the communists.
In Filat’s party, this issue is more complicated: there are outspoken unionists there, and there are also supporters of statehood. Filat himself positions himself as a supporter of statehood, although some of his actions and the actions of ministers in the government indicate that the idea of unification is not alien to them, in particular, I am talking about the issue of introducing the so-called “history of Romanians.” This is a xenophobic ethnocratic Romanian concept that everyone who speaks Romanian is Romanian, therefore they should live in a united state, that is, something like what Hitler wrote about the Germans in "Mein Kampf": everyone who speaks German, must be united into a single state.
In addition, they support the idea of the so-called two Romanian states: they say, one people, but two states. But at the same time, opponents of this idea have a question: if there are two states and one people, then why are two states needed? This is a hidden form of unionism. But the most important thing, I think, is not even in these purely ideological or external manifestations. I believe that the most important thing is that a significant part of the Moldovan elite (at least the one that is now in power) feels inferior, incapable of effectively managing the state. And these unionist tendencies and manifestations on the part of these people express precisely this inferiority complex, the inability to effectively manage and an attempt to shift the needle, shift responsibility for management to a factor outside of Moldova, in in this case, to Romania. It's like calling the Varangians to the board. They simply cannot cope with management issues themselves. This, it seems to me, is the essence of the issue.
But if unification occurs in the foreseeable future, it will only be in the event of a complete collapse of the Moldovan state apparatus and the inability of the state to perform its basic functions, including the function of governance. And in order to restore order in a country that may be engulfed in chaos, Romanian troops may be “introduced” (for now, thank God, in quotes). There are already certain agreements for this within the Ministry of Defense, through the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and through other ministries. It was agreed that in the event of any internal unrest, countries would come to each other’s aid. You understand that this means the legalization of Romanian interference in our internal affairs.
But if the unification follows this scenario, naturally there will be strong resistance and bloodshed. And if this happens, it will only be through enormous violence against the population. At least, I am sure of one thing: some, perhaps small, but very active minority of supporters of preserving Moldovan statehood will resist to the last.
Eugene
1. In general, does Romania need unification? Who in Romania will benefit from this and for what reasons?
2. How does the world feel about this opportunity?
Answer: I think it would be wrong to say that for ordinary Romanians, and perhaps for all of Romania in general, unification with Bessarabia is a great joy, at least in socio-economic terms. Because this is an additional burden on the budget, on social sphere and so on. However, I do not think that the extreme nationalist circles that now govern Romania, led by Basescu (who, as you may recall, is an apologist for Antonescu, an ally of Hitler), intend to actively invest anything in Bessarabia. They do not care not only about our standard of living, but also about the standard of living of their own people; they are not particularly concerned about whether there will be any development here. They understand perfectly well that this will not happen, they are not pursuing this goal, but rather geopolitical goals, the implementation of the project of a great Romania. This is the so-called România Mare, “greater Romania” or “great Romania”, access to the Dniester, expulsion of any Russian influence from here. In general, no one cares about the fate of the population; there are simply certain geostrategic goals.
During the interwar period, the slogan of the Romanian ruling elite was put forward: “We want Bessarabia without Bessarabians.” But having received Bessarabia with the Bessarabians, they will get huge problems, even serious upheavals in Romania itself. Because we are not Romanians, we do not feel like Romanians. We do not integrate easily into Romanian society. At least several generations must pass, but Romania has a lot of problems even without us, including with national minorities: with Hungarians, with gypsies, with others. And if we are added there, this could lead to serious upheavals within Romania, to its weakening, so objectively this is not beneficial for Romania. The question is whether extreme nationalists understand this. I think no.
Egor V.
Hello!
In accordance with the law on reunification adopted in Romania, Romanian foreign passports began to be distributed in Moldova. This strategy is reminiscent of the Russian Federation’s policy in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, when later a reason arose to send in troops in connection with the protection of Russian citizens. How realistic is this scenario and why does the Moldovan government circles not prevent this? Is it really not clear that this is a direct path to the loss of sovereignty? Or has Moldovan society already come to terms with this?
Answer: I don’t think the analogy is fair; after all, Moldova is a state recognized throughout the world. Abkhazia was a breakaway territory from Georgia with its own autonomous governance structures, but it was not recognized by anyone. And in this case, the Romanians have other reasons for intervention, more serious than just protecting their citizens.
I have already spoken about intergovernmental agreements at the ministerial level on mutual assistance in the event of any emergency situations in Romania or Moldova. It is unlikely that we will save the Romanian government in case of emergency there, beyond the Prut. But as for the opposite situation - at the legitimate request of the Moldovan government, Romanian troops can cross the Prut and intervene. But this, again, is an extreme scenario; today it is impossible. What could happen in the future if the situation here gets so bad and there's unrest? Hypothetically, such a scenario is possible, but in reality, I don’t yet see the prerequisites for this and I think that it won’t come to that. Although, of course, anything can happen. But I think that this will not happen, and the comparison between us and Abkhazia in this case is not very true.
Regarding passports: we are often asked what the purpose of the Romanian government is in issuing such a huge number of passports. The goal is apparently clear even to your readers, those who asked questions. Thus, having received the majority of Moldovans as Romanian citizens, they carry out the unification de facto, and then, possibly, de jure. Why do citizens of Moldova, if they are already citizens of Romania, need another government in Chisinau? The logic is this, maybe I’m exaggerating a bit.
But for Moldovans, obtaining Romanian passports has a purely pragmatic meaning. We don’t have work here, we need to go somewhere to earn money, and a Romanian passport gives us the opportunity to move freely throughout Europe. So the Moldovans are eager to get it. And if we assume, again, hypothetically, that they will have the opportunity to freely travel to the territory of the European Union with Moldovan passports, it is not yet clear when this will happen, but if we assume this, you will be convinced that the Romanian embassy and Romanian consulates will not have any queues for obtaining citizenship. There will be, perhaps, some individual people, once a week or more often, who will want to get a Romanian passport, but the majority will not need it. People take Romanian citizenship for purely pragmatic reasons.
If, say, Russia introduced a visa regime for citizens of Moldova, I assure you, the number of those who wish to obtain Russian passports would sharply increase. Because this would provide an opportunity to enter Russian territory and work there. And since we have free entry into the territory of Russia, those wishing to obtain a Russian passport are an order of magnitude, or even two orders of magnitude, less than the number of those wishing to obtain a Romanian passport.
Michael
Describe the scenario for the fastest possible entry of Moldova into Romania.
Answer: I don’t want to describe any unification scenarios at all, because I personally am against unification, like most of my fellow citizens. I’m talking about myself, about members of my family, at least four or five generations of me are all Moldovans, there are both Russians and Ukrainians, my grandfather is Ukrainian, but also a native of this land, his great-grandparents were born here. Since the formation of Moldova in the Middle Ages, more than a third of non-Moldavians have lived here, most of them Rusyns, the ancestors of today's Ukrainians. We have always had a multinational community, and people have never sought to eliminate their own state.
There were attempts to appeal to Russia in the late Middle Ages and early period modernity, the New Age, when the Moldovans turned to Russia with a request to take Moldova under the protection, but even then there were no hints about the liquidation of statehood, that is, they meant the preservation of the Moldavian tradition, the Moldovan statehood, but under Russian protection.
And, especially today, when no one threatens us (the Turks, thank God, peaceful people), with the exception of Romanian irredentist tendencies, we have no reason to give up our sovereignty even in the slightest. On the contrary, the majority want it to be strengthened, naturally, within reasonable limits, because the processes of globalization, integration, and the rapprochement of peoples and states are making their own adjustments here too. However, no one is going to unite with Romania.
I mentioned attempts by Moldovans to come under Russian protection in the past because there are no other similar examples. There have never been any attempts on the part of the Moldovans to unite, say, with the Romanians. True, in 1859, under pressure from the great powers, including Russia, the Principality of Moldova nevertheless agreed to unite with the Wallachian Principality in single state. However, even at this it should be noted that the elections were rigged, because two years earlier elections were also held, but there was no pressure from the great powers, and everyone (those people who had the right to vote - the large boyars) unanimously voted against the unification. And two years later Russia and France put pressure on them, which is why this kind of unification took place. But even then it did not express the will of the majority of Moldovans.
That is, the fact is that I do not see any internal prerequisites for unification with Romania, at least regarding the desire of the population. Only a catastrophe can lead to this. But I hope it doesn't happen.
Alexandru
1. What are the prospects that two Romanian states and one people can live without the formation of a single state?
2. The current stage of development of society and globalization have made university an anachronism or not?
3. Can the probable entry of the Republic of Moldova into the EU be considered as a stage more advanced than Unira?
Do the supranational institutions existing in the EU reduce the benefits of unity?
Answer:
1. Firstly, these are not two Romanian states. There is a Moldovan state and a Romanian state. I have already told you that the overwhelming majority of Moldovans do not consider themselves Romanians. It is interesting that among those four percent who long for unification with Romania, not all consider themselves Romanians. Some consider themselves Moldovans, but they are for unification with Romania. When you ask him the question “Who are you?” - he answers that he is Moldovan. When you ask: "Do you want to unite with Romania?" - he answers: “Yes, I want to.” That is, we clearly cannot talk about two Romanian states. This is a stretch, this is an attempt by the Romanians to pass off wishful thinking.
The prerequisites for unification may be the complete collapse of the functionality of the Moldovan state, complete destruction remaining economic opportunities for people to exist, and even then, not everyone will want to unite with the Romanians. But our prospects, most likely, are different: to live according to the same principle as the Austrians live with the Germans. There are two states, some Austrians consider themselves Germans (somewhere up to 12 percent), the rest consider themselves Austrians. Although they all speak the same language, they have a very close culture, for sure general literature, that is, they have a lot in common both historically and psychologically, and so on. However, the Austrians do not renounce their statehood.
This is roughly what most Moldovans think. Yes, we are very close to the Romanians culturally, we have a single language, the literary form is identical, we have a lot in common in history, at least with that part of the Moldovans who remained in Romania, united in 1859 with Wallachia and formed Romanian state. We had the same history with them for 500 years, we were one people, and even now we consider them our brothers, and they consider us. But I do not now see an opportunity (at least voluntary) on the part of the majority of Moldovans to unite with Romania.
At the everyday level, Moldovans often have similar conversations. And it’s not so rare that people express the idea that we are ready to unite with our Moldovan brothers because of the Prut. But for this it is necessary that they secede from Romania. Don’t get me wrong, we don’t pose the question this way, but such conversations do happen at the everyday level. This suggests that our Moldovans from the Republic of Moldova, in principle, are ready to restore unity with their brothers from across the Prut, but only with the Moldovans, and they are unlikely to want to leave the Romanian state. I repeat once again - we never pose the question this way, because we recognize Romania within its current borders and never, even as a hint, pretend to somehow change these borders.
2. For four days, from April 2 to April 5, we held an international conference in Chisinau on the issue of the 200th anniversary of the annexation of Bessarabia to Russia in the light of centuries-old Moldovan-Russian-Ukrainian cooperation. We had participants from nine countries: Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Germany, France and Turkey. True, the representative of Turkey was our citizen, but he is a professor at the Suleyman Demirel University in Ankara.
We, of course, discussed these issues, we discussed historical problems, historical issues from our past. And no one, including the Romanians, expressed the opinion that it was necessary to unite Moldova with Romania and liquidate the Moldovan state. On the contrary, our Romanian colleagues assessed the current situation very objectively. And in private informal conversations, and on the sidelines, and even in their speeches, they recognized Moldovan statehood and said that the policy of Basescu and those circles that pursue this line of annexing Moldova is an anachronism, it is counterproductive and harms Romania itself.
And even if there ever is a unification, it should happen by mutual desire. The movement should be two-way, counter, and if there is no such thing on one side, but only because of the Prut, then it will not be unification, but annexation, violence, annexation, occupation, call it what you want. And the participants of our conference spoke about this more than once.
These trends are irrelevant, they are counterproductive not only for us, but also for our neighbors and close relatives of Romanians.
3. Definitely yes. More than 60 percent of Moldovans would like to become part of the EU. I think that the overwhelming majority of Russian citizens (at least young people) would also not mind if Russia became a member of the EU. For example, I don’t think that the EU is something bad at all. On the contrary, we must unite, integrate, create a single space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, and not only an economic space, but also a single security space, at least a single humanitarian space - in the sense of population movement, exchange of ideas and information. Naturally, it is necessary to become closer culturally. In this sense, Moldovans are no exception.
But at the same time, 70 percent of Moldovans believe that Russia should remain our main strategic partner. Maybe this seems like a contradiction to some, but for the Moldovan mentality there is no contradiction here. Because Moldovans cannot imagine how they can break away from Russia. In any case, the overwhelming majority is in favor of having the closest relations with Russia. And Russia should be our most important foreign policy partner: economic, political, and in the field of security. But in the conditions of poverty and poverty into which our people have been plunged, people, of course, see in joining the EU a certain prospect for their personal employment, for improving their living conditions, and increasing their earnings.
And then, you must agree, Europe now is not just some kind of space for external security, economic prosperity (with all the crisis that is happening there now, it is temporary in any case - capitalism cannot develop without crises, we know this still from school textbooks). Europe is also a guarantee of personal security and respect for people’s rights. And the level of protection of people – legal, social – is incomparably higher there than in the East, including Russia. In Russia, for example, if you go one hundred and first kilometer from Moscow, the conditions are completely different, not like in Moscow. And in Moscow, our people (when I say “our people,” I mean not only Moldovans, but also Ukrainians, Tajiks, Asians) are often literally terrorized, bullied, and robbed by the police. This does not exist in Europe, so people, from this point of view, look at Europe exclusively positively. I don't see anything wrong with this.
Not only Russia as a great power, but also Moldova as a small country must, undoubtedly, pursue a multi-vector line in foreign policy, a line towards developing relations with everyone. But in this regard there is no place for uniform. Accession to the European Union (although there will be no accession to the European Union in the near and medium term, I think we are talking about some more distant future, in the region of 20 years, and then only provided that we are ready for this), I think, definitely will put an end to the union with Romania.
Odessa
Mr. Nazaria, how likely do you think the political unification of Romania and Moldova into one state is in the near future? Will this not lead to serious civil and ethnic conflicts within Moldova itself?
We have a historical example - when Romania received the territory of Hungary-Transylvania, and after the so-called “Romanization” there, the share of ethnic Hungarians decreased from 80% to 8-10%? Will this cause a flow of refugees to Ukraine? What is the possible fate of Transnistria?
Nikolay Shmeiser
Do you think the direct possibility of “unification” will provoke new armed clashes with opponents of unionist views, as happened in the early 90s?
Mortal Kombat
Hello.
What are the benefits of unification for Moldova and Romania (for each, please list separately), and what are the problems from the fact that these two countries are now separate (similarly, if possible, point by point separately for each country).
Answer: Let's start with the fact that, of course, not all of Moldova will become part of Romania. Transnistria will definitely break away from it. And this will put a heavy cross on the solution to the Transnistrian issue - in the sense of restoring the territorial unity of Moldova. Transnistria will break away, and, most likely, it will be recognized not only by Russia, but also, I think, by the majority of the world community. Yes, probably the Romanians too: they don’t need Transnistria.
The second point: the Gagauz and Bulgarians will not want to enter. The north of Moldova also has a very mixed population, and there are also very strong anti-Romanian sentiments there. Not in cultural terms, not in relation to the Romanians as a people, but precisely in terms of state unification with Romania.
That is, at least half of the population of Moldova will literally refuse to become part of Romania, they will refuse categorically, and this refusal will need to be suppressed with the help of the armed forces. This is also not excluded. That is, in the event of unification, there may be a conflict, and quite a bloody one. Even if the unification follows the softest path: let’s say they hold a referendum, the majority of the population votes “for” (although this cannot happen in the short and medium term), even in this most favorable option for the Romanians, there will still be a minority that will not want to unite with Romania, will not become part of Romania, but will take up arms. These are the Gagauz, the north; there are also a lot of them among the Moldovans of the center.
Suppose Romania includes the Moldovan part of Bessarabia - of course, more problems for the Romanians. But for us it will be extremely bad, because, from an economic point of view, Romania is the poorest country, it is not capable, as it was in Soviet time, invest something in our economy, develop it. This means that we will get further degradation. Moreover, it will only be taken from here, and nothing will come back. And not even because the Romanians are so bad, not at all. Romanians simply don’t have the resources to invest. The Soviet Union was another country with enormous resources. And then, the Romanians are not Russians, in order to support the periphery at their own expense, as was the case, again, in the Soviet Union, when the level of other republics rose at the expense of Russia. This will not happen, therefore, in socio-economic terms, we will face further degradation with no prospect of overcoming it.
Someone might object and say that Romania is a member of the European Union, so some investments can come from there. I very much doubt that a flow of investment will pour into Bessarabia; I will not explain why now. There is no investment in the desert, and under the Romanians we will turn into an economic desert. And one more aspect - investments will go through Bucharest. And in any case, they will be filtered in Bucharest, even if, suppose, initially they will be sent for the development of the easternmost regions of Romania, which united with it relatively recently, that is, our territory.
So, apart from further degradation and depopulation of this region, nothing awaits us. In the interwar period there was appalling poverty and degradation; 500 thousand Bessarabians emigrated from Bessarabia forever. And now some people have emigrated, but if now there is still a prospect of returning if the situation changes, then, in the interwar period, Moldovans, people of other nationalities, Jews, Ukrainians emigrated en masse to the West: to Canada, to the USA, some to France , to Argentina, they even say that some people went to Madagascar.
So, if we unite, nothing good awaits us.
Maksim
1. Dear Sergei, do you think that if Moldova joins Romania, the Romanian authorities will not seriously engage in the development of the economy of the new territory, and everything will be limited to turning Moldova into a backward agricultural region?
2. Do you agree that many Romanians, even if they consider Moldovans a related people, treat them and will always treat them as people below them in terms of intelligence and culture, and that this attitude will affect the life of the entire nation?
Answer:
1. I can tell you that this will happen not only in the economic sphere. A number of universities will close. For example, I work at the State Institute of International Relations. But why would Romanians need a university in Chisinau that trains international relations specialists? There is a similar one in Bucharest. And why would they need a huge polytechnic university, which was a polytechnic institute in Soviet times? Why would they need such a large Moldavian State University? They will not need large classical universities. Something, of course, will remain.
We have a wonderful medical school, founded back in 1945 on the basis of the second Leningrad medical university, it was then simply divided in half: half of the professors, associate professors, and so on remained in place, and the other half came to Chisinau, the appropriate equipment was brought, and so on. Therefore, in this regard, we have very highly qualified teaching staff in Chisinau, because the ancient Russian tradition was automatically transferred to our soil.
I don't think Romanians will need all these educational structures. Why do Romanians need the Moldavian Academy of Sciences? Naturally, it will be closed. There will be complete degradation here. Why do they need the Writers' Union? Although the current Writers' Union categorically advocates unification. But they will be the first to be slammed. Some people, of course, will be given places there, in Bucharest, but the structure as such will disappear here. And so on and so forth.
2. I will answer in one word: yes, it is so. But still, probably not all are Romanians, far from all. For example, when I was in contact with Romanians, I did not feel this way. However, some of our students who study there, some of our people who permanently live there feel this. Such sentiments are transmitted.
But I didn’t feel it myself. I communicated with cultured people, usually from an academic environment, most of them, of course, do not think so or, at least, do not show it. I think that in Romania, cultured and educated people survived this stage a long time ago. But this kind of thing happens; many people say that they have encountered such an attitude.
Alexander
Do you think the united country will receive NATO membership automatically (at the expense of Romania) or will it have to receive it again? Will this lead to conflicts within the new country?
Yes, of course, but how could it be otherwise? The country ceases to exist as a country, its territory simply automatically becomes part of Romania, and Romania is a member of NATO. Naturally, NATO is expanding.
Dmitriy
What will be the fate of the Russian-speaking population of Moldova if unification with Romania occurs??
Answer: Of course, the majority of the Russian-speaking population also does not want to unite with Romania. Because in the event of unification, their opportunities for cultural development, maintaining ties with their historical homeland - Russia, will sharply decrease, and education in Russian will disappear. They will be subject to increased Romanianization, as was the case during the interwar period and as, in principle, is now happening in relation to the Moldovans.
But if we talk about business, the mood there is somewhat different. I don’t want to say that this is the general sentiment among all businessmen, but based on some practical indirect signs, I think that this is so. A couple of Russian businessmen told me: “Yes, if we unite with Romania, we will be second class, but we do not lose anything from this, we are second class here politically, in terms of developing some of our cultural capabilities. But you, Moldovans, When united, you will be the third class: the Romanians are the first class, the Russian-speaking ones are the second, and the Moldovans are the third.”
These are roughly the sentiments. But why do I say that such sentiments are not only among the people with whom I spoke - firstly, they express a certain opinion. Secondly, our business, including those in the hands of Russian-speaking people, is completely socially indifferent. Our business, as a rule, is unpatriotic, it is comprador. For this category of people, patriotism is their wallet. For the majority, I don't want to say for all. There are exceptions, there are people - I won’t name them now, but they exist, although they are a minority - who support various kinds of humanitarian projects to strengthen the Moldovan statehood. But most businessmen are absolutely indifferent. Most of them now support economically active alliance parties and events that are carried out by alliance parties.
Well, take at least the ORT TV channel in Moldova - we call it Prime here - this is the most pro-Romanian channel, it belongs to one of the largest oligarchs by Moldovan standards - V. Plahotniuc, deputy chairman of the parliament, as well as deputy Lupu and in the Democratic Party . So Prime is the most pro-Romanian channel and even, I think, the most anti-Russian channel. Sometimes there is outright Russophobia on the screen, I just can’t watch it, it’s disgusting to me. This is a typical Moldovan businessman.
Andrey Bogomazov
1. If unification happens, do you think it will be political or economic?
2. Do you know how many Moldovans received Romanian passports? What is it, assimilation or opportunism?
Why before people were afraid of the possibility of unification, but now they allow it in many cases?
3. Would you leave Moldova if these 2 states united into one state?
Thank you,
Answer:
1. I think that there will be no unification. As I already said, in economic terms, unification will cause degradation. I am sure that everything will be sucked out of here and nothing will be returned. Romania is itself a very corrupt country. Do you think that the Romanians, coming here, will leave business in the hands of the current Moldovan business elite? They will take away this business. Therefore, it is in vain that those businessmen I spoke about think that they will find some kind of mutual language with the Romanians. There will be no economic development. There will be further degradation and taking away business from local entrepreneurs. This is not why the Romanians are going to seize Bessarabia in order to leave these levers to local businessmen.
2. See answer above.
3. You know, I want to die in Moldova. I wouldn't want to die in Romania. Many Moldovans have thoughts of leaving here in the event of unification. I think I wouldn’t have left, but I won’t speculate. I hope that this unification will not happen not only in my lifetime, but in general, I hope that Moldova will remain independent state. Much depends on Russia here. Not just from us. At our conference, which I mentioned above, we very actively discussed Russia’s role in what was happening, there were several interesting speeches.
Alexander
2 questions: 1. What are the prospects for Transnistria? What should the unrecognized republic expect - recognition of independence, confederation with Moldova or unitary inclusion in Romania? 2. What are the prospects for Gagauzia? Will it follow the Transnistrian path if unification with Romania becomes a reality?
Dmitriy
Dear Sergey!
How is Moldova going to become part of Romania, with or without Transnistria?
Answer:
The third option is absolutely excluded. There will be no unitary inclusion, this is clear to anyone sober thinking person. As for the solution to the Transnistrian issue, it can take place according to two scenarios indicated in the question - the first and second. The first is the recognition of independence by Chisinau, why not? When the realization comes that they and we have proposed everything, we have considered all the options, but none of the options suits us. It is impossible to be at enmity forever or, at a minimum, to maintain the current situation, even if not hostility, but not war and not peace (as Comrade Trotsky said back in 1917), it is better to recognize them and live according to the principle of good neighborliness. But in Moldova on the right bank, no one has yet come to terms with this idea, including me. Therefore, I think that it is unlikely that it will soon dawn on us that it is better to recognize the independence of Transnistria. But if we delay, it will be worse for both us and them.
Today I believe that a compromise is necessary - a joint state (federalization of Moldova or confederation with Transnistria) and restoration of unity. This is both economically and in all respects beneficial to both sides. Moreover, we, unlike, say, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, especially Kosovo and Nagorno-Karabakh, do not have an interethnic conflict, it is purely political. Rather, it is a conflict between elites.
Yes, it began with a language conflict, but in any case it was initially political (and even more so now). And, in general, people communicate; there are no psychological barriers to communication between the left and right banks. Russians, Moldovans, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, and Jews live both there and there.
The composition of the population of Chisinau largely corresponds to the composition of the population of Transnistria. Here we have less than half Moldovans, more than half Russian speakers. Chisinau, by the way, is a Russian-speaking city. If you come to Chisinau, you will feel very comfortable. Psychologically, these people are largely the same as Russians. Although we, of course, are different in some ways.
But with the Pridnestrovians these differences are minimal, they are almost absent. There are many relatives here and there, we are brothers, psychologically we are one. Naturally, the last generation has been living separately for more than 20 years; perhaps young people may have some differences, because they are indoctrinated both here and there; they did not live together.
There are a lot of Pridnestrovian students in our universities, there are almost no groups where there would not be at least one person from Pridnestrovie. And these children feel fine, no one has ever laid a finger on them, they have absolutely the same rights. It’s as if someone came from Vologda to Moscow or St. Petersburg - what difference does it make whether he came from Vologda or from Tver? So with us, no matter what region you are from, the attitude towards a person is the same. Another thing is that it is bad for everyone, because the socio-economic situation is bad, rights are not respected, the legislative and judicial systems are terribly corrupt, officials steal, the government is incompetent and thieving - I have already talked about this. That is, in this regard, it’s bad for everyone. It doesn’t happen that some people are discriminated against while others feel good. Everyone feels equally bad. In this sense, Moldova is the most “fair” country.
There is only one prospect: we must become attractive to Pridnestrovie. Firstly, abandon Romanianization, because this was the root cause of their split from us. Secondly, of course, it is necessary to sharply reduce the level of corruption and theft. To do this, it is necessary to elect a government focused on national state interests, visible from here, from Chisinau, and not from Bucharest. And thirdly, we must dramatically change the emphasis and balance of our foreign policy. Naturally, we should be incomparably closer to Russia, because the overwhelming majority of the population of Transnistria (as here, on the right bank, but there it is more categorical) is committed to cooperation with Russia, moreover, there are very strong sentiments there for Pridnestrovie to join Russia. As long as the Moldovan government pursues an anti-Russian line, even with hints, we will not have the opportunity to restore the territorial integrity of the republic, because any government, any leadership elected in Transnistria will be pro-Russian.
There is a lot more that can be said here, but these are the prospects. Until we here, in Chisinau, change in the spirit that I spoke about, there can be no talk of the integrity of the republic. Although technically some issues are being resolved. The current Prime Minister, Filat, has decided on the issue of restoring railway communication; as I understand it, the next issue is telephone communication and telecommunications. Maybe we will be able to watch Transnistrian television freely. And that's already good. They promise that the regime for moving from one bank to the other bank of the Dniester will be significantly simplified. Wait and see. I hope these issues will be resolved.
Artem Bogomolov
1. What position does Ukraine take on the issue of the unification of Moldova and Romania? Does such a position even exist? What does it depend on? What is the influence of Ukraine on Moldovan affairs and on the Transnistrian conflict?
2. What instruments of influence is Russia using now to prevent unification according to the Romanian scenario? How strong is the Transnistria factor, since Russia previously unofficially made it clear that Moldova could become part of Romania, but only without Transnistria? If the unification takes place, will Russia be able to tear Transnistria away from Romania-Moldova?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Answer:
1. Unfortunately, Ukraine's influence is not too great. I would like Ukrainians to influence this situation more decisively. But Ukraine categorically advocates the restoration of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova, as does Russia, of course. And on the issue of unification with Romania, I do not see any fundamental difference between the positions of Ukraine and Russia. In my opinion, Ukraine, even more than Russia, should be interested in preserving the unity and independence of Moldova, because if it is absorbed by Romania, the Ukrainians will receive a knife in the side.
And then, they themselves have territorial problems with Romania - this is Bukovina, the north and south of Bessarabia (Chernivtsi region, part of the Odessa region). Once upon a time, in the interwar period, they were part of Romania, the Romanians are rolling out their lips on these territories, so after they eat us, who knows what will happen next, anything can happen, maybe the time of Ukraine will come.
Of course, Ukraine is not Moldova. But still, some kind of conflict may begin inside, which will weaken it, and then the Romanians, taking advantage of this, and they, by the way, are waiting for this, will annex these territories too. I’m not saying that this is in the plans of the Romanian government, it is not declared, but in some people’s minds this exists. In particular, just recently a book was published by one Romanian author, a well-known political scientist in Romania, a writer who predicts the outbreak of war between Romania and Ukraine in 2014, he writes that Romanian and Ukrainian troops will clash on the territory of Moldova, that there will be a fight for Bessarabia, for Bukovina.
That is, this nonsense and a similar wind are walking in someone’s hot heads. Therefore, Ukraine should be interested in what is happening. At least I understand this when communicating with Ukrainian diplomats and analysts. Yesterday, in the context of Moldovan-Russian-Ukrainian cooperation, we had a Chisinau-Moscow-Kyiv teleconference; one very famous Ukrainian analyst, Vitaly Aleksandrovich Kulik, was in the studio. This is a person who understands the situation in Moldova very well, he has many publications on this topic, and he has visited us several times. And communication with the same Kulik suggests that in Ukraine they well understand that it is not at all profitable for them to give Moldova to the Romanians. And this, by the way, is perfectly understood in both Hungary and Bulgaria. Hungarians and Bulgarians, and not only Russians and Ukrainians, are Moldovanists.
Germany has also repeatedly openly stated that it would never agree to the annexation of Bessarabia by the Romanians, and everything it does confirms this. Fortunately, there are no signals in favor of “unification” from France or even from the United States. Even in the interwar period, the United States did not recognize the annexation of Bessarabia by the Romanians; today, if they support Romania, it is only the Russophobic tendencies of Romanian politics. But so far, fortunately, I do not see on the part of America, not only at the declarative, but also at the practical level, any tendencies in support of Romanian irredentist, expansionist intentions.
2. The way the question is posed indicates that the reader is a little confused about some things, because Russia has never stated that it would agree (or that such a scenario could be realized) that Moldova would become part of Romania without Transnistria .
The fact is that there are some Russian analysts like Belkovsky with his famous absolutely unfounded plan, which states that Moldova should be divided between Romania and Ukraine. Give the right bank of the Dniester to the Romanians, give the left bank to the Ukrainians. Absolutely no one supported this plan, of course, with the exception of Basescu.
As for Moldova joining Romania without Transnistria, statements were made by some officials, but not in the sense that Moldova will join Romania without Transnistria. In the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in other government agencies involved foreign policy Russia, they are not the most foolish people, and they too may assume that the worst option for Moldova is its disappearance. And in such a purely hypothetical case, sometimes the thought may sound that if this suddenly happens (I repeat once again - suddenly!), then Moldova, naturally, will become part of Romania without Transnistria, and not only without Transnistria: without the north, without south, without some areas along the Dniester. That is, in fact, only the areas around Chisinau can become part of Romania, but there will be colossal problems with them.
It was in this context that something similar could have been said. But it is impossible to say that Russia allows or says that Moldova will become part of Romania, and without Transnistria, this did not happen.
Yuri
Which scenario is Russia interested in? Do you think that Russia can and should prevent unification, based on the potentially natural expansion of NATO to the east?
Sebastian
Can we say that the uncertainty of the situation with Transnistria is important to Russia?
There is no clear scenario for Transnistria, influence is limited, the EU has its finger on the pulse and will not allow Russia to directly interfere in the affairs of the Republic of Moldova, which de jure includes Transnistria.
Thank you!
Emanuel
Can I ask you a question?
We all know that in relation to Transnistria, Russia does not have a clear guideline. Independence and recognition of Transnistria will not give anything (see Ossetia and Abkhazia), since independence will be de facto PAPER, and there is no direct access to the borders of Transnistria, and Ukraine will not allow transit through its territory.
That is, under any circumstances, the influence of the EU and Moldova will increase, and Russia will decrease.
Answer:
These issues were also discussed at the conference; we had two reports on Russian-Moldovan relations. One of them was done by the famous Moldovan analyst, political scientist Vitaly Andrievsky, the other - on Moldovan-Russian relations - was done by Aurelian Lavric, a teacher at the Department of International Relations of the State University. Naturally, the opinions of Moldovan analysts agreed that, of course, Russia should play a more active and even constructive role, but not only in the issue of preventing reunification with Romania, but in general in strengthening Moldovan statehood, in strengthening our mutual ties and, in particular , in resolving the Transnistrian issue.
At the conference we had reports on Moldovan-Ukrainian relations, there was a general speech with approximately the following title: “The Republic of Moldova in the system of international relations,” and this idea was heard in all these speeches. That is, I have nothing to add, of course, Russia should play a more active role.
Alexander
1) How do the population of Moldova/Romania feel about this prospect?
2) If unification occurs, what form will the new power take: a unitary state or a federation?
Vladimir
Greetings. Are Moldovans ready to become second-class Romanian citizens? Moldova and Romania are not the GDR or the Federal Republic of Germany. In all senses. Will there be benefits from unification for low-income groups of the population?
Sergey
Does Romania want unification? What are the moods there?
Answer:
At our conference we had a speech by Russian political scientist Andrei Medvedev on the geopolitical preferences of Moldovans. This speech was based on a very serious sociological survey. More than one and a half thousand Moldovan citizens from ten regions and from Chisinau were interviewed. This is a very solid cut. I think the results of the study are very close to the real state of mind of our citizens. And this report was published on Regnum and on . This is a very useful report. Meeting him immediately removes a lot of questions, I assure you.
Andrey Zagorsky
1. When will Moldovan politicians finally understand that poor Moldova is not needed by Romania, which has a lot of its own unresolved problems?
2. The anti-unionist march of the “Patriots of Moldova” shows that part of the population of Moldova is still against unification with Romania. How do you feel about this organization, which was not afraid to express a different opinion and take to the streets of Chisinau?
Answer:
1. They understand this, probably with the exception of Ghimpu, Basescu & Ko. The position that Romania currently adheres to, the policy that Basescu and the company are currently pursuing, is harmful to Romania. People from Romania who spoke at the conference say that soon the policy of Romania will change, because Basescu has become hated by everyone, in Romania everyone is against him. Even most of his former supporters are also against him today. And Basescu or those circles that support him are trying somehow, with the help of these nationalist anti-Moldovan revisionist statements, declarations and actions, to distract the majority of Romanians from internal problems, from the ineffectiveness of their own governance.
I want to say that the vast majority of ordinary Romanians are no different from you and me. They're the same normal people, they have the same socio-economic, household, family problems, and, in general, most of them are not at all willing to die for the idea of a “great Romania”. Therefore, changes in Romanian politics are inevitable
2. Firstly, I have a positive attitude towards this organization. Secondly, Andrey posed the question somewhat incorrectly. The fact is that the march on March 25, on the eve of the 94th anniversary of the so-called unification of Bessarabia with Romania in 1918, was carried out by unionists, that is, it was a march in support of unification. According to official figures, fewer than 1,000 people took part, about half of them from Romania. That is, there were not so many of them.
Yes, there were supporters of the Patriots of Moldova party, its leader - Mr. M.V. Garbuz. They tried to prevent the march, there were about 25 of them. Of course, these are courageous people, because they at least tried to prevent the crowd, most of which were right-wing neo-Nazi extremists (among them there were athletic people, naturally, young militants, according to apparently well prepared). And supporters of the Patriots of Moldova party were not afraid of them. Of course, in this sense I treat them with respect.
However, marches of people speaking in support of Moldovan statehood gather dozens of times more people, than the unionists collected. And in this sense, although the electorate that stands for the preservation of Moldovan statehood is politically less active (and in the squares it is not active at all), but even in the squares there are tens of times more supporters of the preservation of Moldovan statehood than opponents. I would like to emphasize this and bring it to the attention of Russian citizens, because sometimes people are simply misinformed. Moldovan sentiment is not in favor of unification with Romania.
Galina
Are pro-Moldovan parties and social movements really unable to initiate a referendum on joining Romania? The voice of the people will show where it is better for them to be.
Answer:
Very good question. We already had a referendum of this kind in 1994. 96 percent of those participating in this referendum, and more than two-thirds of the population participated, voted categorically against unification with Romania and for independence. Absolutely all surveys say the same thing. Note: according to the latest poll, there are four percent of convinced ideological supporters of unification with Romania, and in 1994 there were also four percent. Moldovans do not want to unite. So such referendums are held.
The communists now want to initiate a referendum of no confidence in the government. It is, of course, a somewhat different story, but, of course, during the campaigning and calling on people to vote against the current government, one of the arguments will be that in the current leadership a very influential faction is made up of unionists, supporters of unification. Therefore, we must express no confidence in the current leadership.
And the Social Democrats are also initiating a referendum. They created a committee, registered it, and will soon begin collecting signatures in favor of holding a referendum for Moldova’s entry into the Customs Union. Wait and see. But I repeat once again, the overwhelming majority of Moldovans do not support the idea of unification with Romania.
*anonymous*
How strong is nostalgia for the USSR in Moldova? Are there any supporters of unification with Russia?
(creation of a single state with Russia, together with Belarus, Ukraine, etc. former republics THE USSR)?
Answer:
Again, look at Medvedev’s article on, answers to these questions are given there.
Approximately 54 percent of the population of Moldova is nostalgic for the USSR, and if a referendum was held on the restoration of the USSR, they would definitely vote in favor. But restoring the USSR is simply impossible.
There are not so many supporters of unification with Russia; there are probably some, but their number is insignificant. Even in Soviet times, Moldovans were in the majority (the vast majority, about 100 percent) in favor of preserving Soviet Union. Maybe in Soviet times there were about two percent of those who would like to unite with Romania.
But people were not for unification with Russia, but for maintaining a single Soviet state together with Russia. I think that such a situation existed in every Soviet republic: no Soviet republic was going to unite with Russia, each one sought to preserve its statehood and develop it within the framework of the USSR. And now many of us are in favor of close relations with Russia. There may be different results on different issues, besides, we have not launched a campaign to discuss the issue, there is no such thing that it is discussed in the press, so that all this is explained to people, it is kept silent.
For example, there is a very high percentage of those who would like to join the Customs Union, the EurAsEur, but few people are going to unite with Russia. There are many people in Transnistria who would like such a unification, when the referendum was held there, 97 percent, if my memory serves me correctly, wanted to unite with Russia.
But they answered this way, because here, on the right bank, the then leadership, led by Voronin, launched a frenzied anti-Russian campaign; Russia was declared the main enemy. That’s why the Pridnestrovians responded exactly like that in the referendum. In Moldova, the overwhelming majority (more than 70 percent) are in favor of close cooperation with Russia, but not in favor of abandoning their own statehood. That is, many people are for any form of cohabitation, up to the creation of some kind of supranational structures together with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and others, but not for renouncing statehood. If by unification with Russia we mean some kind of unification on the principle of the European Union, many will want this. And if this is a proposal to become a Russian province - under no circumstances.
Why do many Moldovans have such warm feelings towards Russia? Of course, we must take into account the common Soviet and pre-Soviet past, we still largely stewed in the common Russian and Soviet culture. But today there is one more point. Russia is the main foreign policy pillar of our independent statehood. That is, we are for Russia because it supports our independence, but not because it wants to swallow us. Fortunately, in Russia there are no such fools as to want to swallow us. Some mistakes may be made from time to time, but who doesn’t make mistakes? But the idiots sitting there are not so stupid as to pursue a policy of absorbing Moldova. Moldovans understand this and therefore show a certain sympathy towards Russia. Some are very large, some are smaller.
Grigory Dvorkin
In Soviet times, we were taught in school that during the interwar period, when Moldova was part of Romania, Moldovans were second-class citizens and were not at all happy in their native nation-state.
Questions:
1.Is this true?
2.How was this period preserved in the memory of Moldovans? Like a time that you would like to go back?
Answer:
Gregory is a little wrong. The Moldovans were not second-class citizens, they were third-class citizens, and despised ones at that. There was not a village where people were not beaten en masse (primarily men, but sometimes women too). And there were villages where everyone was flogged and beaten, especially at the first stage of the Romanian occupation. On January 13, 1918, the Romanians occupied Chisinau and within a month and a half, until the beginning of March, captured almost the entire territory of Bessarabia. 10 thousand people were shot, the vast majority of them were Moldovans. It is interesting that it seemed that the ethnic minorities living in Bessarabia should have had an even worse time in Romania than the Moldovans, but it was the ethnic Moldovans who showed the greatest resistance. Therefore, it was the Moldovans who were shot most of all.
And all the local resistance leaders were Moldovans. Now I’m not talking about the Bolsheviks who were in the Russian army and who, through some channels, for example, through Rumcherod (then a revolutionary body in Bessarabia, which united the revolutionaries of the Romanian Front, the Black Sea Fleet) also resisted the Romanian occupation. I’m talking about local resistance leaders who came from the local population, the majority are Moldovans, and there were also many Jews among the leaders of the anti-Romanian resistance.
The behavior of the Romanians during these 22 years was disgraceful. At first, the resistance involved mainly peasants, poorly armed or not armed at all, whom the Romanian occupiers shot for looking askance. And there are many such examples. I wrote a book on this topic (on the history of the Bessarabian issue), so I know what I’m talking about. There is a huge documentary base confirming my words, first of all, Romanian. These are reports from the Siguranians, the Romanian command, materials from the Romanian censor, memories of Romanian politicians up to the prime minister - all of them very colorfully describe what was happening here. There are plenty of documents, and they all say the same thing: the Romanians created chaos. From mid-January to the end of February 1918 alone, as I already said, 10 thousand people were shot.
Foreigners also testify to this. Thus, the French historian Vincent Boulet took part in the last conference. Based on French diplomatic documents, as well as reports from intelligence services, he characterized the situation in Bessarabia and the state of mind of its population in the period 1918 - 1922.
After the capture by Romania, there were two major uprisings: in the north, in Khotyn, and in the center, in Bendery. During the Khotyn uprising, 11 thousand people were killed, during the suppression of the Bendery uprising - 10 thousand people. Then, over the course of several years until 1924, about a thousand more people were shot and executed. In total, 32 thousand people were shot by the Romanian authorities from 1918 to 1924. I'm not even talking about the fact that people were completely powerless. On January 13, 1918, when the Romanians entered Chisinau, a state of siege was introduced, and it was only lifted by the Soviet authorities on June 28, 1940.
There was only a short period of a few months in 1932-1933 when this state of siege was lifted. The socio-economic situation of the local population was simply appalling. The standard of living was at the level of the African colonies, and maybe even lower, the mortality rate was colossal and, accordingly, life expectancy was very low.
The situation was terrifying. For example, my parents, grandparents, many, many acquaintances when I was a child, neighbors, elderly people told me about this - and all with one voice. Rarely did anyone say that things were better under the Romanians. True, this sometimes happened, including my grandfathers, who sometimes said that it was better under the Romanians, in the sense that in 1949 the peasantry was forcibly collectivized and their land was taken away. The older generation retained its private property instincts. When I was a child, my grandparents were already very old, they could no longer go back to private property, but in their hearts they were against collectivization, which is why they sometimes said that it was better under the Romanians, because they had land. But their standard of living under the Romanians was very low, the population had no rights. And even when they said that it was better under the Romanians, the Romanians were always treated very negatively, considered them occupiers and sometimes called them the most last words. This refers not to the Romanians as a people, but to the Romanian administration.
Under the Romanians there was complete degradation, mockery of the people. And during the war, when the second Romanian occupation took place - 1941-1944 - mass terror was carried out; more than half a million Jews were killed on the territory of Moldova, as well as in the adjacent regions of Ukraine - Chernivtsi, Vinnitsa and Odessa. And on the territory of Moldova, about 30 thousand more Moldovans were killed. Jews were exterminated according to the Nazi principle, and Moldovans and others (but, first of all, Moldovans) were exterminated according to socio-political principles, for cooperation or for sympathizing with Soviet power. The Romanians carried out real terror here.
All people remember this, at least the older generation. All documents, without exception, confirm this. So the genetic memory was passed on to Moldovans from father to son, from mother to daughter, from grandparents to grandchildren. So people don’t forget all this.
Ksyu
Please comment on the trial on charges of Russian citizen Bagirov of organizing the 2009 Moldovan coup. Does anyone seriously believe this accusation?
Answer:
At least, of the people I personally know, no one believes in this, everyone thinks that this is a circus and nonsense. If the participants in these events are given orders and even the highest award - the Order of the Republic (this is how, for example, in Soviet times they would have given the Hero of the Soviet Union), and Bagirov is being tried for the same thing - this is simply idiocy. I don't see any logic in this at all.
Moldova can become part of Romania by the beginning of 2018! Supporters of unification believe that this is the only way to prevent the financial collapse of the country and join the European Union. The year 2018 was not chosen by chance: March 27 will mark one hundred years since the unification of Bessarabia (the historical name of Moldova) and Romania after the First World War.
Prerequisites for unification
Unionist demonstrations (supporters of unity with Romania) have taken place in Moldova since the declaration of independence. True, the rallies attracted a hundred or two activists and did not attract special attention public. In 2009, pro-European politicians came to power and thousands of participants joined the meetings. The largest rallies took place in the spring of 2016 in honor of the 98th anniversary of the Association. The demonstration in the Moldovan capital brought together 50 thousand unionists.
If previously such speeches caused criticism of the authorities, this time the country's top officials showed tolerance, not trying to prohibit citizens from expressing their opinions. On the same day, unionist leaders held “Sfatul Tsariy – 2” (“Council of the Country – 2”). The department of the Moldavian people's republic, which decided on unity with Romania. “Sfatul Tsariy – 2” approved the Roadmap for the reunification of the two states.
It involves Moldova’s accession to the European Union and NATO, the unification of parliament and government agencies, 20% quota for Moldovan politicians in a single parliament. There will also be a population exchange with Transnistria and an equalization wages according to Romanian standards. “Sfatul Tarii – 2” included famous citizens of Moldova.
Moldova could become part of Romania again as early as 2018 Among them - statesman Alexandru Mosanu, writer Nicolae Dabija, cinematographer Ion Ungureanu, leader of the environmental movement Alecu Renita and many others. In parliament, the unionists are represented by the Liberal and Liberal Democratic parties. Politicians even proposed making March 27 a public holiday.
Who and what is preventing the unification?
The fateful decision for the country has hundreds of thousands of ill-wishers. Socialists and Our Party, which is oriented toward Russia, speak out against the union. Its head, Renato Usatii, demands that participants in unionist rallies be punished and that a Committee for the Defense of Statehood be created. On March 31, 2016, a few days after the protests, the Parliament of Moldova adopted the Declaration on the Inviolability of State Sovereignty.
The document proposed by the communists proclaimed the neutrality, unity and indivisibility of the country. The Declaration calls on international organizations to promote the independence of Moldova. The unification with Romania is also not welcomed by the Bulgarians and Gagauz people who inhabit southern Moldova and Transnistria. Half a million Ukrainians who live in the north of the country may also offer resistance. This is the second largest nationality in the state.
Some statistics
Romanians, unlike Moldovans, actively vote for the unification of the two countries The results of surveys speak about the mood in Moldova and Romania. In 2006, 10-15% of Moldovans were in favor of the unification of states, a decade later - more than 20%. Romanians like the idea better. According to research by INSCOP Research, 67.9% of the country's residents support the union with Moldova and the acquisition of Romanian citizenship by its residents. Most of The population of Romania believes that their state is doing everything for Moldova to join the European Union.
The future of Moldova
On October 30, presidential elections will be held in Moldova, which will largely determine foreign policy countries. For the first time in 20 years, the country will hold a popular vote. The confrontation is between socialist Igor Dodon, democrat Marian Lupu, as well as right-wing oppositionists Andrei Nastase and Maia Sandu.
The ratings of liberal Mihai Ghimpu, who supports immediate unification with Romania and the abolition of the presidency, are low - about 4%. This suggests that Moldovans are not ready to sacrifice independence for European integration.
Price issue
Roughly, unification with Moldova will cost Romania 20 billion euros Several years ago, unionist leaders insisted that unification would cost Romania 20 billion euros. However, the Roadmap shows different numbers. Every year the Romanians will pay 8.5 billion, and so on for twenty years. In addition, the country must allocate 1/6 of international assistance to the development of the former Moldova. The road map also envisages other benefits for residents of Bessarabia, which will hit the Romanian treasury.
Historical excursion
The views of the unionists are based on the unity of the Romanian and Moldovan peoples, which was interrupted by the invasion Soviet troops During the Second World War. Let us remember that in 1918-1940 Bessarabia was part of Romania, then in the USSR, and in 1991 it gained independence. Liberals believe that the Soviet worldview of the Moldovans prevented the union of the two countries.
The unification of Moldova and Romania is a probable, but not the only possible prospect. Today, only a fifth of Moldovans support this path to the EU. The future of the country largely depends on the results of the presidential elections and the decisions of the new government. If the government considers a union with Romania at the state level, Moldovans hope that this will happen through a referendum and not by parliamentary decision.
