Alliance of Kiev and Chisinau: Will the West Dare to Raise the Stakes in Transnistria?


To everyone who follows political the news in the post-Soviet space, it was immediately clear that after coming to power, Maia Sandu would immediately start talking about the need to withdraw Russian peacekeepers from Transnistria. Since this topic was raised even by the "pro-Moscow" Dodon, then a representative of the European integration camp would be completely ashamed to start her presidency with other statements.


It would seem, and let him declare his health, because the caravan, meanwhile, calmly continues its movement. But the current political situation in the near abroad leaves no reason for such complacency: we received too many difficulties from this side in the outgoing year. And Transnistria will almost certainly become another problem point.

It is worth paying attention to one interesting fact. During a recent visit to Chisinau to the newly elected President of Moldova, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba met with his colleague from this sunny country named Aureli Ciocay. And not casually, he said that Moldova and Ukraine would jointly demand the withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria.

There is no doubt that they were not referring to the army units that guard the largest artillery depots in Europe with still Soviet shells, which could not be removed from the territory of the unrecognized republic. Russia's influence in the region is associated with the presence of our peacekeepers here, and it is unlikely that Kuleba meant anyone else by "Russian troops."

But the danger here lies not in joint statements, but in the very fact of the rapprochement of the two post-Soviet states, since such potential allies can give us a lot of problems for a couple.

What threatens the alliance of Kiev and Chisinau


Considering the fact that powerful crisis situations in three states friendly to Russia in 2020 can hardly be considered a coincidence, it can be assumed that the initiators of these processes are unlikely to think of stopping at what has already been achieved. Moreover, it will be much more difficult for us to act in Transnistria if it comes to the escalation of the conflict with Chisinau.

After all, if everything goes exactly in this direction, then who or what will prevent Sand and Zelensky from agreeing on a joint blockade of the unrecognized republic in order to restore the territorial integrity of Moldova? An outraged international community? In Kiev, Moldovans will understand. "From us, Putin took the Crimea and Donbass away from us."

If so, we will have to figure it out, since Transnistria is full of Russian citizens. But it will be necessary to act in the absence of a common border and huge distances at which Ukraine, which is extremely unfriendly to us, is located, and which will need to be overcome somehow. To agree on the provision of a corridor for the advancement of troops and military cargo with Kiev is, as they say in Odessa, "it's funny to say, not something to think about."

Passing the PMR will not work even if Moscow strongly wants it. Since such a step will become the collapse of our entire foreign policy, and after that it will be possible to safely reel in Syria, Libya, in the same Karabakh and many other places. They will simply stop taking us seriously. Yes, and respect for power from the people, so not very high, will return to the days of Yeltsin.

Therefore, in the case of a blockade, there will be only one way out. We'll have to somehow break through this blockade. And, most likely, not by diplomatic means, as mentioned above.

Soft, but scripted


Of course, making unambiguous predictions of the further development of the situation would be the height of stupidity, and time may not confirm such gloomy predictions. But the realities, alas, do not add optimism. Because so far everything is going according to the schemes set out by the specialists of RAND, a corporation that advises the US government in general and the Pentagon, and related organizations in particular, on strategic issues.

In 2019, RAND published a report entitled “Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground”, which can be translated as “Holding Russia back: Competition from an advantageous position”. Its original, as well as the translation into Russian, can be easily found on the vastness of the World Wide Web. The purpose of the report is to assess the ways to "overextend" Russia, forcing it to spend resources not on development, but on solving problems so that our country ceases to pose a threat to US interests. It is noted that at one time it was possible to do this with respect to the USSR, and RAND specialists rely in their report on this experience as the most successful one. Well, they're right.

In the report itself, the most effective containment options in terms of the ratio of the chances of success, the benefits obtained and the resources spent are called economic methods of influence. But in the section on geopolitics, Belarus, Transcaucasia and Central Asia appear as possible points of pressure on Russia. And, of course, Transnistria. Coincidence again?

Reading the report and comparing it with reality, let's not forget that this is just the analytical work of invited consultants who do not have such resources and such awareness of the state of affairs in the world as the Pentagon and the CIA. And, judging by what is happening, the authorities in Washington have drawn somewhat different conclusions than the specialists from RAND. Say, not a single economy ...

What next?


The fact that Kiev and Chisinau have demonstrated their solidarity towards the problem of Transnistria may also mean joint actions to resolve it. Moreover, Moldova and Ukraine are close to each other ideologically. Both countries aspire to the European Union and have nothing against joining NATO, but they treat Russia ... In general, everything is clear. It is also clear that despite the similarity of the foreign policy positions of the two countries, their common position is not the fruit of the joint efforts of Sandu and Zelensky. It was sanctioned by the overlord.

It is also clear that in the event of an aggravation of the situation around the PMR, the Kremlin will strive to avoid a military scenario by all possible means, but it may also happen that there will be no other way out but to conduct another “peace enforcement operation”. This was the case with Georgia. But this operation will not be so fast. And then you don't need to have a wild imagination to imagine the hysteria that will rise in the West. And the case, presumably, will not end with only accusatory attacks against us. They will quickly move from words to specifics. Fortunately, there is where to turn around.

Despite all the jingoistic patriotic reports describing Russia's success in modernizing the army, we still have many unresolved problems in defense, especially at sea. Therefore, in the hands of the fleets of the United States and allies, which have an overwhelming superiority in forces, there is a very rich toolkit in order to not get involved in a large-scale conflict and cause us very serious problems. For example, by arranging a naval blockade on distant approaches, turning around all ships that go both to us and from us.

The overlap of the Black Sea straits is hardly relevant in this regard - the Turks are too offended by Washington, but in the Norwegian Sea and the Far East, it will not be so difficult to do so. Busy with showdowns in Transnistria, can we adequately respond to such a step of our "dear partners"? Unlikely. And then it will quickly become clear to everyone how far from reality are the statements that Russia is a land power, not heavily dependent on shipping.

However, this is not the only and, perhaps, not the most likely scenario for the development of events. Most likely, even if they try to return Pridnestrovie to Moldova by force, and we cannot avoid military intervention, the West will not dare to raise the stakes this way - the risks of losing control over the situation are too great. But there is absolutely no doubt that the coming years, especially after Biden came to power, will not promise us a calm and peaceful development. They will try to "overextend" Russia wherever possible.
  • Author:
  • Photos used: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Ad
The publication is looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
    Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 16 December 2020 10: 25
    +2
    The peacekeepers are withdrawn with the consent of all parties to the conflict, and not at the request of the Romanian heifer. As for Ukraine, the first serious sneeze in the direction of the Russian Federation will cost it 3 regions. Donbass and Kharkov are surrounded on 3 sides by the territories of the Russian Federation and the troops of the UKROPs located there, in fact, are already 75% in the boiler. The remaining 25% will not keep you waiting if it comes to a serious showdown. The blockade is tantamount to a declaration of war.
  2. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 16 December 2020 11: 38
    0
    For example, by arranging a naval blockade on distant approaches, wrapping up all ships that go both to us and from us.

    - And if the ships go further, will they be captured, or will they sink?
    And what if a Russian submarine is located under such a ship, which can also sink a threatening ship like a pirate one?
    1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
      ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 16 December 2020 18: 21
      +3
      The fact is that the ratio of the number of ships that can sink each other, alas, is not in our favor. Look at the difference in the number of the same nuclear submarines in our country and in the USA. Not even counting allies like France and Great Britain.

      Yes, we will have to react, but in this case we will very quickly run out of both submarines and first rankings. This time. Do you seriously think that someone's ships will continue to move to Russian shores if NATO ships threaten to use weapons? These are two.
      1. 123 Online 123
        123 (123) 17 December 2020 03: 10
        +3
        The fact is that the ratio of the number of ships that can sink each other, alas, is not in our favor. Look at the difference in the number of the same nuclear submarines in our country and in the USA. Not even counting allies like France and Great Britain.

        I think the British look at this problem from a slightly different angle. Iran has a fleet no bigger than ours. hi

        1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
          ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 18 December 2020 18: 06
          +1
          Well, the British are British, and what to do with the US Navy?
          1. 123 Online 123
            123 (123) 18 December 2020 19: 19
            -1
            Well, the British are British, and what to do with the US Navy?

            There, where Iran the British fleet is doing. The United States has a large fleet, of course, but you can't attach a convoy to every tanker or bulk carrier, which the Iranians have brilliantly demonstrated. And the United States is much more dependent on sea communications. They will not put their ships to rest. So, the choice of target for the "courtesy return visit" is almost limitless. fellow
            1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
              ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 19 December 2020 20: 22
              0
              How simple it is with you. And what do you propose to answer? "YARSom"?
              1. 123 Online 123
                123 (123) 19 December 2020 22: 23
                +1
                How simple it is with you. And what do you propose to answer? "YARSom"?

                Why are you complicating things? Why Yarsom? I gave you an example with the Iranians. Watch the video above. If they capture our ships, why can't they capture the American one?
                1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
                  ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 20 December 2020 12: 31
                  0
                  Can. My point is that if the United States decides to go all-in, without stopping before a limited-scale conflict at sea, which will prevent us from hitting with nuclear weapons, we will have little to answer. So our argument, in my opinion, is based on the fact that we did not really understand each other.
                  1. 123 Online 123
                    123 (123) 20 December 2020 15: 33
                    +2
                    So our argument, in my opinion, is based on the fact that we did not really understand each other.

                    Apparently so, there is a misunderstanding.
                    Compare the capabilities of Iran and England at sea. The result is known. Why, in this case, should everything be different?
                    It seems to me a rather strange approach, when a separate segment is taken, a comparison of the possibilities takes place (naturally not in our favor) and then a theory is deduced, they say, now they will start fellow but he has nothing to answer request
                    What does it mean to go all-in?

                    Option 1. Will the United States want to make it unpleasant for us and will begin to seize individual civilian ships by analogy with Iran? By itself, this does not necessarily lead to an armed conflict, the answer may be commensurate. The United States is much more dependent on sea communications. Plus huge reputational losses. The country is positioning itself as the "mistress of the sea", and then its ships are seized ... In general, the probability is not great. No.

                    Option 2. The Americans intercept all our ships, actually declare a naval blockade. Such a development of events is even less likely because it amounts to a declaration of war.
                    As for the comparison of the number of ships, you will excuse me, but it seems naive to me. How do you imagine it? The Americans gather their entire fleet in the center of the Atlantic, then they call Shoigu and he sends our entire fleet to the appointed place, where, in the best traditions of knightly tournaments, both fleets begin to exchange blows? Firstly, for the Americans it is unacceptable because the losses will not be childish. Secondly, do you think our military is idiots? Who in their right mind will send the fleet to certain destruction? This does not even appeal to unscientific fiction.

                    Let's better think about what will happen in the event of a land conflict between the United States and China. They have fewer soldiers and will run out much earlier. And what should they do now? Or is this option not interesting? You cannot deduce a theory from it about how many problems we have and what to do with it now. And so you can sigh about the former power, speculate, but if the USSR had not collapsed, scold the government for not setting up more ships than the Americans, and so on. All this will find a lively response from readers. Comments will not be boring laughing
                    Something like this hi
                    1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
                      ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 21 December 2020 18: 36
                      +1
                      It is a fact that in the event of a possible blockade there will be war, but if it comes to a serious confrontation, do you think they will be afraid? In the case of England and Iran, as far as I understand, they decided that the game was not worth the candle.
                      But with regard to Russia, everything may be different. Because we are a real threat to their power, unlike Iran. And, given their superiority at sea, though not without losses, they will win. Considering our lag in torpedoes, in mine weapons, anti-submarine forces, high-precision missiles of various classes (more precisely, in their number, since our Defense Ministry is in no hurry to saturate the troops on the required scale), the ending is more than predictable.
                      What they say about Zvezda is very far from the real state of affairs.
                      1. 123 Online 123
                        123 (123) 22 December 2020 09: 32
                        +2
                        It is a fact that in the event of a possible blockade there will be war, but if it comes to a serious confrontation, do you think they will be afraid?

                        Why not? What are they the standard of courage?

                        In the case of England and Iran, as far as I understand, they decided that the game was not worth the candle.

                        And in the case of Russia is it? There is much more trouble and trouble.

                        But with regard to Russia, everything may be different. Because we are a real threat to their power, unlike Iran.

                        They can go to war, especially with their own participation at the very beginning and not playing off others and entering it closer to the end, only out of despair, if things are really bad. But so far this is not the case.

                        And, given their superiority at sea, though not without losses, they will win.

                        And where did you get the idea that everything will be according to their rules? On land, their superiority is not observed. And there they can lose much more than they can recapture at sea.

                        Considering our lag in torpedoes, in mine weapons, anti-submarine forces, high-precision missiles of various classes (more precisely, in their quantity, since our Defense Ministry is in no hurry to saturate the troops in the required scale), the ending is more than predictable.

                        I don’t know what about torpedoes and anti-aircraft missiles because I didn’t delve into what kind of superiority in high-precision missiles are you talking about? The Syrian experience suggests that Tamaghawks are not as high-precision snakes. Anti-ship Harpoons have a range of 150-280 km. and a speed of 0,85 M, that is, subsonic. Onyx has about 600 km and a speed of 2,6M.
                        As for the quantity, they have much more missiles. If you think it is easy to realize this quantitative advantage, then in vain. Or do you still think our military is idiots?
                        There will be no "general" battle. The Russian fleet simply will not go there. Want to "talk", welcome to our shores. Various surprises are already being added here, from coastal complexes, by the way, shooting the same Onyxes, to aviation. Even a few Daggers are a very unpleasant prospect for ships.
                        How many ships will reach our shores is not yet known, it is not a probable task to assemble the entire fleet. And even if this is the case, the temptation to throw a nuclear mine directly into the center of this herd is quite great. Do you think they are not considering this possibility?
                        And actually to think that everything is fine with them with missiles and they rivet them at 100 5000 per day, it is some delusion. This is the same country where the Minuteman-70 has been in service since the 2s; they plan to create a replacement for it in 10 years. As for the anti -arable missiles themselves, the purchases for the needs of the US Navy for 2021 look like this: Harpoon - 0 pcs. yes, yes exactly zero: Naval Strike Missile (Norwegian) - 15 pieces. What is there in the arsenals and how much it can fly is a mystery. Do you all think that our Defense Ministry is "not in a hurry" and is heavily arming them?

                        What they say about Zvezda is very far from the real state of affairs.

                        What you write is even further from reality.
                        Your theory doesn't work. It is based on your belief that the Americans, if they want something, they can "shoot a little" at us, and our leadership naturally will not dare to answer. Where did you get such confidence, I don't understand request You know, you reminded me of Marzhetsky with something, he also brings a bunch of assumptions and assumptions and on the basis of this deduces theories how everything is bad with us. hi
  3. amateur Offline amateur
    amateur (Victor) 16 December 2020 12: 35
    0
    The overlap of the Black Sea straits is hardly relevant in this regard - the Turks are too offended by Washington, and here in the Norwegian Sea and in the Far East it won't be that hard to do.

    I wonder how the author imagines it? Well, in general, about such articles, I recall the words of V. Vysotsky:

    Dear Editor!
    Maybe better - about the reactor?
    There, about your favorite moon tractor?
    After all, you can't! - a year in a row
    That scare plates -
    Say, vile, fly,
    Then your dogs bark
    That ruins say!
    ...
    Everyone is almost crazy crazy -
    Even who was insane
    And then the head doctor Margulis
    TV banned.
    1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
      ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 16 December 2020 18: 23
      +2
      The author imagines it in a way similar to how it is done in relation to Iranian tankers. The news reports regularly report their interceptions.
      1. amateur Offline amateur
        amateur (Victor) 16 December 2020 18: 38
        -1
        The author imagines it in a way similar to how it is done in relation to Iranian tankers.

        The author believes that there is no difference between Iran and the Russian Federation? Oh well. At the expense of the TV, V.S. Vysotsky guessed exactly.
        1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
          ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 16 December 2020 18: 40
          +1
          Firstly, the word Federation in the name of our country is spelled with a capital letter (sorry, if I give the impression of a smart guy), and secondly, if NATO members really dare to arrange a blockade, then how do you propose to respond? What can we do in return?

          Moreover, I made a reservation that this is the most radical scenario, and such a step will be resorted to only as a last resort. True, it was said a little differently. But with this very meaning.
  4. ODRAP Offline ODRAP
    ODRAP (Alexey) 16 December 2020 13: 13
    -4
    New author, new trends ...
    I outlined the problem, about the solutions, timidly blew it up ...

    Peace compulsion, he says. Are there battles on the Dniester? Are they shooting?
    Thirty years will soon be gone. Whom are they "peacemaking"?
    They will not enter a hard blockade, so they will crush the Adam's apple. And there is no reason to intervene and there never will be. Well, Ukraine does not want transit to the gray zone, its affairs.
    Moldova does not want to conduct economic activities with an unrecognized territory, its right ...
    And about those hints of the author ... I wonder if he is "Ready to die for Tiraspol"? (C).
    Already, it seems to the most stupid ones, it has come to the conclusion that "punching a land corridor" means preparing zinc jackets for half of the group in advance. The tactical situation was worse only in the Bialystok salient in June 41.
    Well, and about the naval blockade. After the Battle of Kerch, Annegret seems to have voiced the idea to ban Russian ships from entering European ports.
    But the boats and people were returned ...
    1. 123 Online 123
      123 (123) 17 December 2020 03: 30
      +1
      They will not enter a hard blockade, so they will crush the Adam's apple. And there is no reason to intervene and there never will be. Well, Ukraine does not want transit to the gray zone, its affairs.

      Does she want to receive goods from Russia? Incidentally, Russia is the second most important trading partner. In general, one clown cannot otherwise remove any Akhmeto-Kolomoisky Adam's apple.

      Moldova does not want to conduct economic activities with an unrecognized territory, its right ...

      Of course, this is its inalienable right, just like Russia, not to bark a duty-free trade agreement. In this case, one ugly Romanian girl will not be completely understood at home, with all the ensuing consequences. 16% of exports go to the CIS and about half of imports. In general, they will not have enough dung for heating.

      Well, and about the naval blockade. After the Battle of Kerch, Annegret seems to have voiced the idea to ban Russian ships from entering European ports.
      But the boats and people were returned ...

      This is the snag that urged to speak with Russia from a position of strength? laughing
  5. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
    ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 16 December 2020 19: 51
    +1
    Quote: ODRAP
    I outlined the problem, about the solutions, timidly blew it up ...

    Would recommend choosing expressions.

    Peace compulsion, he says. Are there battles on the Dniester? Are they shooting?

    It's about what can start.

    Already, it seems that the most stupid ones have realized that "punching a land corridor" means preparing zinc jackets for half the group in advance

    Where in the publication did you find exactly about the land corridor? You can, after all, send a landing across the Black Sea. And to break through, for example, through Southern Bessarabia.

    As for the possible solutions to the hypothetical problems around the PMR and others, this is a topic for a separate discussion.
    1. ODRAP Offline ODRAP
      ODRAP (Alexey) 17 December 2020 14: 27
      -4
      Well, sorry.
      I still picked it up, but there are some here. I won't do it anymore. repeat
      They can. ".. it would be nice ... beer ..." (c)
      Are there prerequisites for shooting? Thirty years was not, and then suddenly? name, eh?
      About the amphibious assault, let's not, eh? Everything is sad there. Landing craft - NO. You can, however, habitually buy from Turkey. repeat Walk by sea - they will not be allowed. Landing on the wrong shore, utopia. There, you know, the aviation is working, and the road is full of maneuver, and the population will be against trampling the vineyards ...
      Remains ... a corridor? Well, don't count the Air-Space Bridge. Or are there other options? Name plz.
      I beg you, tunnel, don't!
      And you can make your way through Northern Transnistria, through the Principality of Lithuania, from the direction of Konigsberg ... repeat

      Separate conversation? So get started, it's time!
      I give a start: the best option is to take out the iron, get people out. Pay for the land lease, take a bow, and close the question!
      How, huh ?,
      1. Dear sofa expert. 18 December 2020 00: 20
        +1
        Remains ... a corridor?

        Yes, it will have to be done this way. Everything goes to that. It's just a matter of time.
        Don't worry about zinc. No one in the southern regions of the "outskirts" will actually fight against the Russians. They will also be greeted with flowers and a loaf on an embroidered towel. Zapadentsam will be threatened with a finger a la: "God forbid who will fire," and you will wipe yourself, as you wiped yourself out once in the Crimea.
        1. Uneven Offline Uneven
          Uneven (VADIM STOLBOV) 19 December 2020 21: 34
          0
          In the meantime, the Kremlin resident, who was banned for two years from appearing without permission at foreign sports parties, is "wiping off". Yes, and NATO has not taken him three times, and yet he so tearfully asked the American presidents ...
  6. Xuli (o) Tebenado 16 December 2020 21: 14
    -1
    after coming to power, Maia Sandu will immediately start talking about the need to withdraw Russian peacekeepers from Transnistria.

    The fact is that the sandulet talked about this even before she came to power - the inauguration ceremony has not yet taken place. And, as you know, the President of Moldova DOES NOT POSSESS any such power. Power in Moldova is with the majority in parliament.

    Nothing will happen to this Transnistria there. Nobody needs the aggravation of the situation. That's how many Moldovan presidents there were, it's too lazy to count, six or seven, each of them necessarily spoke about the withdrawal of Russian troops (I already wrote about this here), but absolutely nothing changed.
    1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
      ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 17 December 2020 00: 36
      0
      Nobody will mind if you are right. good
      1. ODRAP Offline ODRAP
        ODRAP (Alexey) 17 December 2020 14: 29
        -1
        Will not be.
        In Karabakh, for thirty years, nothing happened either.
        And then, oppa! A surprise!
  7. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
    ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 31 December 2020 22: 43
    0
    I don’t know what about torpedoes and anti-aircraft missiles because I didn’t delve into what kind of superiority in high-precision missiles are you talking about? The Syrian experience suggests that Tamaghawks are not as high-precision snakes. Anti-ship Harpoons have a range of 150-280 km. and a speed of 0,85 M, that is, subsonic. Onyx has about 600 km and a speed of 2,6M.

    At the range that our missiles have, they need target designation. Given the number of AWACS and ballistic missile aircraft in the United States, for their "Tomahawks" (this word is spelled with "o"), there will be many fewer problems to reach the target in a country with powerful air defense than we have. There is no doubt, in Syria our "Calibers" coped with "5+", but did ISIS have something to fight back? So the comparison is absolutely incorrect. If you have not delved into the question, so delve into it, and then try to prove something.

    And where did you get the idea that everything will be according to their rules? On land, their superiority is not observed. And there they can lose much more than they can recapture at sea.

    Because they know that the fleet is our weak point today. And from the fact that they also know that on land they cannot put up such a grouping of troops against us that could inflict a serious defeat on our ground forces.

    As for the small number of "Harpoons", NSM, etc., it would be nice for you to know that this is our main strike force at sea - the anti-ship missile. And they have aviation. As for the anti-ship capabilities of the "Dagger", it is too early to sing "Hallelujah", since there are serious fears that this is nothing more than propaganda (I will be glad to be mistaken). Before accusing me of being "unrealistic", tighten up the materiel for weapons. And read, do not be lazy, the report of RAND and compare with what is happening. Then a full-fledged discussion will turn out.