The burden of proof is on you, not him. There haven't been atrocities in Moldovan governed territories, all of which contain exactly the same minority elements as Transnistria.
Why would Moldova have to adopt ethnic cleansing in Transnistria especially, when it did not do the same thing anywhere in Moldova?
It was a power struggle, plain and simple. Just as in Crimea, Abkhazia and everywhere Russia had "oppressed minorities".
There no burden of proof here, he made an argument and the argument made fails a basic logical test.
His conclusion may be true but that's beside the point, the last 4 posts are simply arguing the merits of the argument he made.
> There haven't been atrocities in Moldovan governed territories,
I think we all agree on this.
> all of which contain exactly the same minority elements as Transnistria
Hardly in the same proportions.
> Why would Moldova have to adopt ethnic cleansing in Transnistria especially, when it did not do the same thing anywhere in Moldova.
'Have to adopt' is a strange construction. You never 'have to adapt' atrocity. It's something that can happen for various reasons intentionally or unintentionally -- for example undisciplined troops might engage in atrocity when taking a city after a bloody siege. If you dont see how that might apply specifically only to Transnistrian Russian minorities because they were the only ones fighting newly armed unprofessional conscripts then I can't help you.
The broader question of Why Transnistria might not be just like the rest of Moldova is a bit like asking 'Why did the Russians have a huge war and commit terrible war crimes in Chechnya but not Tatarstan, Dagestan, etc.?'. It turns out that not everything with some similar characteristics is always the same!
Why would Moldova have to adopt ethnic cleansing in Transnistria especially, when it did not do the same thing anywhere in Moldova?
It was a power struggle, plain and simple. Just as in Crimea, Abkhazia and everywhere Russia had "oppressed minorities".