Iskanders are not on Transdniester’s horizon

Iskanders are not on Transdniester’s horizon

Moscow has not responded to Tiraspol’s call to deploy missile defense systems in the region, similar to those of the US.

Moldova’s Foreign Affairs Ministry is concerned about Russia’s actions, which are not conducive to the development of relations between the two countries. The announcement was made as a result of the opening of the State Duma election polls in Transdniester, despite Chisinau’s objections. The situation was exacerbated by Tiraspol’s proposal to Moscow – to allocate Russia’s military capabilities, comparable to the US missile defense in Europe, on the territory of the unrecognized republic.      

“We welcome Russia’s readiness for a symmetrical response to the actions that are being conducted by a number of Western states.” Transdniester’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Vladimir Yastrebchak, told Nezavisimaya Gazeta (NG). “If the Russian Federation finds the need to allocate its military capabilities, intended to counter the US missile defense in Europe, on Dniester – then we are ready to not only offer our territory, but also the Mayak (Beacon) Radar Complex, which is currently being used by the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company as a rebroadcasting station”. The possibility of allocation of any Russian military equipment and weapons, including the Iskander missile systems, was discussed by the President of Transdniester, Igor Smirnov, in a February, 2010 interview with NG. According to Smirnov, the regional leadership had then made the proposal to Moscow. Now, when it comes to Russia’s security, Transdniester is ready to become the springboard for Russia’s national defense – for which, essentially, independence from Moldova has been maintained for the last 20 years. The region considers itself part of the Russian territory. Meanwhile, as was noted by Vladimir Yastrebchak, Moscow had not issued such requests to Tiraspol.        

In Chisinau, all statements regarding missile defense systems – which the US plans to deploy, among other states, in the neighboring Romania – are referred to as Tiraspol’s election campaign games. This announcement was made to NG by the Honorable Chairman of the Democratic Party of Moldova, Dumitru Diacov. He noted that “Russia has a number of obligations before the OSCE in general and Moldova in particular to withdraw troops and weapons from Transdniester”. Either way, the question of whether or not missile defense, similar to the system that is to be allocated in Romania, should be deployed in Transdniester needs to be addressed with Chisinau, said the Moldovan politician. “The fact that these talks are currently ongoing in Tiraspol is linked to the elections [Transdniester is scheduled to hold a presidential election on December 11 – NG].”    

Director of the Public Policy Institute in Chisinau, Arcadie Barbarosie, shares this opinion. “I don’t think Russia would agree to accept the offer. It’s a gamble that could complicate Moscow’s relations with Brussels, and not to mention Chisinau.”

Editor-in-Chief of the Independent Military Review, Viktor Litovkin, commented on the situation as follows: “It is unlikely that Russia will allocate counter elements to the US missile defense system, which is expected to be deployed in Romania, on the Transdniestrian territory. Building an early warning radar station there makes no sense. It’s too close to Bucharest. Besides, no one knows how the situation will unravel in the future – risking such an expensive station, as shown by the experience in Ukraine (Beregovo and Nikolayevka) and Latvia (Skrunda), is devoid of common sense. It is a similar situation with the Iskander strategic and tactical missile systems. Selling them to an unrecognized republic is impossible, while deployment of a Russian military base on its territory will result in a global scandal. No one would dare doing that – neither does it make sense militarily. All of the counter-defense problems can be easily resolved from the Russian territory.”   

As for the December 4 State Duma elections, which have excited the Moldovan Foreign Affairs Ministry just as much, if not more, that the missile defense issue, the possibility of participation in these elections of the Russian citizens, residing in Moldova, was discussed by Russia’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Sergey Lavrov, during his visit to Chisinau on November 22. He promised that everything will be done in accordance with the Moldovan law. However, Russian Embassy in Moldova announced the opening of polling stations, including on the left bank of the Dniester River, against the wishes of Chisinau, which does not control the area. Russia’s Ambassador to Moldova, Valery Kuzmin, explained this decision with Russia’s obligation to “give its citizens the right to vote”. Nevertheless, this is not a Russian territory. Moreover, it is in the midst of its own regional elections, which Moscow is trying to “cut out” based on its own patterns and in accordance with its own interests. Meanwhile, interests of the Transdniestrian voter who will, incidentally, elect the State Duma deputies as well as a president of the unrecognized Transdniestrian republic, are not being taken into consideration. And if they are, then for informational purposes only.           

A Very Scary Movie

Leading up to the Russian premiere of a highly-anticipated documentary about jailed tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, theaters across the country have refused to screen the film. And earlier this year, the film’s final version was stolen before its world premiere. These incidents suggest that some don’t want the film to be seen, and point to the continued sensitivity of the Khodorkovsky affair.

Directed by German filmmaker Cyril Tuschi, “Khodorkovsky” chronicles the rise and fall of the man who went from being Russia’s most successful, forward-thinking businessman to public enemy number one under then-President Vladimir Putin. The film was shot between 2005 and 2011 in several cities across the world, and features a number of interviews with high-profile individuals connected either to Khodorkovsky or to his former oil empire, Yukos.

But while the film is set to premiere in Moscow on December 1, it remains mired in controversy. One by one, cinema networks across Russia have declined to screen the film and have failed to explain why. After Moskino, a theater network owned by the Moscow city government, became the first to refuse the film, a chain reaction followed, according to Olga Papernaya, the art director of the film’s promotion company in Russia. This resulted in a total of 19 venues refusing to screen the documentary. While Tuschi had originally planned for the film to be shown at theaters in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Novosibirsk, only two venues have thus far agreed to host it: the Eldar cinema and the Fotoloft gallery at Winzavod, both in Moscow.

"When we acquired the rights to the film in September of 2011, we held discussions with many theaters and chains, and got several preliminary agreements for release," Papernaya told Kommersant recently. "But when the time came to sign an agreement, we ran up against refusals. They are all oral refusals, so we can only guess what is really behind it."

Earlier this year, the film’s final version was stolen from the production company’s office in Berlin before its world premiere at the Berlin Film Festival in February. German authorities claimed the break-in was professionally orchestrated, and although successful, Tuschi had several other copies of the final cut. Nevertheless, the director expressed concern over the incident: "It's like being in a bad thriller," he told the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung shortly after the incident. "Someone is trying to scare me and I must admit that they are succeeding."

The various messages sent since the film’s original showing are clear: “keep away from viewers’ eyes.” But it remains unclear who’s sending them. While it is obvious that today’s regime has a bone to pick with Khodorkovsky, there are few signs that it feels severely threatened by him. After all, the jailed oligarch continues to make sporadic appearances in the media – just not on state television – and the Kremlin witnessed little backlash when Khodorkovsky was sentenced to a second term in prison earlier this year.

Experts said there’s a strong likelihood that, besides state-sponsored pressure, self-censorship is at play in this case. According to Masha Lipman, an expert in the society and regions program at Moscow’s Carnegie Center, many of the theaters have likely chosen to remain “safe” by not screening the film. “This is, of course, an act of disloyalty to show such a documentary,” she said. “And you never know what kind of consequences you might inflict on yourself – maybe nothing, maybe something. Some people are more cautious and circumspect than others.”

But the film may prove to be less dangerous than the Kremlin or its loyalists think. According to film critics, the documentary portrays Khodorkovsky and the Yukos affair in a relatively balanced – if even bland and unoriginal – light. In a review published in February in The Hollywood Reporter, Neil Young wrote that the film “lack[s] anything incendiary or revelatory content-wise,” while Lauren Wissot, writing on November 28 in Slant Magazine, even chided Tuschi for what she said was the director’s “naïveté when it comes to post-Soviet politics,” claiming he falls short of providing a fresh, incisive perspective on the matter.

So why all the fuss? Lipman said the documentary is coming up against greater resistance because film is generally a more powerful and emotive medium. “An image is always different,” she said. “One hour of Khodorkovsky’s face might cause more sympathy than books or articles can.”

November 29, 2011, 6:54 PM ET