Talk:Transnistria War/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

To do

This section clearly needs a great deal of work. Global issues:

  1. The events here are often minor and occasionally footnotes to larger phenomena. MariusM implicitly recognizes this himself in such statements as "Lawlessness in the region is relevant." If lawlessness is relevant it should be mentioned in the article and the incident could be used as an example in a footnote. Let's think big here. What about the broken cease-fires, the mobilizing of troops, the declarations of state of emergency? Events that are important are overwhelmed by the minutia. jamason 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    Include whatever you consider relevant in the timetable. Nobody stopped you to do this.--MariusM 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. But, like Jamason correctly says: "Events that are important are overwhelmed by the minutia" so the first order of business would be to weed out the stuff that is clearly not relevant for an encyclopedia. Maybe it fits in a book, and maybe in yesterday's newspaper. But there are a lot of clearly minor items that had no significant influence on the events leading up to the war, so please don't cry censorship if we take them out. It is just good editing. - Mauco 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. POV. Illythr and Mauco have already commented on this extensively. We can also witness that every possible apocryphal story of attacks on Moldovan cops is included, while attacks on (and the murders of) PMSSR or OSTK activists are ignored. In fact, the "Moldovan side" is hardly mentioned. The point is, of course, that everything that was done to precipitate the conflict was done by the separatist side. A position that stretches credibility, even if one is inclined to believe that one side was largely to blame. jamason 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    Not every possible apocryphical story was added, I was to lazy to add everything is written in the book. Jamason, you should read the book before comenting on it.--MariusM 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    POV can be undue weight alone, and I think that this is what Jamason is referring to. The timeline, while good, is giving excessive detail to crimes and misdemeanors of one side, exclusively. That in itself is POV. - Mauco 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Sources. This list has only one source and the page numbers are not provided. jamason 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    Page numbers for timetable in Ciubotaru & Muntean book are 311-354. Is the problem of other editors to come with other sources, and aditional info will be added when is sourced. This is how Wikipedia works.--MariusM 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Why does it stop in February 1992? Was this a conscious choice or did the book from which this was drawn stop on 29 February? jamason 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    Because the war "proper" began in March, most likely. --Illythr 18:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    Fair enough. jamason 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    Yes. The "official" start date of this war is 2 March 1992. But since this is not clear in the timeline and in the article itself, in its current form, it should be made clearer. - Mauco 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. The timetable in the book is continuing until August 1992. I stopped at February because it was a large amount of text to add and I was tired, also I thought that later events should be added in an other section.--MariusM 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. "Tired" is OK. But how about a timeline for the war itself? And maybe even a section on some of the events that happened after the war (like the creation of the JCC, with a link to our article on JCC). - Mauco 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Smaller issues:

  1. "the democratically ellected raional Soviet of Dubăsari"? You've said on another page that the elections of 1990 were not democratic. [1] jamason 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    I've said that in 1990 were the most democratic ellections in the entire history of Transnistria, while still not 100% democratic (for example, MPF didn't have its own newspaper and was not able to submit candidatures in all electoral districts). Anyhow, to make people happy, I removed "democratically ellected".--MariusM 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. What happened to 1989? Is the creation of ID Edinstvo-Unitate really more important than the creation of the Popular Front?jamason 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    In 1992 MPF was not in power, Snegur ousted Druc before the war (in May 1991) and MPF was in oposition with Snegur (see position of MPF in December 1991 elections). You can not blame war on MPF. When Druc government was in power there were 3 deaths in Transnistria, after Druc was ousted 1000 deaths appeared.--MariusM 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That is an exaggeration (understatement first, overstatement second). But yes, we can most certainly blame the war on Moldovan hardline nationalists. Foremost among them: Mircea Druc. Another extreme nationalist was general Ion Costas, ministru al Apararii. Could the war have been avoided if more moderate voices had been in charge? Probably. Transnistria did not go to war, or seek a war with Moldova. - Mauco 19:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. What happened to most of 1990? Is it not important that the Popular front won many seats in the Supreme Soviet of the MSSR and OSTK supporters won many seats in Transnistrian local government? Unfortunately, I don't have time to go through line by line, but I agree with Illythr in many of his concerns for specific events in the list. jamason 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    You are a wikipedian like all of us, you can come with proposals for adding relevant events. But don't pretend we can not add the events in the article only because you don't have time to check.--MariusM 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Key players

There are four key players in the conflict. The actions of all four need to be mentioned in the timeline before it is introduced into the mainspace to provide an objective picture:

  1. The Moldovan Popular Front and its activists. They are responsible for organizing the demonstrations, proposing the language law, sending armed volunteers to the wayward parts of the country and generally creating the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty among the non-Moldovan population that fueled the separatist sentiments*.
    Currently no info, except for disbanding.
  2. The Moldovan Government, principally Mircea Snegur, who capitalized on the rise of nationalism and, by making promises and later, concessions to the nationalists, secured the Presidential seat for himself**.
    Currently no info.
  3. The OSTK, headed by Igor Smirnov, who, likewise capitalized on the fears of the populace and came to power.
    Currently, the exclusive focus of the timeline.
  4. The 14th Army, that "supplied" the separatists and later intervened to stop the war.
    The mention is more or less given.

Additionally, the defunct Soviet and (later) Russian government played a notable role, but before the war they mostly limited themselves to issuing orders and notes to which nobody really paid any serious attention.

(*) In fact, the adopted version of the language law was rather soft (as compared to the Baltic states, for example). It was the frontists' activities throughout Moldova (like the "Statue of Stefan's bride" Lari, Druc and others), that caused the minority ethnics to fear for their future.

(**) He disposed of the MPF when it became a threat to his power (sort of reminiscent of Ion Antonescu and his relations with the Iron Guard back in 1940), demanding unification with Romania. Nevertheless, the damage was already done. --Illythr 23:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

End date

Besides rounding out the list as Illythr suggests above, we might also think about bringing in events that occurred during the war as well — particularly since they are no longer "key" to precipitating the conflict
The only problem is what to call such a list. "Timeline of Events" is fine but dull. I actually like the title that Muntean and Ciubotaru give the list in their book (with a slight alteration) on which MariusM originally based this addition: "Destabilization of the situation in Transnistria, a chronology of events (1988-1992)." jamason 15:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Or simply "Timeline of the Transnistrian conflict". --Illythr 21:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Language law and MPF

The source (judging by the timeline presented) is highly biased, ignoring many of the inconvenient key events (protests against the language law, firings after its implementation, refusal of Moldovan authorities to grant Russian official status anywhere in the Republic, the events described in the Cocieri-Dubăsari area), etc . I also have to say that the news media in Chisinau are bilingual with the exception of explicitly nationalist sources like Flux, Ţara or Literatura si Artǎ. I wouldn't consider those sources neutral or accurate. --Illythr 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you consider that Moldovan authorities had an obligation to grant Russian official status. I don't agree with this. Regarding firings, I know that language law tell about a 5 years period in which Russian speakers have time to learn Romanian. Afterwards, the examinations of Russian speakers was dropped anyway. What firings are you talking about, as result of the law? Any incompetent Russian which lost his position is claiming national persecution. BTW, "Ţara" did have a Russian-language edition at begining, MPF did try a dialogue with Russian speakers. Sorry that Russians were not interested to buy this Russian-language newspaper and it had to stop for economic reasons.--MariusM 06:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
What I think is totally irrelevant. This was a proposed solution to the crisis that the Moldovan government refused. The wave of firings came immediately after the passing of the law and was punitive action against strikes that occurred before. All those Russians became "incompetent" within a month. The "dialogue" with Russian speakers initiated by the MPF was mostly in the form "will the occupants leave by themselves or do we have to show them the way?" until after the war, when the popular support for the MPF had all but vanished.
As you are from Chişinău I supposed you lived in Chişinău also during 1988-1992 (please confirm) and probably you have more information than me about the events (I wonder how old were you at that time). My information are only from Moldovan press which I followed at that time. However, as the majority of Russians from Moldova, you took your information on MPF only from Russian-language press and I think you have a distorted image. MPF organised demonstrations and pushed for language law, but this is not a criminal fact, only a democratic right. The law was "soft", as you notice, compared with the Baltic versions. No Russian was fired as result of this law, as it contained a 5-years period in which all Russian-speakers can learn Romanian. Afterwards even this 5 years period was dropped. You tell now that firings occured as result of punitive actions against strikes - is a little bit different story. Language law has nothing to do with firings. MPF also has nothing to do with firings - I quote your words: "All those Russians became incompetent in a month". Language law was adopted in August 1989, that means firings happened in September 1989 - when MPF was in oposition! The Moldovan government was made by Communist party (I think Ivan Calin was prime-minister) and MPF was the main opponent of Communist party. In November, several MPF activists were arrested and, as consequence, MPF supporters attacked the building of Moldovan Ministry of Interior (led by Vladimir Voronin) - this was the event that lead to the dissmissal of Simion Grosu from the head of Moldovan Communist Party and his replacement with Petru Lucinski. Until Simion Grosu lead the Communist Party the opposition between Popular Front and Communist party was serious, and November events are showing that. For Simion Grosu, MPF was the main enemy, and MPF was the cause of the end of his political career. Why you blame MPF for things that happened during the government of Communist party, when Communist party was lead by Grosu? MPF was part of the government only in 1990, when Mircea Druc became prime-minister, and even then was not an MPF-only government, but a coalition government. Deputy prime-minister was Andrei Sangheli. In May 1991 MPF government was dissmissed. MPF can have responsibility for things that happened in Moldova during Druc government, not before and not after! They were in strong opposition to the government in September 1989, when firing of Russian speakers occured, per your original research, and they were also in opposition in 1992, during the War of Transnistria. Why is everything blamed on MPF when it didn't had the political power? Those who had political power in Moldova, both in 1989 and in 1992, considered rightly that MPF is the main danger for their political power. After Druc dissmissal, Snegur passed an electoral law that didn't allow Druc to compete for December 1991 presidential elections. A requirement for a minimum period of living in Moldova prior to candidacy was imposed, specially designed to stop Druc (who spent most of his life in Leningrad and Moscow, returned in Moldova only in late 1989 or early 1990, don't know exactly). There is an opinion that War of Transnistria was started by Snegur not to destroy Transnistrian separatism, but to destroy MPF. Some statements of Ilie Ilaşcu are suggesting this interpretation.--MariusM 22:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

An important thing that Illythr is talking about is "the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty" among Russian speakers. He is blaming for that Moldovan Popular Front, mainly Lari (a women writer, now living in Romania) and Druc. In the case of Mircea Druc, prime minister in 1990, the accusation is strange: He was not even present in Moldova during events of 1988-1989, he can not be the cause of the fear of Russian speakers which entered in strike in August-September 1989. When he was prime-minister, he acted against Transnistrian separatism. During his government, 3 people died in Transnistria. After he was dissmissed, there were 1000 deaths. During Grosu, Communist Party organised an intensive propagandistic campaign against MPF and Moldovan national movement. Exactly this campaign, which portrayed national demands of Moldovans as extremist, fascist etc., was responsible for the atmosphere of fear and uncertainity that Russian speakers had regarding Moldovan national movement - Illythr is a representative example. Normal and, in fact, "soft" demands - as Illythr noticed comparing Moldovan language law with Baltic similar laws, were considered extremist by Russian speakers, as they were told to consider so by Communist party propaganda in 1987-August 1989. In August 1989 there were 100000 strikers against language law (according jamason's research) but also 500000 people demanding the law in the biggest political meeting that ever took place in Moldova (I took also jamason's number). Communist government stopped the circulation of buses between several cities and Chişinău, but people were coming on foot to ask for language law! Ignoring the opinion of 500000 people was not a realistic option. Mircea Snegur have no responsibility for the creation and development of Moldovan national movement, he only saw the opportunity of using it for his political career. We can compare the situation in Moldova with the situation in baltic states, where war was avoided exactly because Communist party was not as much opposed against national demands as in Moldova, during Grosu's period. Fear and uncertainity among Russian speakers was deliberately created by Moldovan Communist Party propaganda, in the attempt of Communist leaders from the time of stagnation to keep the political power. Some of those Communist leaders switch the camp in 1989 when they saw the power of national movement.--MariusM 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, an interesting perspective. So, the frontists blamed their failures on the Communists and Snegur. They might've been correct, actually. Snegur could've indeed started the war to get rid of the MPF, but was he the one to send those volunteers into Gagauzia and Transnistria to sow peace and reconciliation? ;-)
Other than spending most of 1988 and two months of 1992 outside the country, I was there for the most part of that time. Born, raised and all that. At the time I was quite young and didn't immediately understand the sudden hostility towards me and my family. My information on the war, as well as the situation in other parts of Moldova may come from different sources, but the events in Kishinev I remember myself. A significant part of the information I had acquired directly from the streets or TV broadcasts.
The law was actually found to be in violation of the Soviet Constitution, but I never claimed that it was criminal - its proposal and adoption was one of the key issues that led to the conflict and later, war. That is why it must be highlighted - after all, it doesn't really matter if it was discriminatory (well, it actually denied a 15%+ minority to have their native language official (many Ukrainians, Jews and even some Moldovans spoke Russian as a native language; the Ru speakers' concentration was even greater in Transnistria)) - only that that it was one of the official reasons for secession. The firings were also the result of the abuse of that law, as well as numerous other pretexts (the strike was condemned by the central Soviet, after all).
I am blaming all nationalist activists of the time (you say Dabija wasn't a Front member, right?), those who were rousing the crowds as well as those writing inflammatory articles clearly showing the people, who their enemy is (Jews were also hit by this, but they were already departing for Israel en masse). I mentioned only Lari, because I personally heard her hysterical screaming on the central square.
Atmosphere: I'm afraid you don't understand the situation of the time. There was no need to organise a propaganda campaign - you only needed to listen what the people in the streets were talking,shouting,chanting about. You can believe me that when there's a huge crowd shouting things like "Down with Russian occupation!"(that's a rather moderate slogan, BTW) in the central square, there's going to be quite a lot of fear and uncertainty about what they might do next, especially with people whispering around you things like that and that guy getting fired for nothing or beaten up in the streets for speaking Russian. There were even pogroms. Nothing like the earlier Kishinev pogrom, of course - some editorial office was burned down (Molodezhnaya Gazeta, or something like this, never read it), the Jewish cemetery was vandalized, some riots here and there (at least that's all I can remember) - but quite enough to keep people on their toes. (This is my POV and OR, I don't expect any of this to be inserted into the mainspace until I happen to find some sort of a source to support it; still the role of the Front and other nationalists in the whole mess should be obvious even to its sympatizers.)
The demands certainly appeared extreme to those who had lived most or all of their life in the MSSR and knew only one language - Russian. For the elderly, it was especially hard, because it was vitually impossible to learn a second language at 60+ and too late to start a new life elsewhere. The situation eventually calmed down after 1994, but in 1989-1991 it seemed certain that the frontists will win and that we'll become a province of Romania within a few years.
Opinion: Aw, come on, don't you know that in a country like the MSSR people were used to have their opinion given to them by someone else, who knows better? The play on ethnic grievances is as ancient as the concept of ethnicity itself. It was relatively fresh in the MSSR, and the "superior" behavior of many Russians did annoy a lot of people, so they bit the bait and followed the nationalists in hopes of a better life. As usual. Later, when the economy plunged, these people realized that "bread doesn't grow on hatred" and I even heard ethnic Moldovans themselves saying "Now we have our own tongue, but nothing to put on it" (most likely, such neat phrases didn't spring up naturally, too).
Baltic states: The Russian population was not as well organized (both politically and geographically) and had no 14th army to back them up. Besides, the switch, while much harsher occured much more smoothly there. The now Ukrainian Crimea is another interesting example, where a similar situation didn't lead to bloodshed and separation.

PS: I'd like to point out that these walls of text are uncomfortable (and probably uninteresting) to read for the other users here, so I suggest to move this discussion to either your or my talk page, with a minimal summary of what is directly relevant to the actual article here. --Illythr 02:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Check this source that we have in the article. It provides numerous other key events that preceded the war and is not as one-sided, as yours. --Illythr 02:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Language law: Re: The law was actually found to be in violation of the Soviet Constitution (Illythr). Who found this? I doubt, as even before perestroika in 3 Soviet Republics (Armenia, Azerbadjan and Georgia) local language was official. This is only misleading propaganda that the forces of stagnation spread among Russian speakers in Moldova. Re: For the elderly, it was especially hard, because it was vitually impossible to learn a second language at 60+ (Illythr). No 60+ person needed to learn the language, nowhere was written the need to know the language to take your pension. In fact, only for those in management position was prescribed in the law the necesity of knowing the language, and this only after 5 years. Free classes for studying the state language were organised. However, as of 2006, in the Moldovan government there are still 5 persons who don't speak the state language, including the minister of reintegration, the main person from the Moldovan government who is dealing with Transnistrian issues [2].--MariusM 14:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Volunteers. Why Transnistrian volunteers, recruited in all parts of Russia (cossacks) are O.K. and Moldovan volunteers are not? Moldovan volunteers were a reaction at the formation of Transnistrian and Gagauzian paramilitary groups.--MariusM 14:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for interrupting - The Cossack volunteers weren't recruited. They came to Transnistria on their own, and they were very few. Most sources put their number at less than 1,000. The Moldovan "volunteers" are estimated at between 10,000 to 20,000 depending on sources. They were only volunteers in name. In reality, they were paid contract soldiers. They were given arms and uniforms by the government of Moldova. They were called "volunteers" in order to skirt the Soviet ban on union republics creating their own armed formations. Since the Soviet Union still had an Army (the 14th) and Interior Ministry troops (national guard-like) in Moldova at the time, it was necessary to play with words and camouflage these troops as volunteers. - Mauco 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Re: inflammatory articles clearly showing the people, who their enemy is (Jews were also hit by this) (Illythr). It will be good to have examples of such inflamatory articles, my guess is that you didn't read in Moldovan language at that time, you base your feelings only from what Russian-language press was telling about Russian-eaters MPF activists. "Down with Russian occupation" was indeed a slogan of the time, but not only in Moldova, in Baltic states also. Why in Moldova such slogans became casus beli and in Baltic states not? Because in Moldova Communist Party chose to oppose national revival at early stage and used such slogans to develop fears among Russian speakers, while Baltic Communist parties were more tolerant, and Russians there were explained that indeed in 1940 it was an occupation, not an eliberation what Soviet Army did. In Narva region of Estonia, with more than 90% Russian population, situated imediatelly near Russian border, autonomy/separatist/irredentist movement failed without a war, while in Transnistria, with only 30% Russians, far from Russian border, we had a bloody war and problems still not solved.--MariusM 14:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Discrimination against Russians: Comparing with the percentage of Russians in total population, the percentage of Russians in management positions was higher in the entire history of MSSR (imediately after the war, the number of bessarabians in the leadership (Central Comitee) of Moldovan Comunist Party was zero; it started to grow smoothly in the 70's). Starting with perestroika, people were allowed to discuss such things, which was disliked by Russian speakers. However, this was only a normal thing when you have free speech. In USA, whites are not going hysterical because some studies are published showing that blacks were less represented in management positions.--MariusM 14:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Economic disaster: Not a Moldovan only phenomenon, Russia also had its recession. To be notice that MPF was not in power when it happened, it can not be blamed for people who have "nothing to put on the tongue".--MariusM 14:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Language law: On November 10, 1989 the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. However, you may be right - the decree was rather vaguelly named "On the unconstitutionality of certain legislative acts of the Union Republics", concerning the national laws of those republics. I was not able to find the decree itself, but indirect evidence[3] suggests that it referred only to the Baltic countries and Azerbaijan. Nevertheless, the law was used as a powerful propaganda weapon by both nationalists and separatists, serving as a major stumbling block in the whole conflict. The quality of most Romanian classes sucks even today (like you can get anything good for free), back then it was awful. Also, to know that the law was not that bad you had to actually read it, not have it intrepreted to you by the gleeful nationalists, citing it as the first step to freedom from Russian oppression or the separatists, claiming it to be a base violation of human rights.
  • Volunteers: Were there actually paramilitary groups in Gagauzia, aside from its own police force? Anyway, the volunteers were called up by the MPF as early as 1990 and directly participated in the conflict before and during the war. Nevertheless, there's not a word about them in the timeline, whereas the Cossacks are mentioned quite extensively. Weird, huh?
  • inflammatory articles: Not relevant, posted on MariusM's talk page.
  • Russian language press: Note that at the time, even the Russian language press was heavily biased - The Russian TV channels were closed as well as many Russian newspapers.
  • Discrimination against Russians: Freely discussing the situation is one thing. Shouting "Chemodan, vokzal, Rossiya!" (etc) in the streets is another. In USA the white/black situation did not reverse within several years. In fact, it never did.
  • Economic disaster: The MPF &Co had dropped the snowball at the top of the mountain. That Snegur was in charge when the avalanche began , makes him responsible as well. Come on, even if we ignore the whole conflict, the economic decline was still a direct result of the independence of Moldova. The MPF et al were the main drive towards in (until and partly during Snegur's rule).
  • Baltic states: Marius, your naive view on the issue is stunning. Do you honestly think that once the Russians were explained, that because the 1940 and 1944 events were an occupation and that because of this they are no longer welcome as citizens in their own country, those Russians "understood" and agreed to become second-class citizens as penance for crimes their (grand)parents have allegedly commited?

Anyhow this is getting off topic. I am not proposing to add text that blames any party in the conflict. My intention is to ensure that all involved parties and their respective actions are mentioned. My proposal is to rework the timeline entries to only critical events (clashes, decrees...) highligting all sides of the conflict. As the Transnistrian side is already covered in meticulous detail, I intend to balance the timeline with input from these (Russian) sources On national minorities in Moldova(1992, translation needed) and Moldova/Transdnestr section of the book (although it focuses mostly on post-war peace-keeping activities of the Russian forces). Any input from jamason or anyone else able to present a good source is particularly welcome at this point. --Illythr 00:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Would that include me? I have access to a good deal of old Associated Press articles and stuff like that from the period. Most of it is 1992, but some of it is earlier. I can probably also find other research. I will try to focus on NON-Russian sources so MariusM can check them, too, without the need for a translator. But if Russian sources are OK, there is also the "White Book" on the War of Transnistria which Regnum.ru published in 2006. It is biased to the PMR side, but only in the way that it presents the material, juxtaposes the photos, etc. None of the actual/factual statements are untrue. Nor does it have any of the hyperbole of the text by Muntean and Ciubotaru. - Mauco 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Illythr, you seem to be on the right track with the Memorial Human Rights Center reports, though they are limited in time period. Mauco will probably be able to come up with some good stuff from the AP. The problem that I've run into in my own experience with period news media is that there is so much to go through, you end up looking at dates on which you already know something happened, thereby missing events you don't know of. Someday soon I'd like to do coding of events data (a political science technique to avoid bias/blank spots--let's see, is there a wikipedia article? Ummmmm....sort of: coding it's no. 5; I guess no one has gotten around to creating it yet). It's hard for me to suggest sources for this timeline, though, since I'm somewhat old school in the sense that I mostly use hard copies (almost all of the internet sources I am aware of are the suggestions of either Mauco or MariusM). If you have access to library and inter-library loan, I would maybe suggest two English-language (so that MariusM can check citations) academic works:
Kaufman, Stuart J. Modern Hatreds: the Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. New York: Cornell University Press, 2001.
King, Charles. The Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and the Politics of Culture. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 2000.
Both of these have a chapter on the conflict with a narrative that hits some of the highlights you mention above. jamason 17:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Illythr wrote: "My proposal is to rework the timeline entries to only critical events (clashes, decrees...) highligting all sides of the conflict." I fully agree. Right now, there are a lot of non-critical events. These can safely be removed without losing anything that isn't crucial to understanding the events leading to war. - Mauco 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe we should not delete events from timetable, but add other events from other sources. We will not put all events in main Transnistria article, but this is a secondary article where details can stay.--MariusM 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete the unimportant events. When possible, add them to other articles. For instance, the fact that Igor Smirnov was made an honorary Cossack really has no bearing on the war whatsoever (he never fought in a Cossack regiment). It could be added to the Igor Smirnov article, however. - Mauco 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, while I think that adding is better than deleting, the timeline is already quite large, and when we start adding more events, it'll get bloated. Some entries are also written in a very POV way. Fire opened at demonstrants? How many dead, then? Injured? Or did they shoot up in the air or above heads? Sorry, a bit busy right now, more later. To William: yes any good sources would be welcome. The better the quality, the, well, better! :-) --Illythr 00:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

New source

Found this one: 5. "Dynamics of the Moldova Trans-Dniester ethnic conflict (late 1980s to early 1990s)" on the site of the United Nations University. Looks good so far. Neutral, sourced, no political agenda detected. Reading it now... --Illythr 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please come with proposals to include in the timeline.--MariusM 23:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a total revamping in mind. It'll take lots of time, though. In the meantime, I'd like you to comment on the source. It contradicts several of your statements, especially concerning the MPF and its pre-war role and activities. --Illythr 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I just read section 2 of that sourse, and here are a few point I found:
  • Under the terms of the Paris Treaty of 1856, Romania received southern Bessarabia ...
  • Sfatul Tserij
  • The Soviet government did not recognize the legitimacy of the inclusion of Bessarabia into Romania but says nothing about the rest of the world, as if Bessarabia were rightfully a Russian possession.
  • the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (MASSR) was created as a national-territorial unit within the Ukrainian SSR, a Soviet protest against the recovery of Bessarabia by Romania It is like saying USA set in 2002 the Iraki government in exile as a protest to Saddam being in power. The Iraki exile government was set with the aim of ousting Saddam from power. MSSR was set with the aim of occupying Bessarabia in the future.
  • which included five western districts of the abrogated MASSR within the Ukraine (Grigoriopol, Kamenka, Rybnitsy, Slobodzeja, and Tyraspol districts) Dubasari was also a district from 1924.
  • from that text an outsider would wrongfully conclude that Bender is on the left-side of the river, and that localities have Russian names + spelled incorrectly even in Russian
  • A similar situation is found regarding the ethnic distribution of the population in Southern Moldova, where the Gaganz, a Christian Turkish group which migrated to Bessarabia from Bulgaria in the early nineteenth century, predominate. Not true, the south of Moldova has much more population than UTA Gagauzia only, and Moldovans predominate. It should have said "a small area in the south".
By omitting a thing here and there, or saying ceveral false things, which separetly are not of big importance, it is easy to create a wrong general impression to an outsider. So, it depend how you want to use it as a sourse. Everything you would take from section 2, except these objections above, can be taken and this sourse can be given. But it someone would try to use this sourse to argument for the things I pointed above, then I would say the sourse coppied itself from biased sourses.
I read quickly section 3, also, and that seems better. Except for the fact that all names are in Russian, I don't see any particular objection to use that section as a sourse. I will read it again, though, but apparently things are fine. I skipped quickly throught the rest of this sourse, and it seems a good sourse for the events. The comments might be at points off, but the factuality seems all right. You did found a good sourse. Now you'll have to come forward with proposals based on it, for example things to include in the timeline. :Dc76 03:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I intended to use sections 3 through 9, actually. Section 2 is a secondary target to enhance what is missing from the "Historic background" section (and a lot is missing there, btw).
The names can be fixed. The part about Soviet government gives the position of the Soviet govt and its reasons for future actions (Bessarabia was previously a Russian territory, after all). The protest part was the official reason, I understand (probably taken from a Soviet source) - it can be omitted here anyway. The Bendery problem can be easily be clarified.
There is also a "non-apparently-Russian" POV problem in the text "Left-bank Moldova, however, became a Ukrainian possession." It never ceased to be. This can be easily misunderstood, unless "modern Moldova" is considered. But this belongs to the history of Transnistria and Moldova articles anyway. --Illythr 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Smirnov, honorary cossack

Mauco deleted "*21 December 1991: Igor Smirnov is ellected honorary cossack.". I believe is worth to mention this fact (which is taking only one line), because later PMR propaganda, after cossacks were involved in many abuses, tried to distance Smirnov from cossacks. Even in jamason thesis (page 105) is quoted a declaration of Smirnov from June 1992 distancing himself from cossacks. A propagandistic declaration in my opinion, and election of Smirnov as honorary cossack shows the real love story between Smirnov and cossacks. Vlad Grecu, the writer of "O viziune din focarul conflictului de la Dubăsari", is telling that his own apartment from Dubăsari was given by local authorities to a cossack, after the war. Facts like this are showing that cossack involvement was wellcome by transnistrian authorities.--MariusM 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This: In late February hundreds of Cossacks from the Don region of Russia began to arrive in left-bank Moldova in response to appeals made by the Trans-Dniestrians to their Russian ethnic brethren. Their arrival served to heighten ethnic tensions. Soon afterwards, groups of Romanian volunteers were reported arriving in right-bank Moldova expressing their solidarity with the Moldovans in the struggles against separatists (KU, 2 March 1992; IZ, 5 March 1992), taken fron the above source, as well as In addition, there were 5,000-6,000 volunteers[citation needed] who came forward after an appeal was made on Russian television for fighters to go to Transnistria to support the cause, already present in "Military strength" section, demonstrate quite clearly that the Cossack involvement was welcomed by Transnistrian authorities, because they had issued a call to help which the Cossacks answered. These facts also state this directly, making the honorary Cossack point redundant. It's worth including into the article on Smirnov, though.
The problem is that, if you had checked the source I found, you can see that the timeline there is HUGE and pretty much everything looks important. So, if I just go ahead and add everything (the proper way, not c/p), the size of this article will probably double. In fact, it may warrant the creation of a new article, Timeline of the War of Transnistria, sort of like this one. This will also mean that all the minor/obscure incidents will have to go or be degraded to footnotes to make room for the larger scale events. Starting with the formation of the MPF in the summer of 1988, it'll contain some fifty-plus events, most of them larger than one line. --Illythr 01:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The honorary Cossack appointment, while true, wasn't really relevant to the outcome of the war or even to how the war was conducted. If anything, the Cossacks had a marginal influence compared to the other four players: Romania, Moldova, PMR and Russia. It is not the only minor/marginal event that has to be removed from the timeline, of course. The timeline ought to focus on what is important for an encyclopedia. That way, we actually help our readers and future scholars of this subject. - Mauco 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"in response to appeals made by the Trans-Dniestrians to their Russian ethnic brethren": I'm curious who authored the appeals, in what form they were delivered and how they were phrased. It would take me a long time before I would be able to check the citation to see what the articles in Kuranty and Izvestiia actually say (if they even specify), but if anyone comes across this information, I would be happy to see it. My guess is that it was the Black Sea Cossack leadership (Vitalii Bondarchuk and Aleksandr Kucher) that issued any appeals to other Cossack groups and not the PMR government directly. jamason 02:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with Mauco's opinion that cossack influence was marginal. They had an important role, they were the most enthuziastic fighters for PMR. Even the start of the war - attack on Dubossary police - was done by cossacks (see Grecu). In the same time I believe Romania's role was marginal. I saw once at a private Romanian television a comment that Romania supplied weapons to Moldova in 1992 (they said that it was bad quality, half of the grenades didn't explode, probabily old material prepared for scrap from Romanian military depots, good for our Moldovan brothers). The "groups of Romanian volunteers" are a hoax of Russian propaganda. No organisation in Romania organised volunteers for Transnistria war, there were only few journalists which went there. At most, there were few individuals which went to Transnistria on their own. I don't know who signed the appeal to cossacks published in Russian press (BTW, no similar appeal in Romanian press), however even if it was signed by cossack leadership this is not excluding the posibility of cossack leadership acting at the request of PMR leadership. After they arrived in Transnistria, cossacks received support from PMR (like housing). We should keep in the article the apointment of Smirnov as honorary cossack in order to help our readers and future scholars to avoid current misleading revisionist propaganda which claim that cossacks acted without consent of PMR leadership.--MariusM 12:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
My point is that the appointment of Smirnov as honorary cossack was marginal. The rest can be debated. The sentence does not say (or even imply) anywhere that cossacks acted without consent of PMR leadership. That is beyond the point. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. That is beyond the very specific point: Is an entry like this - and many other minuscule details like it - really relevant for the overall timeline? Does it add to the quality of the article or does it detract from it? - Mauco 13:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Separate timeline article

I would not mind a separate timeline article. I would help MariusM develop it. At the same time, we can keep the current timeline section but trim it. Using the principle "summary here, details there." The detailed timeline article could have all the major AND minor items. The summary, as a section within this War of Transnistria, would have just major offensives, ceasefire agreements, generally cited important dates. - Mauco 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is already a secondary article of History of Transnistria, which is a secondary article of Transnistria. Our readers usually don't look in hundreds of article to understand a subject, this is why I object creating an other secondary article. Anyhow we have contents, readers can chose if they want not to read a chapter.--MariusM 13:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why we can't do this, if we already do it for the Israel-Lebanon war (with a timeline as a subset of a war which is itself part of history, and the overall articles). But if you insist that a separately timeline is inappropriate, then in that case, trim the timeline. Include only what really matters. You can't have it both ways. - Mauco 13:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe actually we need to add some events in the timeline, not to delete. I am waiting for your or Illythr proposals. Please notice that the formar headline of timeline section was changed, we are not pretending anymore that those events were "key" for preparation of the war.--MariusM 21:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
So, no trim at all? The non-events that have no relevance to the war should stay? You've got to be kidding. And I also think that you are alone on this point. Please see what all the other currently active editors of this page feel about it. - Mauco 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Might we revisit the suggestion of a separate timeline article? I am convinced that the pros outweigh the cons, and really don't buy the objections stated here by only one single editor. Let us try it, please. - Mauco 23:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

tag

I think it should be written more clearly - currently it's even hard to understand whether PMR's forces were bigger or smaller than Moldova's. Ideally some source should be found to reference this.

ps. Didn't Moldovan forces try to take Bendery and Dubossary? Why was that sentence removed then? Alæxis¿question? 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove any sentence, I only editted the existing ones. And this particular one was not me to add in the first place. I have nothing against rewritting for clarity. The troop strength was approximately the same, and there is a sourse in the text. But out of 25,000 potentially ready on each side, not so many were engaged in actual fighting. In fact a tiny minority was. About Dubasari, it started when Transnistrian forces tried to take control of the villages of Cosnita and Cocieri, which only had small police forces inside initially (in each cca 50 people facing 600 attacking force; but the former knew the ground, b/c lived in those villages). After that more came from each side. Later on, Dubasari was taken 2 times, but was not held. (In war plus/minus 3-4 km is not such a difficult thing if there are no tranches.) The Moldovan forces aim was not to "take" any city, but to disarm the troops of the Transnistrian regime and send them home.

Similar in Tighina. The city had both police and a small militsia force before fighting in the city errupted. The locals would call one of them, which one they wanted, if they needed assistance, and there was an unwriten rule: who's called - goes, the other abstains. But that was mostly the police that was called, b/c almost all commissioned officers remained in police, and those that sware allegeance to Smirnov were few. The fighting was based on the fact that Cossacks and PMR guardsmen wanted to toake over the police building. Two attacks were repelled in April and May. Then on 19 June was the third attack on the police station. Three hours into the attack, Moldovan forces orderd the army into the city. One battalion of 30+ BTR from the south, special forces usits from center-north, and Varnita villagers organized as volonteers from north (but the latter were of little use). In the city were 200 policement + the above mentioned 1000-1500 came on 19 and 20 August. On the other side, militsia were around 100, guardsmen and cossacks around 1500. 800 fleed into the fortress, where a brigade of the 14 army was dislocated, and the rest across the Dniester, or into the city council building (200 meters from the police building) or into guardsmen training and housing site, which was latter took by Moldovans. Then, on 20th was attempt to enter the city with tanks and infantry of the 14th army, unsuccessful. Then Rutskoi came on Russian TV and ordered 14th army to brake through, so on morning 21 June 1992 they sent 4, then 9 tanks + infantry. the tanks broke through, but the infantry was retained. However, at that point, the 14th army unit in the fortress (500 m from the bridge) was ordered to allow the 800 to open fire into the back of the Moldovan forces on the bridge. Because of that, Moldovan forces retreated about 8 city blocks by 8 city blocks, and 2,000+ Transnistrian guradsmen+cossack+14th army solders were let into this central part, and their tanks were also inside there. Then the line stabilized for 1 month, but every day there was shoutings, and because it was impossible to dig trenches in the streets, it wasn't very solid line (and more people came from Tiraspol to try to brake it, so it went quite up in numbers). Then Lebed forced Smirnov to sign ceese fire. In all military textbooks, it is a classical attack with tanks and infantry over a bridge in order to take a position held by an adversary without anti tank artilery, but able to take on tanks from close distance. There is even a video game with this subject: you can chose to play which side you wants. :-) So, the actual attack on the city (the military battle to which is refered) was from Tiraspol, not from Chisinau. :Dc76 18:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor things

Sorry, I didn't notice the following words (about the UN) when trying to figure out what accetion was (something to do with the verb accede, for example:) ) and just changed it to creation.

Don't worry, no problem.:Dc76 12:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Notice the word tendency/tendencies used in two consecutive sentences. Let's replace it with trends the second time.

sure, no problem :Dc76 12:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally immigration can only happen between countries. Moldova wasn't the separate country in the Soviet times, hence - no immigration. Alæxis¿question? 19:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

O.K. for me if you want to use "trend". I don't see the point with immigration (Moldova was a separate republic and immigration can happen also between different regions IMHO, but if you like change it with "migration".--MariusM 19:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
we can say "migration from other Soviet republics" and solve the problem. Just currious, those that came to Britain from Hong Kong before 1997, and from Britain to HK were immigration or not?Dc76 12:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
That'd solve the problem. Alæxis¿question? 13:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no mentioning what ROG stands for - Russian Operational Group. Comparing the text with http://www.transdniester.com/transdniester-facts/war.html who copied without citation? The other text explains what ROG means...--84.56.231.173 (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Involvement of Romania

The way this subsection is currently formulated is inappropriate. The source is credible and academic, furthermore it is not stated as an opinion, other sources are cited to back up the author's claim. I want to reformulate this sections as follows,

During the conflict Romania provided limited military support to Moldova by supplying weaponry, ammunition, and armed vehicles, sending military advisers and training Moldovan military and police forces. Volunteers from Romania fought on Moldova's side.

Sotnik (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The source is not credible, is just Russian propaganda. With the exception of supplying some ammunition, there was no Romanian involvement.--MariusM (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, the source not being on-line, I can not verify was it is actually written there.--MariusM (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, in fact, this source is online, you can find it in google books. In any case, this is an academic book, published by a respected university, if you want to dispute this fact (and it is a fact) show me academic sources. Sotnik (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That book, written by a Russian author, is quoting "data from the headquarters of the 14th Army". Russian 14th Army was trying to justify its own involvement in the conflict blaming Romania. Also is quoted a delegation of an unknown Frankfurt-based "International society for the Defence of Human Rights" which "claimed to have received absolute proof that Romania was giving full support to the government of Kishinev, including weaponry, ammunition and armed vehicles". The claims regarding that "Moldovan government was using Romanian militarry advisers and security forces" were made by the head of US office of this Society (not by the delegation). I would like to see the report of this Society (if it is a serious organisation it should have a website). The claims about Romanian military advisers and security forces are conflicting with the reports of people from Moldovan forces who fought in the war and published afterwards their memoirs, none are talking about militarry personel from Romania, while everybody is talking about the involvement of cossacks and 14th Army. Some authors are even blaming Romania for lack of support. However, I saw a TV show in Romania where it was discussed that Romania send grenades to Moldova (confirmation for ammunitions), and there were comments that it was old material from Romanian Army depots which often wasn't functioning.--MariusM (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
We have already discussed this, actually. If you allow me to quote myself:

I think that it was International Society for Human Rights that made this report. I don't think there are two human rights organisations with similar names located in Frankfurt ) There is already an article about them in Wikipedia.

--- Alæxis¿question? 15:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You discussed, but not with me, I wasn't part of that discussion. Anyhow, thanks for info.--MariusM (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
1) It doesn't matter who the author is, he is a respected and published scholar, this isn't Nazi Germany where you get to dismiss scholarly work because of the author's ethnicity.
2) The book is written by a number of authors and some of them are American, it just so happens that the following chapter is commentary of an American scholar and he certainly does not dismiss anything presented. From the conclusion, "Ozhiganov's analysis is so valuable precisely because he reminds us of the complexity of the Transdniester situation. The conflict is not a simple case of Russian meddling and Moldovan victimization." Feel free to read trough that chapter if you wish.
3) I'm presenting an academic source, if you wish to disprove it, I want to see sources.
4) Any academic source is clearly going to outweighing your anecdotal evidence (which you don't even provide btw, I can say I saw all kinds of TV shows, so what). If you are talking about combat memoirs however, I have read a few that mentions Romanian weapons and volunteers. Unlike you I can actually site one. "Русская сотня. Наши в Сербии" by Mikhаil Polikarpov, about volunteers that fought in PMR and later in Yugoslavia.
5) The bottom line is, I have a source and you refuse to provide anything other then your opinions. I am not adding anything radical (I'm specifically chose to use the phrase 'limited military support'). Unless you have sources to present I'm going to make my change. If you wish, open an arbitration case.
Sotnik (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Bottom line is: Your source is already in the article. It is indeed mentioned that it is written by a Russian, this is 100% correct, and nobody is dismissing the source because of the ethnicity of the author, the readers can judge themselves. I don't know what are the reasons of your unhappiness.--MariusM (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That's beyond ridiculous and obviously not NPOV. There are all kinds of facts that are sourced from weaker sources in this article (and much of wikipedia for that matter) and none of them are prefaced in any such way. Moreover, this is a fact, not an opinion expressed by the author. I'm making my change, file for an arbitration case if you want. Sotnik (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the current version as well. To be exact we'd have to write something like "according to ISHR (as is written in a book by a Russian analyst and published in Cambridge) ...". Of course this is an encyclopaedia and we can't do this (at list in the text itself) so I'd propose to remove such a preface. Alæxis¿question? 05:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The previous phrasing "According to a top Russian analysts/scholar in ethno-political conflicts in the former Soviet Union" is a good description of the source. Nothing derogatorry here. We can not say "according to ISHR" as long as on the website of ISHR there is not such report. In the book is written that it was a delegation of ISHR, however this delegation didn't talk about militarry personel from Romania. Separately, the head of the US office of ISHR claimed that "Moldovan government was using Romanian militarry advisers and security forces", however this was not between the findings of the delegation and we don't know if his statement is supported by ISHR. In topics like Transnistria, where propaganda is often distorting facts, telling exactly who claimed what is necesarry. While the happiness of both of you is still one of my concerns, I can not agree with the rephrasing.--MariusM (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There will be no description of the source, unless every single source for this and the PMR article is treated the same. I keep pointing this out, this isn't an opinion, this is a fact, and a well known fact I might add. I'm reverting back to my version. Sotnik (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Just so that there will not be even a shadow of a doubt (for those who are not biased in any case), I spent the time and found more sources. "In addition, just prior to the escalation in late June, Romania had begun to supply the Moldovan government with arms. The Romanians shipped about forty armored vehicles, as well as AK-47 rifles, pistols, rocket propelled grenades, and ammunition."
Arms and Ethnic Conflict, John Sislin, Frederic S. Pearson (Rowman & Littlefield, 2001), p. 99, ISBN 0847688550 Sotnik (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your source. It is talking about weapons and ammunitions supplied by Romania, not about Romanian volunteers. In fact this source is contradicting the story of the previous source, regarding militarry personel from Romania. As the majority of the studies about Transnistrian conflict, when talking about Romania's involvement are mentioning only about supply of weapons and ammunitions, not about personel, what a person from ISHR told (without clear endorsement from the organisation) and was mentioned by the Russian top analyst is an exceptional claim which need clearly to be attributed. Regarding supplies of weapons and ammunitions from Romania, I have no problem to mention them in this article, there were already mentioned, but we should add the commentary of Sislin & Pearson: "They do not seem suficient to turn the tide for the Moldovans". Also we should use in the article the charactherisation of 14th Army: "the separatists used light arms, some of which were taken from, or with the acquiescence of the former Soviet 14th Army stationed in Moldova and sympatetic to the Slavic minority".--MariusM (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The other source which is talking about Romanian volonteers - the article from Japan Times - is not a professional one, as it is talking also about Ukrainian cossacks which fought for separatists, while those were Russian cossacks from Rostov. Obviously the author has little knowledge about the subject, he is not talking about his sources.--MariusM (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The newly-formed Moldovan army lacked any kind of aircraft combat training, as all the pilots left with the 14th army. Yet MiGs were sortied. I'll try to find some more detail about that. I believe Bergman gives the location of the training facility where Romanian instructors were training Moldovan pilots. --Illythr (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The claims about Romanian volunteers can not be presented just as a fact, as other sources (like Sislin & Pearson) don't mention those volunteers, while they analysed the Romanian involvement. We should present who made the claims about Romanian volunteers, mentioning that this fact is not universally accepted.--MariusM (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That not all researchers chose to highlight that fact doesn't mean it's "not universally accepted". Why are you resisting this so much? It's not like that was a secret or something. The frontists were proud about the help they received from their "brothers from the other side of the Prut", although the exact numbers are probably buried deep within the archives. I'll look around for more sources on that. It would be nice to find some Romanian ones on this issue, too. --Illythr (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please find some sources where the frontists were proud about the help they received from their "brothers from the other side of Prut".--MariusM (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't help much here - too vague. It's not like they said what and in what quantities was received. Still, I'm positive I saw the info about the pilot instructors somewhere online... --Illythr (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Just saw your edits, some are good, but can't say that I agree on everything. They are POV from POV sources, not to mention there is no way for me to verify this (as you mentioned earlier these are not online). So, I'm going to hold you to the same standards that I've been holding myself to, you need to provide more neutral and credible sources (preferably in English or at least accessible online) and you need multiple sources for each fact you will introduce. I'm removing the edits until those conditions are met. Sotnik (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Few more thoughts and comments,
1) The Japan Times is a great source (and last time I checked it is a professional and credible paper) and it is likely more credible then any source from the parties involved.
2) Your comments about Ukrainian cossacks are nonsense, as there were definitely Ukrainian volunteers fighting on the PMR side and some have called themselves cossacks.
3) On the question of Romanian volunteers in general, I have no idea why you are resisting so hard to present this fact (I figured someone like you would be proud), but it is a well known fact. I do have more sources. For example, Приднестровский парламентарий: Причиной приднестровского конфликта стало то, что Молдавия провозгласила себя моноэтническим государством, a rather large Russian news agency.
4) The quote "They do not seem sufficient to turn the tide for the Moldovans". is an opinion of the author (as apposed to the fact that Romania provided military support). I'm not sure that we want to introduce an opinion of just one analyst, it would be better if we could find out what the consensus on this issue is. On the other hand, Moldova was beaten and beaten pretty badly, so I'm guessing this must be true to a large extent. So depending on how this is phrased I can see myself agreeing to it.
5) Regarding the 14th army, I agree that it was sympathetic to the PMR and that some elements of it, crossed over to their side. However it is erroneous to say that the 14th as a whole fought with the separatists, that's untrue. There are a number of occasions where the 14th stopped PMR from attacking Moldovan forces, esp. under Lebed.
Sotnik (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
While the involvment of cossacks is an undisputable fact, the involvment of Romanian volunteers is claimed by some sources while other (like Sislin and Pearson) don't mention it. Even the sources which claim the existence of Romanian volunteers are not giving details about it. The existence of Romanian volunteers in this conflict is debatable and obviously there was not a relevant militarry force consisted of Romanian volunteers, contrary with cossacks which played a significant role.--MariusM (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the sources, we have Wikipedia standards for them. I didn't remove your source from this article, just asked if it is available an on-line version.--MariusM (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Something does not have to be claimed by all sources to be a fact, nor do there have to be a discussion of any details for it to be relevant. The existence of Romanian volunteers is a fact and not debatable in anyway. The rest are your opinions. I don't know what your source is and I can't verify it any way, you could have made it up for all I know. You don't get to complain about other people's source and their credibility and then add in something is not verifiable by anyone.If you want to add any new sections, I want to see multiple sources, preferably in English and accessible online.Sotnik (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Russian and Ukrainian volunteers. They were presents and played some role in the conflict, likely that role was significant, although I want to see specific sources before adding any descriptions. Adding more random quotes from your unverifiable book is not an accurate representation of their involvement.Sotnik (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You agree that Russian volunteers were present and played a likely significant role but you deleted the paragraph about them. I gave you source for them, the fact that the source is in Romanian is not invalidating the source according Wikipedia standards. What you have done is censorship, you removed all mentions about Russian volunteers and introduced as a generally agreed fact the presence of Romanian volunteers. In Romania, people will be very surprised to hear that volunteers from Romania had a significant role in transnistrian conflict. Romania was leaded at that time by Ion Iliescu a likely pro-Russian person who signed in 1991 a treaty with the Soviet Union in which was mentioned that Romania has no territorial claims against Soviet Union. Romania was the only East-European country to sign such a treaty with Soviet Union in 1991, when Soviet Union lived its final days. As I told, if Romanian volunteers would have had a significant role, academic books dealing with the Transnistrian conflict like Sislin and Pearson would have had mentioned it. You give as a source a study written by a Russian and an article from Japan Times written well after the conflict, which is not an academic source. I agree to keep those source, but not to present as undeniable what they claimed.--MariusM (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it may have to do with the fact that your edits seem to focus exclusively on portraying non-Moldovan parties in a very bad light. Your latest addition on Lebed, for example, while factually correct (well, sort of, after that press conference he was forbidden to make further public appearances because of his bluntness), is remarkably derogatory, especially since he did indeed stop the war. Also, Sotnik's version included the word "limited" about the level of Romanian involvement from the outset. Perhaps you might consider following Sotnik's example and present significant additions to the article on the talk page for discussion first? --Illythr (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Russian and Ukrainian volunteers (including Cossacks) were presents, and I did not remove that from the article, that is mentioned in the infobox and in the Military strength section. I do disagree with the nonsense quotes you keep inserting, they are very clearly POV and unlike you I already provided sources that contradict them, for example,
"On February 25, 1992, the Ministry of Foreign affairs of Moldova sent a note to the Russian Federation about the variable of Russian cossacks in Transdniester.(A detachment of Ukrainian nationalists from Ukrainian self-defense organization was also set to Transdniester). Best estimates suggest that there were approximately 200-300 Cossacks volunteers in Transdniester, and although this did not constitute a significant military force, the Cossack had a considerable symbolic effect in raising the moral and enthusiasm for the cause of "defending Russian abroad"." Managing Conflict in the Former Soviet Union p 176.
Romanian sources, esp academic ones are absolutely welcomed and valued. Any descent article on a conflict needs to provide both the facts as well as different political perspectives. Your word alone on a source however is NOT, a source needs to be verifiable. Those are the rules.
On the subject of Romanian volunteers. Your opinions and argument hold no more weight then mine or that of any other editor. If you believe that there is a legitimate controversy surrounding their presence, then you need to provide a source that says they were not present. If you have such information, I will be glad to leave that sentence alone. Simply saying that some sources don't discuss this aspect of the conflict is not going to cut it, esp. since I already provided 3 very good and credible references that they were present. What most people in Romania are surprised about has zero relevance to this discussion. Also take note that unlike yourself, I'm not introducing anything controversial or trying to assign some kind of moral judgments to their presence, I am only introducing the fact that they were.
Lastly, you said, "the fact that the source is in Romanian is not invalidating the source according Wikipedia standards" and in the very same paragparh "You give as a source a study written by a Russian and an article from Japan Times written well after the conflict, which is not an academic source." I love the hypocrisy, keep it up! Sotnik (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, you love hypocrisy but I would ask you to be kind and avoid using it in debates at Wikipedia. I didn't ask to remove from the article the sources from Russian authors, only to mention that those are written by Russian authors. I quote myself: nobody is dismissing the source because of the ethnicity of the author, the readers can judge themselves. You are the one who removed accurate facts from the article only because is based on Romanian sources. My opinion was always to present both Russian and Moldovan-Romanian sources in this article and to show what kind of source it is. I will restore the info, if you like you can add "Moldovan, Romanian or Russian authors" where it is the case. I have to repeat that, despite your impression, the presence of volunteers from Romania in direct military operations is highly controversial and we should show that there are other sources analysing in details the war of Transnistria which are not mentioning them. Maybe we should wait Illythr to show us some good sources about this subject, as he promised. Illythr, I didn't portray non-Moldovan parts in a bad light, I portray them in an accurate light. The quote from Lebed is, as you say, accurate, and relevant also. It is just an (wrong) opinion that is putting Lebed in a bad light. In fact, it is putting Lebed in an accurate light - he is a hero of the Russian people who fought bravely against Moldovan fascists. Do you believe is something wrong with fighting against fascists? Anyhow, as Sotnik said, we should not make here moral judgements.--MariusM (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
...and there you go making one right away, pushing it into the article without concern for such things as consensus, constructive debate or proposing before adding. So, is there any reason other than your opinion that that particular quote is relevant? By "your latest addition" I meant the "presenting himself" part, which is, in a way, true, but highly biased against Lebed. And why did you delete the other quote, pray tell? --Illythr (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to worry, I'll kindly leave all the hypocrisy to you.
Your source was removed because it is not verifiable, nothing to do with the authorship. I have said this in every single reply to you since the beginning of this discussion, keep ignoring it if you wish, not going to get you anywhere. I am willing to find some middle ground here however. If you can back up at least some of the information you are inserting into the article with accessible sources that I can read, then I would be willing to accept your source. I have done as much for every single point I've introduced into the article.
I'm also fine with identifying the nationality/ethnicity of the author if we are talking about presenting conflicting analysis of the conflict. However, if we are presenting a fact then doing so is obviously not NPOV. In our case, if we are talking about the military role volunteers played in the conflict, that is a matter of opinion, on the other hand if we are talking about the presence of volunteers that is a matter of fact. If a fact is disputed or controversial, then there need to be sources provided that illustrate that. You are NOT an expert, or an authority, or a source to say what is highly controversial and what is not. If you want to dispute a point of fact, then you need to provide sources. That's as clear as it can possibly be. Until such time that you do provide a source, your change will not be accepted.
With regards to Lebed, see my comment at the very end of this page, and you still did not provide an explanation for removing my quote and leaving your own.
You also keep introducing other changes into the article and not providing any reason for them at all. For example why did you change, Involvement of Russian and Ukrainian volunteers to Involvement of Cossacks and other Russian volunteers? Cossacks are a subset of Russians or Ukrainians or both and what happened to the Ukrainians? Similarly, you added While at the begining Romania avoided any involvement, where exactly is the source for this? I have read that Romania was greatly involved in Moldovan political in the early years.
To summarize, your changes will only be accepted if you actually start providing sources to back up what you say, doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me.
Sotnik (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My source is verifiable. Here is the mention of this book through books.google.com, unfortunately the book is not readable on-line. Illythr who is living in Moldova, can find this book in a public library. I saw you want to apply censorship on this article, you deleted also the statement of Lebed which is not controversial. I don't intend to accept censorship. I made a google search with "Romanian volunteers" & Transnistria, there are 15 results [4] from which only 3 are about the 1992 War of Transnistria: this article from Wikipedia, the article from Japan Times (which was also copied at an other site [5] and which was written from Tiraspol), and an article from "Tiraspol Times" - the well known propaganda website of PMR, discussed already at the arbitration comitee. In contrast, the significant role of Russian volunteers is universally recognised, including by Tiraspol Times: With the aid of Russian volunteers and Cossack forces, the country succesfully defended itself against a Moldovan invasion attempt. Serious academic sources, like Sislin & Pearson, are not explicitly denying the existence of Romanian volunteers for the same reason they are not denying the existence of Zimbabwean volunteers in the War of Transnistria - nobody ever in the academic world took seriously in consideration such theories in order to worth a denial.--MariusM (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Great, this books exists, I still don't know what it says and whether its a serious or credible source. From the quotes you provided, it sounds like a cheaply made propoganda pamphlet. If Illythr can confirm what you are saying, that will be a good start, we can talk when he does.
If you keep removing my Lebed quote with out any sort of explanation whatsoever, then I will most certainly remove yours. I also don't agree with using [possibly] out of context quotes in general, unless they are representative as determined by an expert or an academic source. Something I already mentioned days ago, with zero response.
This is just getting comical, seriously, read this over a few times if that will help you understand, I'm also fine with identifying the nationality/ethnicity of the author if we are talking about presenting conflicting analysis of the conflict. However, if we are presenting a fact then doing so is obviously not NPOV. In our case, if we are talking about the military role volunteers played in the conflict, that is a matter of opinion, on the other hand if we are talking about the presence of volunteers that is a matter of fact. If a fact is disputed or controversial, then there need to be sources provided that illustrate that. You are NOT an expert, or an authority, or a source to say what is highly controversial and what is not. If you want to dispute a point of fact, then you need to provide sources. That's as clear as it can possibly be. Until such time that you do provide a source, your change will not be accepted. YOU DON'T get to decide why a study mentions one thing or another or what is and isn't taken seriously by scholars. The source I provided is academic, and it does not matter how well known this fact is. This whole conflict is not well known. I will not accept any challenge to a fact, unless it is backed up by a legitimate source.
I have no idea why you are bringing up Russian & Ukrainian volunteers again, I already said many, many times that I am for having that information in the article. Its relevant and interesting.
Still no responses to any of the other points and questions, fine by me. Figure out when you acctually want to discuss the article and find a consesus, and a let me know when you do.
Sotnik (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You are labeling my source as "cheap propaganda pamphlet" but you were not able to show one single inaccurate fact which was mentioned by this book. You are removing FACTS (like Lebed's statement, it is a fact, I didn't made in the article any comment about it). Everything I wrote is accurate, including the fact that some sources are mentioning the presence of Romanian volunteers while other not, without any comment on my own (in the article, in this talk page I am allowed to comment, talk pages are not following NPOV policy) regarding why. We are not talking here about a lack of mention in a newspaper article (where, do to space limitations, the subject may not be covered in details), but about a lack of mention in detailed studies about the Transnistrian conflict. In order to achieve consensus I included also a mention about second Lebed's statement, while I don't believe he talked seriously when he mentioned the possibility of fighting against "hooligans from Tiraspol". We have to include also some mention about Russian political support, here is a video with Russian vicepresident Alexader Rutskoi visiting Transnistria and expressing full support for Transnistrian separatism.--MariusM (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't label your source as anything, I said, that it sounds like cheap propoganda and it does. For me to prove or disprove anything I have to have something to actually work with. You haven't provided anything other then your word. If you want to include your information provide sources that everyone can examine and then work towards a consensus. If you are refusing to do that, then I'm refusing to accept your edits.
Everything you are saying about Romanian volunteers is only your opinion. You claim that their role is controversial and very limited, well I claim the exact opposite. There is a good reason I know about their presence, because its mentioned in many war memoirs I have read (I have provided an example above). The only difference between our opinions is that I'm providing mainstream sources to back up my point of view and you aren't providing anything. As for the comparison to Russian & Ukrainian volunteers, I already provided a sources that says, Best estimates suggest that there were approximately 200-300 Cossacks volunteers in Transdniester, and although this did not constitute a significant military force.
Your stance on Lebed is the dictionary definition of hypocrisy. Either both quotes are included or neither is included.
I can agree including mentioning Rutskoi, only if, it is made clear that the Russian government continually respected Moldovan territorial integrity, and has said so publicly since the start of the conflict.
Sotnik (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I found. It's not much, but from the pro-Moldovan bias in the first paragraph we can assume it's not Russian/Transnistrian propaganda. The article mainly focuses on heavy armor/aircraft used in the war and gives a rather short and incorrect general description of it. Still, it does provide a bit of combat detail which looks useful. Dunno how trustworthy it is (no idea about who the authors are or were), but better than nothing, I s'pose. --Illythr (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My phrasing, some sources are mentioning Romanian volunteers, some not, is still accurate. In Romanian press at that time nobody mentioned any Romanian casualties and there wasn't any organisation publicly asking for the sending of volunteers for the war of Transnistria. Putting the problem of Russian volunteers at the same level as the problem of (presumed) Romanian volunteers is misleading the readers.--MariusM (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
What problem? "Best estimates suggest that there were approximately 200-300 Cossacks volunteers in Transdniester, and although this did not constitute a significant military force." Sotnik (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added both estimates about the number of cossacks (200-300 and 3000). Also I've added both quotes from Lebed.--MariusM (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Say, Marius, can you post the exact quote you took from that Romanian book here? I'm curious of the wording. Lebed is known to call Snegur's government "fascist" and say that he came to defend the people of Transnistria against a "genocide against his own people" by Snegur. However I couldn't find any source on him arming the Transnistrian Republican Guards. What he did was bolster the 14th army ranks by drafting conscripts from Transnistrian cities. He may have been referring to them by arming. --Illythr (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That's just beautiful! Some progress. Now, please be so kind as to provide an explanation for some of your other edits.Sotnik (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I provided already explanations and sources. Why you deleted the mention of Rutskoi's visit, which was sourced with a video showing him in Bender? You don't trust the video?
Illythr, at page 451 of the book of Muntean & Ciubotaru there is a photo with Lebed between othe people in militarry uniforms, one of them with an automatic rifle, and with the following explanation: Comandantul Armatei a 14-a ruse, generalul A. Lebed (în centru, acoperit), inspectează poziţiile de luptă ale separatiştilor. "Sînt mîndru că i-am ajutat şi i-am înzestrat pe gardişti cu arme şi muniţie pentru a lupta împotriva fasciştilor moldoveni!", a declarat el mai tîrziu. Dubăsari 1992. Translation: The commander of 14th Russian Army, gen. A Lebed (in the middle, covered) [he is the only one in the photo with a cap on his head] is inspecting the fighting positions of the separatists. "I am proud that we helped and gave to guardists arms and ammunitions in order to fight against moldovan fascists", he told later. Dubăsari 1992.--MariusM (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I can just quote myself,
1) Involvement of Cossacks and other Russian volunteers? Cossacks are a subset of Russians or Ukrainians or both and what happened to the Ukrainians? Similarly, you added While at the begining Romania avoided any involvement, where exactly is the source for this? I have read that Romania was greatly involved in Moldovan political in the early years.
2) Also in general who gets to decide which specific quote or quotes describe the situation? Its incredibly easy to take these out of context and twist them to be mean anything you want. Analysts and scholars are a much better choice..
3) I can agree including mentioning Rutskoi, only if, it is made clear that the Russian government continually respected Moldovan territorial integrity, and has said so publicly since the start of the conflict. Now that I also think about this, how is this related specifically to the War? This information should go to the different article.
I am not going to accept the changes based on your illogic on Romanian volunteers, that information will stay as is until you provide a source. I'm also waiting on Illythr to provide info on your book. The issue above however we should be able to resolve right away.Sotnik (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What you are doing is called censorship. We can not include fake statements in the article, like the claim that Russian government continually respected Moldovan territorial integrity. We can include some declarations of the Russian government where it claim it respects Moldova, while the facts are showing something else. Anyhow, you didn't come with a proposal about what statement of Russian government you want to include, you just censored accurate fact about Rutskoi's visit in Bender and his open expression of support for separatists.--MariusM (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What I'm doing is called accurately portraying the situation in a neutral and encyclopedic way. As apposed to writing a lowbrow propoganda brochure that you seem to be so keen on. If the Russian government did not respect the territorial integrity of Moldova, it could have easily recognizedly PMR a very long time ago. Likewise, it would not have subsidized the existence of Moldova for over a decade with cheap energy resources. As a matter of fact, in the 90s the 14th army could have easily overran all of Moldova in a matter of hours, if Moscow so wished to destroyed it. I'm quite sure you already know all this. As for Rudskoi, in a matter of months after his visit to PMR, he was deposed by Yeltsin and removed from government. His statements hardly reflect the position of the Russian government (although they probably reflect general public opinion). If you need help finding the official Russian government position, this is as good of a link as any. Lastly, I still don't seen any answers:
1) Involvement of Cossacks and other Russian volunteers? Cossacks are a subset of Russians or Ukrainians or both and what happened to the Ukrainians? Similarly, you added While at the begining Romania avoided any involvement, where exactly is the source for this? I have read that Romania was greatly involved in Moldovan political in the early years.
2) Also in general who gets to decide which specific quote or quotes describe the situation? Its incredibly easy to take these out of context and twist them to be mean anything you want. Analysts and scholars are a much better choice..
3) I can agree including mentioning Rutskoi, only if, it is made clear that the Russian government continually respected Moldovan territorial integrity, and has said so publicly since the start of the conflict. Now that I also think about this, how is this related specifically to the War? This information should go to the different article.
Sotnik (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
As long as Rutskoi's visit is an accurate fact, we don't need your agreement to include this fact in the article. Rutskoi was vice-president of Russia in the moment of the visit, this is why his visit is relevant. Removal of Rutskoi from Russian leadership was after the War of Transnistria. Do you have any source about the reasons stated by Yeltsin to remove Rutskoi, to verify if there is any link with the War of Transnistria? In fact, I never told in the article that Rutskoi's position was the official position of Russia, because I never introduced original research in Wikipedia articles (in talk pages sometimes I tell also personal opinions, but not in articles). What I included was the fact that Russian vice-president Rutskoi visited Transnistria and expressed support for separatists. Everything is accurate and sourced. I didn't make any moral judgment regarding Rutskoi's positions.--MariusM (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I asked a very simply question, "how is this related specifically to the War?" You don't need to convince me the information is either accurate or relevant, I already said I agree. I'm not sure however that this has any relevance to the article about the War specifically. Also nowhere do I imply that Rutskoi was dismissed because of his support for PMR, that's absurd. All I said is that if this fact is added to the article (likely not this one) and esp. since the subsection title you choose was Political involvement of Russia the actual position of Russia should be made clear. BTW, if I'm not mistaken, Russian foreign affairs are the sole responsibility of MID (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), other politicians or government officials cannot legally set foreign policy. I'm still waiting for your explanation on the points above. Sotnik (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Moldovan Army

Moldovan Army was composed by people from the Soviet Army who were in Moldova at the time of the colapse of the Soviet Union, many of them of Russian or other non-Moldovan origin, not born in Moldova, who joined the Moldovan Army because they need a job and a living, however didn't want seriously to fight. Many officers in Moldovan army were in fact sympatetic with the separatists and with their former coleagues from 14th Army. There were also some ethnic moldovan officers who returned in Moldova after spending long time in other parts of the Soviet Union, most of them with Russian wifes and kids. The Moldovan Army didn't had a real desire to fight, the officers were in big part nostalgics of the Soviet Union, when they joined the Soviet Army their goal was not to destroy the Soviet Union but to defend it. The problem of betrayal inside Moldovan Army is discussed in the book of Anatolie Muntean and Nicolae Ciubotaru - "Războiul de pe Nistru", Ed. Ager-Economistul, Bucharest 2004.--MariusM (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lebed

It is strange that there's so little about Lebed in this article, the guy who stopped the whole conflict. His involvement should be described in more detail, IMO. Describing his position in quotes is rather insufficient, and it should be noted that although his initial actions were directed against Moldovan forces (who were on the offensive at the time), he repeatedly expressed his disgust in politicians on both sides and came to be at odds with Transnistrian authorities after he cracked down on some of their "operations", especially concerning weapons "appropriation" from army depots.

--Illythr (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Very nice job expanding the 14th section BTW! I think it is important to add that he directly stopped both Moldovan and PMR forces. I'll start looking for some more sources on Lebed. Sotnik (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it so happens that he arrived during an offensive by Moldovan forces. His immediate orders have put him on the side of the PMR in the eyes of many, including PMR authorities. His neutrality became apparent only later, as is evident from that heavily pro-Smirnov book by Volkova, where she gives Lebed a passing mention as a "disruptive meddler with his constant hollow attempts at exposing [PMR leadeship]", completely ignoring his decisive role in the conflict. --Illythr (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Lebed fought only against Moldovan forces, while afterwards he made some statements in the press criticising also PMR leadership. As our article is about the "War of Transnistria", we should tell in this article the role he played in the war. Militarry engagement and killing of Moldovans ca not be presented in this article at the same level as some press statements.--MariusM (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
He acted against Transnistrian "politicians" on numerous occasions, including putting a stop to arms smuggling and killing off bandit groups with suspect ties (Kostenko). The mere fact that Transnistrian leadership dislikes him so much despite his actions shows that he wasn't particularly friendly to them either. As for the military engagements - at the point of his arrival, the Moldovan side was on the offensive. If you want to stop a war right now, you stop the attackers and prevent the defenders from counter attacking.
Actually, that other quote you deleted highlights Lebed's view on the sides of the conflict ("fascists vs bandits") much better. Lebed wasn't exactly a silver-tongued diplomat. --Illythr (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Please give details about Lebed's role in Kostenko's case, it may be relevant for this article. Assumptions about what Lebed wanted (to stop the war or to be sure that the war is won by the "right" side) should not be made by us, we should present the facts. Maybe we should add in the article "as result of 14th Army decisive involvement against moldovan forces, under Lebed's command, the war was stopped". I can not imagine that if Lebed would arrive in a time of a separatist offensive, the 14th Army would enter in the conflict against separatists, killing 100 of them.--MariusM (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Kostenko is described in Bergman's and Skripnik's books (both in Russian). Pretty nasty guy, according to them both. Assumptions about "what Lebed wanted" are completely irrelevant for this article. He had very specific standing orders on his arrival, that are noted in the sources presented above. I think I described his initial involvement here "...obliterated the Moldovan force...", rather unambiguously. Lebed's involvement does not stop with ending the war, however. I cannot imagine a PMR offensive beyond what they initially claimed, either, but that, too, is irrelevant. What this article needs is an accurate and balanced summary of Lebed's actions, of which stopping the war was only the first one. Doing so with one citation is insufficient, and with this particular one - grossly inappropriate. So, what are the objective reasons to put it in, and not, say, the other one you deleted? --Illythr (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A single quote, esp from this very dubious and unverifiable source, is unacceptable. Also in general who gets to decide which specific quote or quotes describe the situation? Its incredibly easy to take these out of context and twist them to be mean anything you want. Analysts and scholars are a much better choice. In terms of this specific quote, the one I provided much more accurately represents Lebed's involvement in the conflict, but if we can verity the other quote as factual, I suppose I could agree to including both.Sotnik (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Rutskoy etc

Youtube is not a valid source, surely but here's another source - http://mkspmr.idknet.com/content/view/790/209/ It's written there that:

Otherwise I agree with Sotnik's version. The statement about prisoners released from Russian jails seems to be not sourced at all. If it's written in a book by Muntean and Ciobotaru I'd like to see more neutral sources.

Shevtsov doesn't look like a very important person to me (wrt this conflict, in any case). Why was his quote chosen?


Are these words found in a book by Sislin or is his book an example of a study that doesn't mention Romanian volunteers? In the latter is true then this passage should be removed (it's your OR that other studies don't mention Romanian volunteers). Alæxis¿question? 19:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Rutskoi's visit and support for Transnistrian separatist is an undubitable fact. You may add other sources in the article but don't delete this undubitable fact. The statement about prisoniers released from jails who fought for separatists is from Muntean & Ciubotaru, they present also copies of some IDs of the persons released from jails and documents about thir situation. At pages 421-425 of the book are given the examples of Valerii Şişanov (born in Sahalin, Russia), pardoned by Grigore Mărăcuţă on behalf of Transnistrian Supreme Soviet, released (in the book is written evaded) from Bender prison, enrolled in Transnistrian Guard and of Iurie Kuţan, born in Doneţk, Ukraine, released in May 1992 from prison (is not clear what prison, the document is showing "unit UĂ-148/8" and is mentioned the court from Almetievsk, Tatarstan) and captured in June 1992 when fighting for separatists at Coşniţa-Doroţcaia area.--MariusM (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So, if this took place at all they were released from Transnistrian, not Russian prisons. Alæxis¿question? 10:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
At page 119 of Muntean & Ciubotaru's book is written "over 300 inmates released from Russian prisons". At page 421-425 they give those 2 specific examples with scanned documents, mentioned above, from which one was released from a Transnistrian prison with a PMR decree of pardon and an other was released in 28 May 1992 from "UĂ-148/8", supposedly in Tatarstan, after he finished his sentence, and was captured in June 1992 fighting for separatists in Transnistria.--MariusM (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If he had been convicted there it doesn't mean that he served his punishment there also. I think that we should write "According to a Romanian source over 300 inmates..." or "According to the book by M & C over 300 inmates...". Alæxis¿question? 13:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the exact reason I asked for proof that this source says what is claimed. The idea that anyone was released from prison in Russia to fight in PMR is beyond absurd. Just another point that makes me think this source (if it even says what is claimed) is a propaganda pamphlet rather then a neutral or academic source. Even so, the two examples that are presented, aren't anyone who was released from a Russian prison for the purpose of fighting with PMR forces.
"Are these words found in a book by Sislin or is his book an example of a study that doesn't mention Romanian volunteers? In the latter is true then this passage should be removed (it's your OR that other studies don't mention Romanian volunteers)."
Thank you! Finally some sanity! Sislin does not deny the presence of Romanian volunteers. To my knowledge no source denies the presence of Romanian volunteers.
Sotnik (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Btw unit УЭ 148/8 is indeed in Almetyevsk, Tatarstan. Still, the idea of someone released from Russian prison seems absurd to me also. Maybe this guy was released for some other reasons and then came to Transnistria... But, if source says so let's write this in the article and attribute it properly. Alæxis¿question? 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The guy from Almetyevsk prison was released because he finished his term in prison, according the documents presented in the book of Muntean & Ciubotaru ("şi-a ispăşit condamnarea şi este eliberat în legătură cu expirarea termenului"). I thought I explained this clearly above.--MariusM (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh, now I see. And what do they write about other 300 inmates? Had they also been released from prisons some time before the war began? Alæxis¿question? 19:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
They don't give a complete list of 300 inmates with details about their situation. There is a general statement about the existence of 300 inmates and 2 specific examples with details, mentioned above.--MariusM (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Two comments to some remorks in the discussions above:

  • About MiG-29 at the Marculesti air base. Moldova got the base in April 1992. Prior to that, it was subordinated to the Black Sea Fleet air branch. All pilots were from outside Moldova, and they chose to leave. When Moldovans arrived they have discovered that 1) some airplanes have minor missing details, of the kind easy to remove in less than an hour, without which the plane would take off, but might get into trouble in the air - from screws to tubes to more complicated devices 2) the air trafic program in the computer was erased and a message "we wish you good luck in familiarizing with new computer technology" ("zhelaem uspekhov v izuchenii novoy vychislitel'noy techniki") was left. At the same time, Moldovan pilots and technicians stationed in other perts of the former Soviet Union were arriving in Moldova. The word was spread that they are desperately needed in Marculesti, and within 2 months the computer program was written from scratch, while a dosen planes (out of a total of 38) were taken through all verification. Pilots were much more than available planes due to high percentage (comparative to proportion) of Moldovans in the officer ranks of the Soviet Army, including people who flew regularly Mig-29. Romania only had Mig-21 and Mig-23, which are quite different. It is like a car driver to be given a Sesna. Basic principles are clear, but there is one more dimension with the Sesna! Sure, there are children who fly Sesnas, but they take lessons first.
  • There were indeed cases of convicts (not prisoners) released from Russian jails who were ordered to report to Tiraspol. There were numerous such cases shown on Moldovan TV at the time, b/c many of the convicts were little educated, and they did not know much about the conflict, so many arrived by train to Chisinau and start asking how to get to Tiraspol. Mostly these were people serving the last 1/4-1/3 of their term, who were ordered to report to Tiraspol if they want to be released earlier. That's why they did not simply flee. Now, I don't know how many convicts were sent in an organized manner directly to Tiraspol. But at any rate, their total number would hardly be over 100-200, more likely there were just several dosen such cases. Volonteer cossacks, who were die hard believers, were a problem, not convicts who don't even know how to fire properly a gun.

Now, I have just told you what I know. My source is simply my memory from the time. At the time, there were plenty of sources, but I did not preserve them, and there was no internet recording everything back then. However, I believe it won't be so difficult to dig some sources on the internet or in libraries. Anyway, you have a rough idea about the facts, so dig what is really needed for this article. We are not writing a dissertation about the conflict. With all due respect, but our (mine incl.) talk here is very amateurish to a specialist. Let's not pretend we are more than amateurs. Dc76\talk 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A convict is anyone convicted of a crime, a prisoner is anyone imprisoned. If convicts were released from jail, then they were prisoners. I'm not so sure what difference you are pointing to, please explain what you mean. In terms of this actually happening, I'm sure a lot of things were shown on Moldovan television at that time, but it is nearly beyond the realm of possibility that anyone in Russia (not PMR) was released from prison in order to fight for the PMR. I can certainly see, people who were in prisons coming to fight as volunteers. In any event, what I want to know is if the source provided is legitimate and that is says what is claimed. Perhaps Illythr can find this book as was suggested before? If this is a scholarly, legitimate book then, even though I'm certain this is 99.999% false, I'm not going to ask for it to be removed. Sotnik (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I am presently outside of Moldova, so I will not be able to look for that book in the immediate future. --Illythr (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Sotnik, in 1992, releasing convicts from jail to use in military conflicts was not "beyond the realm of possibility" in Russia. It was happening. I am not trying to abase you or any Russian in any way: what some irresponsible guys did 16 years ago is nothing of your fault. BTW, which book are you talking about? Being so rare on WP recently I tend to forget all arguments in a discussion (sorry). Dc76\talk 15:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I was traveling and away from the computer for a few weeks, but I'm back now. No offense to you either, but that is exactly the kind of baseless hate-filled propaganda that some in Moldova pushed, leading the country into two separate ethnic conflicts. Its also a rather obtuse accusation, even theoretically. If the Russian government wanted to directly aid PMR or attack Moldova, they could have done it many times over. The 14th Army alone could have overran all of Moldava in a matter of days, not to mention there are all kinds of special forces and black ops type forces that Moscow could have deployed. Releasing prisoners in Tatarstan or wherever to fight for the PMR is too ridiculous to even pass for a joke. I don't generally like to get into these theoretical discussion, just want to shed some light on the absurdity of that claim. More to the point, the book that this allegedly comes from is, Anatolie Muntean, Nicolae Ciubotaru - "Războiul de pe Nistru". From the quotes that were provided (if they are actually in there) the whole book sounds like a propaganda pamphlet, rather then any kind of serious or scholarly work. I want some other source to back this up, or at least someone to verify that this is a legitimate and serious book. Lastly you changed my edit on Romanian volunteers, I provided 3 sources, one from an international newspaper 1. That's more then enough for treating this as a fact. Sotnik (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand from Marius' example that the according to this book about 300 of those who fought for Transnistria had served their terms in Russia sometime. I don't think that this fact deserves to occupy half of the paragraph about Russian volunteers (and also because there's no statistics about the number of fighters with previous convictions on the other side). Alæxis¿question? 07:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I presume that in many (if not most) armies some soldiers had a prison behind them. However you won't find this sort of statistics in articles about other wars here in WP. This fact would be relevant if the percentage of ex-convicts was too great or too small. Afaik this is not the case here. Alæxis¿question? 22:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transnistria_War/Archive_3&oldid=1154342792"