Summary: The following text is an approximate translation of an article published on 1 November 2017 by the Editorial Board of the independent Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta. The article addresses recent proposals for the introduction of United Nations peacekeepers to Eastern Ukraine (also known as the Donbass) and draws a direct comparison between this proposed mission with the existing Russian peacekeeping contingent in Transnistria (known officially as the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, or Pridnestrovie), a disputed region of Moldova which has been controlled by pro-Russian separatists since July 1992. The Editorial Board argues that while the Russian peacekeeping mission in Transnistria has not yet resolved that particular conflict, it has provided a measure of stability such that the separatist region’s own population has begun to seek closer political and economic integration with Moldova and, by extension, with the rest of Europe. In this sense, the article indicates that while a peacekeeping mission may not succeed in immediately settling the conflict in the Donbass, it may at least provide a degree of security whereby social and economic forces might nudge separatist-held areas of the region towards rapprochement with Kiev. – Allen Maggard

—

It has long been clear to all concerned parties that peace will take hold in the Donbass when peacekeepers arrive there and separate the warring sides. But Kiev has only now announced its decision to admit an international peacekeeping mission under the aegis of the United Nations.

In an interview with Hromadske radio, U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker noted that all sides must first of all agree on the mission’s mandate and determine its size and composition. Russia is currently participating in talks on this subject.

According to Volker, in the event that such a mission is established, it should be able to carry out three basic tasks: first, to take complete control over the entire zone of conflict, not just the line of contact and the freedom of movement within that zone; second, to monitor heavy weaponry to make sure that it is not deployed and is stored in a designated area; and third, to control the Russian-Ukrainian border. As [Russian] Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov put it, Volker was, in fact, advocating for the “occupation” of the Donbass by peacekeepers.

In Volker’s opinion, the implementation of the abovementioned conditions is exclusively a matter of political will. This means that Russia, in the opinion of Kiev and its Western allies, should withdraw its own forces from the Donbass and make room for U.N. peacekeepers. The fact that there are no Russian troops in the south of Ukraine as such has not been taken into account. But this is for the time being. If peace in the region is needed, then one has to look at the situation realistically.

Without an agreement, talk about peacekeepers in the Donbass will remain talk, and the status quo will be preserved in this area of Ukraine. Such is the case in Transnistria, which has been at peace for 25 years since a peacekeeping contingent entered the zone of conflict there in July 1992. No one is fighting there for the moment, but Transnistria remains an unrecognized republic, existing independently of Moldova. Nonetheless, no one there is being killed, and people on both sides of the Dniester river mingle and trade with each other.

This may be explained by the fact that all parties agreed on the entrance of peacekeepers into Transnistria. The presidents of Moldova and the Russian Federation, along with the Transnistrian leadership, signed a peace agreement which has held to this day. Moldovan, Transnistrian, and Russian peacekeepers received complete control over the conflict zone, divided the opposing sides, withdrew heavy weaponry from the line of contact, and were given the go-ahead to monitor the Moldovan-Ukrainian border.

What Volker is currently talking about doing in relation to the Donbass was, in fact, already done in Transnistria back in 1992. However, Moscow does not want to allow foreign peacekeepers close to its borders, even though Ukraine did just that 25 years ago. True, there is still one nuance in the stories of these two conflicts: on the territory of Transnistria, there is located the Operational Group of Russian Forces (OGRF), which is composed of the remnants of the former Soviet 14th Army. OGRF guards Russian ammunition depots, though it also serves as a peacekeeping battalion.

Chișinău has persistently demanded OGRF’s departure, but Moscow recognizes that 250,000 Russian citizens reside in the region. Moreover, the July 1992 Agreement on the Principles for a Peaceful Settlement of the Armed Conflict in the Dniester Region of the Republic of Moldova ties the withdrawal of Russian troops to the settlement of the conflict. The conflict is not settled, and so Russian troops are standing where they stood 200 years ago. As such Chișinău, which enjoys Bucharest and Kiev’s support, is in no hurry to restore Moldova’s territorial integrity.

Nonetheless, a new generation of Transnistrians wants both visa-free travel to the European Union – which is already available to Moldovans – as well as Moldovan passports. The European Union is opening a corridor for duty-free trade in the region. And they also want peace. Transnistrian and Moldovan politicians understand that it is futile to preserve the status quo in these new conditions. So, one may expect changes in Transnistria. For Ukraine, it is useful to look at Transnistria, where 150,000 of its citizens live1 and remember that without peacekeepers, the warring sides will not dissolve away. But by introducing peacekeepers into the zone of conflict, one must understand that it will not last forever.

Translator’s Note: This appears to be a mistake on the part of Nezavisimaya Gazeta‘s Editorial Board. According to the President of Transnistria, 150,00 ethnic Ukrainians resided in Transnistria as of July 2017. Of this number 80,000 are also citizens of Ukraine.