> You put it exactly like the official russian propaganda tries to
This is patently false.
(1) Russian propaganda claimed Moldovans were massacring civilians, I've explicitly said I disbelieve this.
(2) Russian propaganda claimed all sorts of independent troop action and the general story is "we just helped arm the Transnistrians" while I'm fairly explicit that Russian troops were there fighting intentionally, not just suppliers, not just some of them acting independently of the Russian chain of command.
(3) I also strongly doubt that Russian propaganda says that they've made a terrible mess of Chechnya as I explicitly say in the above post.
So that's 3 explicit counter-examples from a single short comment. So much for my status as Russian propaganda mouthpiece.
> The whole thing was timely orchestrated.
I agree, the Moldovan troops rolled in right after the UN granted them member status, same fucking day. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
> Moldovan forces did not fight with locals,
Basic facts dispute this.
The first fatalities in the emerging conflict took place on 2 November 1990, two months after the PMR's 2 September 1990 declaration of independence. Moldovan forces entered Dubăsari in order to separate Transnistria into two halves, but were stopped by the city's inhabitants, who had blocked the bridge over the Dniester, at Lunga. In an attempt to break through the roadblock, Moldovan forces then opened fire.[21] In the course of the confrontation, three Dubăsari locals, Oleg Geletiuk, Vladimir Gotkas and Valerie Mitsuls, were killed by the Moldovan forces and sixteen people wounded
> they were fighting with volunteer guards sent over from all of the falling Soviet Union, especially cossaks!
As it turns out they fought both locals and cossacks! and Russian army and more.
> If Russia had no interest, no bloodshed whatsoever would have happened, because there isn't any of the necessary natural preconditions for that (like you are implying).
I'm open to the fact that Russian involvement made Transnistria worse off and I've explicitly said it's possible bloodshed would have been somewhat lower if they had stayed out. However 'possible' is not a guarantee.
I'd like to see you make the case for your claim above but you haven't even begun to and so you don't get to write QED at the bottom. As far as I know the 'necessary natural preconditions' for bloodshed are fairly low you just need a couple groups angry at each other and some guns on one or both sides and the lack of an inhibiting leviathan. That certainly existed in Transnistria without Russian involvement.
"Russian propaganda claimed Moldovans were massacring civilians, I've explicitly said I disbelieve this. So much for my status as Russian propaganda mouthpiece."
I explicitly pointed the exact piece of the russian propaganda you're trumpeting, but you are deliberately choosing to ignore it and to consider instead whatever you want to!
"«Moldovan forces did not fight with locals,» Basic facts dispute this."
Actually, only claims (not facts) dispute this. The involvement of "Moldovan forces" came much later, because when the first incidents happened Moldova did not had an army but only a police force which definitely did not had the competence to perform large scale drills like separation of a (newly declared) country in halves! The first causalities were the Moldovan policemen in a Tiraspol police post. I don't know where you get your sources from, a reference would have been welcomed.
"As far as I know the 'necessary natural preconditions' for bloodshed are fairly low you just need a couple groups angry at each other and some guns on one or both sides and the lack of an inhibiting leviathan. That certainly existed in Transnistria without Russian involvement."
If you go that far consider that loosely controlled armed groups existed all over Russia itself and nowhere it was treated as possible cause for genocide or whatnot. The preconditions that I was referring to is the base (usually ideological in nature) on which an irreconcilable dispute can grow. This wasn't the case in Moldova because Moldovan authorities were very open to peacefully address the kind of issues that Russia claims were central in the Transnistrian conflict. Just look at the Gagauzian Autonomy and take it as a reference for settling a minority related issue without the involvement of russian tanks!
This is patently false.
(1) Russian propaganda claimed Moldovans were massacring civilians, I've explicitly said I disbelieve this.
(2) Russian propaganda claimed all sorts of independent troop action and the general story is "we just helped arm the Transnistrians" while I'm fairly explicit that Russian troops were there fighting intentionally, not just suppliers, not just some of them acting independently of the Russian chain of command.
(3) I also strongly doubt that Russian propaganda says that they've made a terrible mess of Chechnya as I explicitly say in the above post.
So that's 3 explicit counter-examples from a single short comment. So much for my status as Russian propaganda mouthpiece.
> The whole thing was timely orchestrated.
I agree, the Moldovan troops rolled in right after the UN granted them member status, same fucking day. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
> Moldovan forces did not fight with locals,
Basic facts dispute this.
The first fatalities in the emerging conflict took place on 2 November 1990, two months after the PMR's 2 September 1990 declaration of independence. Moldovan forces entered Dubăsari in order to separate Transnistria into two halves, but were stopped by the city's inhabitants, who had blocked the bridge over the Dniester, at Lunga. In an attempt to break through the roadblock, Moldovan forces then opened fire.[21] In the course of the confrontation, three Dubăsari locals, Oleg Geletiuk, Vladimir Gotkas and Valerie Mitsuls, were killed by the Moldovan forces and sixteen people wounded
> they were fighting with volunteer guards sent over from all of the falling Soviet Union, especially cossaks!
As it turns out they fought both locals and cossacks! and Russian army and more.
> If Russia had no interest, no bloodshed whatsoever would have happened, because there isn't any of the necessary natural preconditions for that (like you are implying).
I'm open to the fact that Russian involvement made Transnistria worse off and I've explicitly said it's possible bloodshed would have been somewhat lower if they had stayed out. However 'possible' is not a guarantee.
I'd like to see you make the case for your claim above but you haven't even begun to and so you don't get to write QED at the bottom. As far as I know the 'necessary natural preconditions' for bloodshed are fairly low you just need a couple groups angry at each other and some guns on one or both sides and the lack of an inhibiting leviathan. That certainly existed in Transnistria without Russian involvement.