Republika Molotova Revolts

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Moldavians themselves present a very different idea than yours. They are not(mostly) Romanians and they are not Russians. Just because Romania wants to absorb them because it considers Moldova as part of Romania doesn't make it so.

I would like to see Moldova (re)united with Romania. Indeed Moldova is distinct. As are Wallachia, Transsylvania and Romanian Moldavia. No countries are a monolith. Yet the unification of some regions make sense. Moldova as a Romanian region is as sensible as Rhodes as a Greek region or Normandy as a French one. Or, to use a more apt example, as the five former East German Lands as part of a united Germany.

After 1989, Germany re-incorporated the eastern regions. (Mittel-Deutschland for you German ultra-nationalists). In Romania, it went wrong. Logically, Moldova should've been re-incorporated with the western regions of Romania, as happened in Germany. Alas, Romania went through one of the most prolonged processes to democracy of all of the former East European dictatorships.

Moldova itself relapsed into a petty communist state. A source of instability. Of Russian agitation. (To remain silent of transnistria...)

Democracy in Europe, Romania, and Moldova are not served by the continued existence of a petty, semi-dictatorial mobster state. (For clarity's sake: by which I mean Moldova, not Romania )



To give it a Balkan dimension: the retreat of the Austrian, British, Ottoman and Russian empires from the Balkan has been and is the long term goal. In the case of Moldova ('Bessarabia'), Russia is the power to be ousted. Sentiment in Greece and Serbia leans more towards Russia - their natural ally against the interference of other imperialist powers. Which, I guess, should explain for the varying opinion about the Republic of Moldova between Romania and Greece. I would enjoy a conversation between our posters from the region more than another tired debate about World Wars - which one can read about in virtually all threads here.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Question:

Is this the region of which Smetana composed that glorious suite of his?



Thoughts:

No, I never confused it with the Balkans. I am too avid a fan of military history not to understand precisely where it is. I think the conflation here isn't as much a product of geographic ignorance as some have suggested, however (as TW players the level of map literacy is pretty high), so much as this nationalist 'identity dispute" reminds us of how the Balkans have interacted among themselves for so much of the last quarter century. The thematic issues brought up are relevant to the Balkan experience even if the specific geographic concerns are unique.

[rasoforos]

Which, I guess, should explain for the varying opinion about the Republic of Moldova between Romania and Greece. I would enjoy a conversation between our posters from the region more than another tired debate about World Wars - which one can read about in virtually all threads here.

Let me assure you most Greeks do not know where Moldova is, let alone have a sentiment about it.

My sentiment (and it is mine and mine alone (not representing Greece) and not connected to 'bribery by Brandy' ) comes from the fact that I have known a few Moldovans and a few Romanians and that the feeling that 'the latter = the former' is (mostly) not shared by the latter. It is mostly Romanian wishful thinking and to make matters worse, due to population movements in the USSR it gets more complicated than that.

I believe Romania should try to fix it's situation at home before getting too involved into situations like this

[Sarmatian]

I would like to see Moldova (re)united with Romania. Indeed Moldova is distinct. As are Wallachia, Transsylvania and Romanian Moldavia. No countries are a monolith. Yet the unification of some regions make sense. Moldova as a Romanian region is as sensible as Rhodes as a Greek region or Normandy as a French one. Or, to use a more apt example, as the five former East German Lands as part of a united Germany.

After 1989, Germany re-incorporated the eastern regions. (Mittel-Deutschland for you German ultra-nationalists). In Romania, it went wrong. Logically, Moldova should've been re-incorporated with the western regions of Romania, as happened in Germany. Alas, Romania went through one of the most prolonged processes to democracy of all of the former East European dictatorships.

Moldova itself relapsed into a petty communist state. A source of instability. Of Russian agitation. (To remain silent of transnistria...)

Democracy in Europe, Romania, and Moldova are not served by the continued existence of a petty, semi-dictatorial mobster state. (For clarity's sake: by which I mean Moldova, not Romania )



To give it a Balkan dimension: the retreat of the Austrian, British, Ottoman and Russian empires from the Balkan has been and is the long term goal. In the case of Moldova ('Bessarabia'), Russia is the power to be ousted. Sentiment in Greece and Serbia leans more towards Russia - their natural ally against the interference of other imperialist powers. Which, I guess, should explain for the varying opinion about the Republic of Moldova between Romania and Greece. I would enjoy a conversation between our posters from the region more than another tired debate about World Wars - which one can read about in virtually all threads here.

I admit I'm not very familiar with situation in Moldavia, but from what I've been able to gather, election results paint a different picture than our Romanian friends want to show. Majority of population doesn't want to live in Romania. I don't have a strong opinion either way, it doesn't affect me personally in any way. It's not like Moldavia is the only semi-dictatorial mobster state in the region, it's facing strong opposition from Kosovo and Montenegro.

Again, the problem of great power interventions is evident and only serves to fuel nationalism. In the case of Albanians in Kosovo, self-determination is the way to go, in the case of Serbs in Bosnia, territorial integrity is the governing principle. The situation with Moldova complicated, Russia is directly involved. So, between double standards and Russia-NATO meddling all the time, I don't see much room for maneuver by Balkan nations. We're still forced to maneuver between hammer and anvil.

Now, the thing that Moldavia is not geographically part of the Balkans doesn't change much. Romania isn't either, but anything happening in Romania affects the entire region. Even Serbia isn't in the Balkans in its entirety. Novi Sad is divided by the Danube, it's not like I can go to the other side of the Danube to another part of city and say "these Balkan barbarian, they're not refined as us central Europeans.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Now, the thing that Moldavia is not geographically part of the Balkans doesn't change much. Romania isn't either, but anything happening in Romania affects the entire region. Even Serbia isn't in the Balkans in its entirety. Novi Sad is divided by the Danube, it's not like I can go to the other side of the Danube to another part of city and say "these Balkan barbarian, they're not refined as us central Europeans.

Two remarks:

1) Geopgraphy is cultural, geographical boundaries are a matter of cultural narratives. For example, one can hear Britons as stubbornly denying that they are Europeans as Armenians insisting that they are.

To me, the Balkans is everything south and east of Vienna, and north and west of Istanbul. In the east, I am not even sure where I'd draw the line. L'vov? Possibly. Kiev? Maybe. Though probably, a bit further to the west.


2) Would I be wrong to note that you follow the Greek / Russian / Serbian narrative about Moldavia? Which I mean neutrally. I am not beholden to any particular narrative. Just observing.

[Sarmatian]

Two remarks:

1) Geopgraphy is cultural, geographical boundaries are a matter of cultural narratives. For example, one can hear Britons as stubbornly denying that they are Europeans as Armenians insisting that they are.

To me, the Balkans is everything south and east of Vienna, and north and west of Istanbul. In the east, I am not even sure where I'd draw the line. L'vov? Possibly. Kiev? Maybe. Though probably, a bit further to the west.

Geography is geography and you can't draw the lines where you like. Another issue is that those lines are often meaningless in political or cultural terms. Metternich said that all land east and south of AH are Asia (Asia begins on Landstrasse). Bismarck used the term "Zwischenlaendern" to describe everything between western Europe and Russia and Ottoman Empire, all of which were much more easily definable. History, on the other hands, shows us that in political and cultural terms, those boundaries in Europe don't really exist. What happens in the East affects the West and vice versa, now even more so than 100 years ago.

2) Would I be wrong to note that you follow the Greek / Russian / Serbian narrative about Moldavia? Which I mean neutrally. I am not beholden to any particular narrative. Just observing.

I'd say you would. I don't have any particular opinion about Moldavia. What I know comes from a text in the papers that I read the other day, where election results were presented and goals of each party roughly explained. I don't know about Russians, but I don't think either Serbs or Greeks have a particular narrative about Moldavia. There is no strong official position on the issue in the government or strong sentiment among the population. Most don't really care. Heck, most Serbs by now don't even care about Kosovo anymore, let alone about Moldavia. Rasoforos might explain sentiment in Greece better and correct me if I'm wrong, this is just my feeling.

The only thing I would object to is if the thing would escalate into an armed conflict. I've had enough of that, thank you very much. Bar that, Moldavia may unite with Russia, Romania, Ukraine, stay as it is, be divided into two or more states, I don't really care.

It's just my observation that majority of people in Moldavia don't want to unite with Romania. Could be wrong though, I'm certainly not an expert on the issue.

[rvg]

Speaking of Kosovo, it is my understanding that Northern Kosovo is still fully under Serb control and will remain that way. Is that the case?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Geography is geography

I actually think we mean the same thing, but are both unclear in precise terminology. I mean that there are few meaningful 'hard' geographical divisions. Everything else is cultural geography.

It's just my observation that majority of people in Moldavia don't want to unite with Romania.

Apparently, they don't indeed. And apparently, they prefer to live under comunist rule as well. And no, I do not feel fine about that, although we shall have to accept it.

I myself, of course, am embedded in a Western / EU / democracy discourse*. (Which leads me to support as well the pro-Romanian, pro-unification, pro-Nato side)

This in contrast to the anti-Western / Anti-EU / communist discourse. (To which belong pro-Russia, anti-Romanian, anti-NATO)


*The West, except much of the UK. Which supports the communists, Russia, and anti-NATO side, in a bid to placate domestic hyper anti-EU sentiments.

[Sarmatian]

Speaking of Kosovo, it is my understanding that Northern Kosovo is still fully under Serb control and will remain that way. Is that the case?

Well, all Serbs in Kosovo are in the north. They're trying to resist Albanian domination as much as possible, but far Northern Kosovo is far from Serbian control.

Apparently, they don't indeed. And apparently, they prefer to live under comunist rule as well. And no, I do not feel fine about that, although we shall have to accept it.

I myself, of course, am embedded in a Western / EU / democracy discourse*. (Which leads me to support as well the pro-Romanian, pro-unification, pro-Nato side)

This in contrast to the anti-Western / Anti-EU / communist discourse. (To which belong pro-Russia, anti-Romanian, anti-NATO)


*The West, except much of the UK. Which supports the communists, Russia, and anti-NATO side, in a bid to placate domestic hyper anti-EU sentiments.

You've gotta understand that Moldavia is the poorest state in Europe by far. You know they've hit rock bottom when Moldavians try to smuggle themselves to Serbia . Most countries in the region are far from wealthy but even Albania is a heaven on earth compared to Moldavia. In a situation like that, it's not hard to understand why communism has support.

Anyway, we're talking about Moldavia. It's not Russia, there's hardly any danger of communist revolutions in Europe. But, in case it does happens, you may wanna go over some things, to be prepared. You know, just to be on the safe side...

[Jolt]

You've gotta understand that Moldavia is the poorest state in Europe by far. You know they've hit rock bottom when Moldavians try to smuggle themselves to Serbia .

Well Portugal has a large Moldovan diaspora as well. Around 15,000.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Maybe some more links are in order

EU envoy visits troubled Moldova
By Oana Lungescu
BBC News, Brussels


The EU is sending a senior politician, Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, to Moldova amid continuing tensions over a disputed parliamentary election. The Czech leader, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, is visiting a day after a recount confirmed that the governing Communist Party had won.

The election dispute triggered riots in Moldova's capital Chisinau this month. Moldova blamed neighbouring Romania, an EU member, for stoking the violence and expelled the Romanian ambassador.

Mr Topolanek is paying the first high-level EU visit to the country since the riots. The EU wants to show it cares about stability on its eastern border with Russia's former empire. It has urged all parties in Moldova to avoid the use of force and stressed the need to respect human rights. But the Czech prime minister has to tread a fine line - showing solidarity with Romania, a full EU member, while not alienating Moldova, Europe's poorest country, which is increasingly turning to Moscow for support.

This is a test of the EU's "Eastern partnership" policy to build closer ties with former Soviet republics, including Moldova, which is due to be officially launched at a summit in Prague next month. An EU official told the BBC that the recent unrest was even more reason to engage with Moldova. The European Parliament is considering whether to send a fact-finding mission and EU foreign ministers will debate the situation next week.

But behind the scenes, there is also concern about Romania's offer to speed up granting passports to up to a million Moldovans - a quarter of the country's population - which would give them access to the rest of the EU. Most of Moldova was part of Romania until the Soviet Union annexed it in 1940, and there remain close cultural links between the people. But it is hard to see how the passport offer would contribute to bolstering Moldova's stability, a diplomat said, and it will not gain Romania any sympathy in other EU countries.

You've gotta understand that Moldavia is the poorest state in Europe by far. You know they've hit rock bottom when Moldavians try to smuggle themselves to Serbia . Most countries in the region are far from wealthy but even Albania is a heaven on earth compared to Moldavia. In a situation like that, it's not hard to understand why communism has support.

I can see why they would vote as they did. Nevertheless, an election that yields a fifty percent communist vote is shocking. It will prove to be the cause of continued trouble, rather than a solution.

Anyway, we're talking about Moldavia. It's not Russia, there's hardly any danger of communist revolutions in Europe. But, in case it does happens, you may wanna go over some things, to be prepared. You know, just to be on the safe side...

I will only ever sing the Marseillaise and Beethoven's Ninth. All other songs are the product of deranged depravity.

The enemies of the open society never sleep, they have a long memory too. We ourselves therefore, must be wary constantly, and think long term too, not losing track of our ultimate goal of a free, democratic and peaceful Europe.

[Slyspy]

I actually think we mean the same thing, but are both unclear in precise terminology. I mean that there are few meaningful 'hard' geographical divisions. Everything else is cultural geography.


Apparently, they don't indeed. And apparently, they prefer to live under comunist rule as well. And no, I do not feel fine about that, although we shall have to accept it.

I myself, of course, am embedded in a Western / EU / democracy discourse*. (Which leads me to support as well the pro-Romanian, pro-unification, pro-Nato side)

This in contrast to the anti-Western / Anti-EU / communist discourse. (To which belong pro-Russia, anti-Romanian, anti-NATO)


*The West, except much of the UK. Which supports the communists, Russia, and anti-NATO side, in a bid to placate domestic hyper anti-EU sentiments.

Is this the good old Western idea of democracy for all, except when we don't like the results?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Is this the good old Western idea of democracy for all, except when we don't like the results?

Why, as far as I am concerned, indeed it is. But I would rather name it the good old Western dilemma: should democracy be able to vote itself out of existence?

Can 50 percent +1 decide to curb the rights of the minority? Can fifty percent plus one democratically decide to murder the other fifty percent minus one?
Of course not. They can't, because 'democracy' does not, as is sometimes assumes, mean 'majority rule', but rather equality and the rule of law. To both of which, as history has shown, communism is an inveterate enemy.

[Sarmatian]

I think it's a more of interests first, democracy second. If we can have both at the same time - great. If not, well, democracy will have to wait...

Seen on the example of Montenegro - Djukanovic is worse dictator than Milosevic ever was, but no one from democratic countries could care less as he's pro NATO... Good ol' case of Great Powers and the Balkan Question, the umpteenth part...