Spring exacerbation

So it happened. One of the poorest CIS countries in the context of the World Economic Crisis survived the attempt of the state "coup". Several hundreds of victims, a crushed building of parliament, abbreviated budgets of universities (after all, for some money it is necessary to restore the destroyed), closed boundaries with Romania. That's all the results of the events on April 6-8, which have already received the name "Chisinau spring" and "dill revolution" in the Internet space. It is easy to guess that the first phrase was used by supporters of protesters, the second - their opponents.

To the etymology of political neologisms

The name "Chisinau spring", without a doubt, refers to the well-known events of 1968, which, as it were, as if deliberately the other day, was reminded by US President Barack Obama in his speech at the USA-European Union summit in Prague. The choice of such a name had a rational basis. In the end, against which the protesters fought against - against the Communist Party, which uses, as they believed, power in Moldova, and ready to choose his leader, Voronin, the president of the country. But did not those who made the “velvet revolutions in Europe in the late 1980s fought against the communist parties?

The “dill revolution” is the next euphemism, designed to remind of the Georgian “Revolution of the Roses” and the Kyrgyz “Tulip Revolution”, as well as the same Ukrainian “Long Revolution”, which gave the name to all similar social phenomena that took place not so long in the post -Soviet space. Supporters of this point of view also have reason to consider events in Moldova by a repetition of what happened in the CIS space at the beginning of the new XXI century. The name "Dill Revolution" is probably approaching the events that occurred in Moldova, because the scenario of the Chisinau unrest fits into the canon of the classic "Orange Revolution". 1) Mass excitement based on the results of the elections that the opposition declared falsified, the opposition itself consists of projuropian and anti -communist liberals and nationalists. 2) the beginning of events laid a rally on the central square of the capital, dedicated to the announcement of the elections. 3) mobilization of political activists and journalists in one iconic place of the country. 4) the assault on the buildings of state power by demonstrators. 5) the lack of decisive actions by the authorities.

However, the events in Moldova were not another version of the "Orange Revolution", or even more a repetition of the "Prague Spring". And if this was the “Orange Revolution” or the next “Prague Spring”, then exclusively in the sense in which Marx spoke of repetitions in history, which are nothing more than a farce of great historical events. Already today it is obvious that the events in Moldova were nothing more than unrest, that is, " relatively spontaneous political violence with the real and significant participation of the population ," revealing itself in political and localized uprisings, which, however, are quick. Such a localized uprising more than once could see millions of people in Russia and in the world on the screens of their TVs. A recent example is the events in Latvia, where the protesters defeated the center of Riga. However, unlike the events in Latvia, which occurred in Moldova, many in Russia scared. It scared so much that the State Duma of the Russian Federation even introduced to its regulation a discussion of the statement of the State Duma of the Russian Federation on events in Moldova.

20 years later

Why did this happen? To do this, you need to turn to the history of Moldova for the past 20 years.

As you know, a very inconsistent national policy was pursued in the USSR. On the one hand, the championship of the Russian people was approved, which was seen as a "older brother" in a family of Soviet nations. On the other hand, numerous programs for the artificial creation of national communities were initiated. Dictionaries were created for them, alphabets (based on the Cyrillic alphabet) were invented, the intelligentsia studied, which then received quoted access to printing machines. One of such artificial creatures of Soviet ideologists was the Moldavian nation, built on the basis of imaginary differences from ethnically and linguisticly close to Moldovans of the Romanians.

However, despite all the efforts of the CPSU, the intelligentsia of Moldova created in the USSR, in the late 1980s, almost completely became "Izorumyn" and after the collapse of the Soviet Union pulled its people towards the "unification" with the Western neighbor. It got to the point that the Romanophiles demanded an immediate liquidation of the border with Romania, and the numerous ultra -rational Romanian organizations launched a propaganda campaign in Moldova to support Ireredentist sentiments. As you know, this led to a conflict between the population of Transnistria, an industrialized region of the country, inhabited by Russian and Russian-speaking, and Moldovans. The conflict grew into a civil war, which was stopped only thanks to the decisive action of the commander of the 14th Army of General Alexander Lebed [1] .

Be that as it may, but the struggle that unfolded between Moldova Ethnic groups delayed the unification of Moldova and Romania and, as it turned out later, prevented it. Moldovans, who in the early 1990s actively visited Romania, saw that on the western side of the Prut they live no better than the eastern, and, therefore, the population of Moldova would not win from unification. The leadership of Romania, the last restoration of Moldovan with Gagauz and the Transnistrians, was put before the fact of necessity, in the event of a union, to provide such autonomies with numerous minorities living in the territory of this country, which the Romanians would very not want to [2] .

It was the voices of these expansion dissatisfied with Romanian that the so -called "Moldovenic opposition" - those who advocate the independence of Moldova from Romania. They saw in Romania a great threat to the independence of their country than Russia once represented. In the end, Romania was close, and the Russian Federation was far away.

Be that as it may, the “Moldovenists”, supporters of the sovereignty of their state, won, and their avant -garde are the Communists - the majority in the country's parliament, which allowed them (in accordance with the constitution) to elect their leader Vladimir Voronin.

Moldavian Bonapartism

Voronin belonged and belongs to that generation of politicians in the open spaces of the CIS, which practice bonapartism methods. The meaning of their policy, in accordance with the classical definition of "bonapartism", is to maneuver between different centers of power. But, if Napoleon III had to maneuver between the layers of French society, which had its political interests, providing the consensus of elites (if not all, then most of them), then the rulers of numerous republics that appeared after the collapse of the USSR had to maneuver between the two centers of power - Russia and the West. The stability of the authorities of post -Soviet leaders depended on the success of this policy [3] .

Someone who remembers hardly today that at the beginning of his career as President of Moldova, Voronin promised to give the Russian language the status of the second state and introduce his country into the Union of Russia and Belarus. However, it is hardly possible to repeat the phrase, which US President Theodor Roosevelt described the dictator of Nicaragua Anastasio to Samsu: " Let him be a bastard, but this is my bastard ." Bonapartists' politicians differ in that they do not obey anyone: they will always find power, uniting with which they can withstand the expansionist aspirations of any foreign policy power. Giving a promise of Russia, Voronin played against Romania, and vice versa, using the West, he could put pressure on Transnistria, the return of which for him as a “Moldovenist” was a matter of honor.

In fairness, it should be noted that in Russia, Voronin’s game, which became obvious after the failure of the “Kozak plan” to resolve the situation in Transnistria, was unraveled. In accordance with this plan, the Russian army was supposed to remain in Transnistria for up to 20 years, and Transnistria received the right to leave the federal Moldova at any time. The refusal to implement the "Kozak Plan" symbolized the final reorientation of Voronin to Europe and the EU. At the same time, this does not mean at all that the Moldovan Communists took one path with supporters of the absorption of Moldova Romania. Between them, despite the obvious unity of the goal, there are certain contradictions. The Communists do not at all want to dissolve Moldavians in the sea of ​​the Romanians, in every possible way opposing the loss of Moldova of their sovereignty. Their goal is the European Union, but the path into it does not run through the unification with the Western neighbor.

To whom it is beneficial, he did

Therefore, the answer to the question of who would be beneficial to the victory of participants in the riots can be one - Romania. She certainly won a lot if the Communists left. That is why Romania, along with the opposition parties that had not passed into parliament, was the first in the list of suspects. In the light of this, statements by the authorities of the Moldavian Republic are not so fantastic that the Romanians were seen among the organizers of the riots. In the end, there is a grace passport regime between Romania and Moldova. As of 2006, the Romanian passport was 10.4% of families, and expected its receipt - 17.9% of families. In total, almost a third of the population of Moldova has dual citizenship.

So what is the interest of Russia? Why were Russian politicians so alarmed? The answer is quite simple. Firstly, in the event of an adverse development of events, Transnistria is jeopardized, for the fate of whose residents, Russia considers itself responsible. Secondly, it is obvious that Moldova, which is part of the CIS, is among the privileged territories that the Russian Federation considers the sphere of its own influence, and the stability of the political institutions of which corresponds to the national interests of our country. Thirdly, the influence that Romania on Moldova has a threat to Russia, since the intervention, albeit indirect, in the internal affairs of the Moldavian Republic, violates the principle of sovereignty, fundamental for international law. Moreover, such an intervention was not initiated by concern for the good of the Moldovan people (as, for example, in the case of the August war of Russia and Georgia), and, therefore, cannot be justified. Finally, do not discount the mythologization, which was subjected to the concept of the "color revolution".

As Marx and Engels once proclaimed the existence of a ghost of communism, which, wandering around Europe, found his visible expression in fears of the power of those who have the emerging, and the ghost of the "color revolutions", which once frightened the Russian establishment, still does not allow him to live calmly. But it's time to get rid of this fear. In the end, the people of the Russian Federation are not so stupid as to implement in practice the projects of "color revolutions" that endure one after another. Ukraine and Georgia are quite visible examples of what leaders who are guided by the West lead to the country.

However, the events in Chisinau in a certain sense are beneficial for Russia, since the cooling in the relationship between Moldova and Romania can lead to the fact that part of the Moldavian political elite, previously oriented to the West, will decide to find a less inclined to such political excesses of the partner. And here we are the main thing to not miss our chance and use the opportunity that has presented as fully as possible.

Notes:

[1] However, the Russians were not the only ones with whom the Moldova-Nationalities conflict then. They also had to encounter Gagauzes inhabiting the south of the republic. As a result of the struggle, the Gagauzes received autonomy, the right to elect their national assembly and the "president" ("Bashkana").

[2] As you know, it was the opposition of the desire of national minorities to create autonomy in Romania that pushed this country to fascism.

[3] However, as soon as the elites decided to focus on the West, the leaders-bonapartists lost their power. As it seems, it was this, and not the omnipotence of the Western intelligence services played a decisive role in the success of "color revolutions." For example, today no one recalls the events in Uzbekistan, where President Islam Karimov, supported by political elites, suppressed the “color revolutionaries” in the Ferghana Valley with the help of the army.