Moldova had a population of ethnic Russians that lived on the Eastern bank of the river D'niest'r. (Similar to the Crimean region in Ukraine.)
Eventually a civil war broke out, and Russia stepped in to back the ethnically Russian region (sound familiar?). The end result was a stalemate. A ceasefire was declared in 1992, and the ethnically Russian region decided to spin off its own government. They call themselves Pre'd'niest'rovia (or Transnistria), and function as an entirely separate country from Moldova. That means different language (Russian, not Moldovan), currency, parliament, military, etc etc. Yet Moldova never accepted it as a sovereign country, and neither did the rest of the world.
To this day, when you see Moldova on a map you only see one country where really there are two.
What's happening in Ukraine today is almost a mirror image. I suspect it will result either in a similar two-country situation with one being unrecognized, or the Eastern half of Ukraine will form a new country.
PS - I was born in Transnistria and lived there until I was eight. Several months ago I went to visit for the first time since leaving 18 years ago. It's a miserable place to live. I also visited Kiev and Odessa (Ukraine) on the same trip, and am glad I did so before this violence broke out.
That would actually an optimistic scenario. More pessimistic one would be if you notice Putin got approval to use Russian military in Ukraine, not just in Crimea. Which means he can also use it it Kharkov, Donetsk, Lugansk and other places where there is a majority Russian population. And try to split Ukraine along language-ethnic lines and destroy it as an independent state as a punishment for defying them. Note that any success of new Ukrainian powers spells trouble for Putin, as it means one can defeat the authoritarian rulers and succeed, while the official position is that the authoritarian rule is the only defense against chaos. So Putin would be very invested in causing the said chaos in Ukraine, both as a revenge, as means of control and to support the idea that his rule must be strong - otherwise see what happened to Ukrainians. So just having Crimea separate, as I say, would not be the worst yet.
Indeed. This could get arbitrarily ugly; I was ... disconcerted to see a still of a network video titled "Russian Tanks in the Ukraine" ... that actually showed self-propelled artillery, which means nothing good.
I once stumbled upon this youtube about Transnistria: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6kub-Ehbd4
Really fascinating, I had never even heard of the place. They really make it seem like the country is dependent on black market arms deals of former Soviet stock. Is it actually true?
It runs almost entirely on black market dealings (weapons, human sex slaves) and criminal enterprises. It's often called "the black hole" of Europe. It's very difficult to live there.
> The worst thing in world today is to become the rope on which the imperial forces tug to prove their strength.
Not just today -- it's been a shitty position to find oneself in since the beginning of time. The only difference today is that we think of ourselves as above such things. But clearly we're not.
Big difference. Serbians under Milosevic were committing mass murder and ethnic cleansing (as they had done with Bosnia and Croatia few years earlier), while here, Ukrainians are not kicking people from Crimea out.
>Ukrainians are not kicking people from Crimea out.
Not yet. Still, the first act of the new regime was to revoke language rights from ethnic minorities, i.e. Russians in Crimea. When this sort of thing happens, ethnic cleansing is not far away.
That's one ridiculous exaggeration. Did you even read the law you are talking about, or you are just repeating somebody else's propaganda? The law was actually criticized by Ukrainian minorities -- by Crimean Tatars [1], by Association of Jewish Organizations and Communities of Ukraine[2], by Congress of Ethnic Communities of Ukraine [3]. But the most important detail -- the law in fact wasn't repealed! Acting president already vetoed its repeal.
Kosovo seems a much better example although I don't understand why NATO was able to enter the war against the wishes of Russia. Maybe nothing major happened because Serbia was sort of a Russian puppet state instead of being Russia itself? Or the lack of interesting resources in Kosovo? I have some remembering to do.
It was in 1999, when Russian strength and morale (political, economic and military) was at it's nadir. Compare the two wars in Chechnya with the war in Georgia.
Unless you subscribe to an extreme pan Slavophilism, in which the Balkans are legally and morally Russian territory, then no, Russia had nothing to say in the Balkans.
I wouldn't say it's the same as the number of Russians living in South Ossetia was and is really small (2 to 3%?). There are some similarities but even the way the war started seems different from what's happening in Ukraine. But it's useful context to have though.
Not anymore. The ceasefire has held reasonably well. The "border" between Transnistria and the rest of Moldova has a demilitarized zone, protected by (drumroll please...) Russian "peace" troops.
Sure, they can call it however they want. Technically they're the same language. There are only minor lexicographical differences, the grammar being roughly the same. Blame Stalin for the confusion.
Technically, they're different, which makes the question of whether they should have a different name a political one, not a linguistic one. As the saying goes, a language is a dialect with an army and a navy.
No, technically there is just Romanian language. The difference is purely ideological/political. If the U.S.S.R. have had more ambitious plans for Germans, there would have been more names out there for the same German language. Or for any other language for that matter.
The argument over Moldovan being a seperate language was promoted by Stalin, but the argument also predates Stalin by a century, so I am not sure he is to blame for this particular thing. Everything else, sure.
Moldova had a population of ethnic Russians that lived on the Eastern bank of the river D'niest'r. (Similar to the Crimean region in Ukraine.)
Eventually a civil war broke out, and Russia stepped in to back the ethnically Russian region (sound familiar?). The end result was a stalemate. A ceasefire was declared in 1992, and the ethnically Russian region decided to spin off its own government. They call themselves Pre'd'niest'rovia (or Transnistria), and function as an entirely separate country from Moldova. That means different language (Russian, not Moldovan), currency, parliament, military, etc etc. Yet Moldova never accepted it as a sovereign country, and neither did the rest of the world.
To this day, when you see Moldova on a map you only see one country where really there are two.
What's happening in Ukraine today is almost a mirror image. I suspect it will result either in a similar two-country situation with one being unrecognized, or the Eastern half of Ukraine will form a new country.
PS - I was born in Transnistria and lived there until I was eight. Several months ago I went to visit for the first time since leaving 18 years ago. It's a miserable place to live. I also visited Kiev and Odessa (Ukraine) on the same trip, and am glad I did so before this violence broke out.