“The election of the so-called president of Transnistria offered us an additional occasion for convincing ourselves that the Transnistrian settlement is hard to be achieved as long as separatism is used as an instrument of the Russian imperialism. In this connection, it is interesting to know what the goal of the visit paid by Russian lawmakers to the Republic of Moldova was. The answer is evident – they also went discreetly to Transnistria to monitor the elections there and to declare them free and fair…”
---

Difference between declared and camouflaged intentions

The so-called presidential election that was held in Transnistria on December 12, 2021 offered us the occasion for ascertaining the existence of an area on which the viewpoints of the government and the opposition coincide. The Government of the Republic of Moldova warned beforehand that the election in Transnistria “is held outside the constitutional framework and is against the legislation of the Republic of Moldova... and cannot be recognized and is considered null and void from legal viewpoint”, while the opposition refrained from criticizing the government for not allowing nine Russian citizens to enter the territory of the Republic of Moldova for overseeing the aforementioned election.

In this context, it was noticeable the visit paid to the Republic of Moldova by a group of at least seven members of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. As the Russian lawmakers didn’t openly declare their intention to supervise the elections, they were allowed to enter the country. It is curios that public opinion could learn about the visit by Russian lawmakers only from the press releases of the Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova (PSRM) and the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM).

This way, from the press release of PSRM we can deduce that the Russian lawmakers came to the Republic of Moldova only for listening to Igor Dodon’s thanks addressed to the administration of the Russian Federation for the permanent support offered to our country in different areas and, first of all, in the social, economic, commercial, cultural and humanitarian  sectors”. The PSRM leader’s statements make us believe that he really feels the support of Russia. In this regard, he referred to his future projects – launch of the Moldova – Russia Business Union whose goal is to contribute to increasing investments - expressing his conviction that the Russian side will offer the newly created organization high-level support.

On the other hand, the PCRM’s press release deplores the real political and socioeconomic situation in the Republic of Moldova after the recent parliamentary elections. However, from the PCRM’s press release we cannot deduce the goal of the Russian lawmakers’ visit: “meetings with representatives of the legislative power, of public organizations and with Russian compatriots who live in our country”. That’s all. No reference is made about the election in Transnistria even if this election could be the real goal of the visit that was hidden for not being thwarted. This way or another, we can say that the goal of the Russian lawmakers’ visit for now remains an enigma shrouded in mystery.

Communist-Socialist timidity

We can understand the PCRM’s lack of reaction to the authorities’ decision not to allow observers of the Russian Federation to enter the terrutory of the Republic of Moldova to oversee the so-called election in Transnistria. The truth is when Vladimir Voronin held office of President, in February 2005 he had to resort to the expulsion from the country of Russian experts, describing their presence as interference by the Russian Federation in the holding of elections in the republic. If they admitted interference in the internal affairs then, why shouldn’t they admit it now too?

The situation is yet different when we refer to the lack of reaction on the part of PSRM. The point is the persons who were banned access to the Republic of Moldova included Natalia Narochnitskaya, who is a member of the Izborsk Club, alongside heavyweights of PSRM. It would have seemed normal for the organization’s members to support their colleagues. But none of the heavyweights of PSRM expressed their dissatisfaction. Clearly, the branch in the Republic of Moldova is led by Socialist MP Bogdat Țîrdea, while the experts of the Izborsk Club include the leader of PSRM Igor Dodon. The latter prepared the transmission of analysis materials, also when he held office of President.

So, we see that it is one thing to thank the administration of the Russian Federation and it is another thing to show efficiency as a representative of the Russian interests in the Republic of Moldova. Anyway, it is hard to believe that the heavyweights of PSRM do not realize exactly the mission of the Isborsk Club that was revealed in detail in an interview for the director of the Institute of CIS Countries Konstantin Zatulin:

• The Isborsk Club is a collective project of the new Russian ideology that is required and is supported by Putin himself;
• The major goal is to promote the concept of Russian state as an imperial, eternally imperial state that has been imperial from the oldest times and continues to be so, even if this empire was truncated, etc.

It is not accidental that this deciphering of the mission of the Isborsk Club was done for the director of the Institute of CIS Countries who is a famous supporter of the separatist movement in the CIS (see page 47), including of the Transnistrian separatism. So, it is not at all accidental that the Moldovan authorities didn’t allow the first deputy director of the Institute of CIS Countries Vladimir Egorov to enter the Republic of Moldova. The same refers to the other seven persons whose access to the Republic of Moldova was banned - most probably because they promote imperialism and support separatism.

Conclusions

By all appearances, the authorities of the Republic of Moldova decided, as a matter of principle, to no longer allow foreigners who openly promote the ideas of the Russian imperialism and support the Transnistrian separatism to enter the country. It is a correct decision that should be expressed clearly so that everyone understands it, including the spokeswoman for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Communist-Socialist opposition that normally criticizes any action of the government didn’t dare to criticize the entry ban imposed on famous promoters of the Russian imperialism for fear of not being associated with the imperial movement. This is an impossible task for those who speak about statehood, national interests, etc., but actually form part of organizations that promote eternal imperialism.

The election of the so-called president of Transnistria offered us an additional occasion for convincing ourselves that the Transnistrian settlement is hard to be achieved as long as separatism is used as an instrument of the Russian imperialism. In this connection, it is interesting to know what the goal of the visit paid by Russian lawmakers to the Republic of Moldova was. The answer is evident – they also went discreetly to Transnistria to monitor the elections there and to declare them free and fair.