Politics
Analysis: Russia moves toward open annexation of Abkhazia, South Ossetia
Reading Time: 3 minutesOn April 16 Russia’s outgoing president Vladimir Putin signed a decree authorizing direct official relations between Russian government bodies and the secessionist authorities in Georgia’s Abkhazia an
Author: Vladimir Socor
On April 16 Russia’s outgoing president Vladimir Putin signed a decree authorizing direct official relations between Russian government bodies and the secessionist authorities in Georgia’s Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The decree also treats as valid the secessionist authorities’ “legislation” in the respective territories, which looks somewhat farcical, given the fact that Moscow had installed those authorities in the first place. In Abkhazia’s case, this move also capitalizes on the Moscow-sponsored mass ethnic cleansing of Georgians.
Putin’s decree caps Russia’s policy of creeping annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia over the last few years. The April 16 decree turns an unofficial policy into a semi-official and fully open one. It marks the first overt Russian move to change the post-1991 internationally recognized borders and revert de facto to those of the Soviet-era. Faced with this potentially momentous development, the responses of the European authorities range from silence by most of them to evasive comments by the few that have spoken at all.
The decree (Interfax, April 16, 17) instructs Russia’s ministries and other government bodies to work directly with their counterparts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia on a full range of bilateral cooperation activities; recognize the “legal” acts issued by Abkhaz and South Ossetian authorities; recognize entities registered under Abkhaz and South Ossetian “laws”; and provide legal assistance on matters of civil and criminal law directly to Abkhaz and South Ossetian authorities and residents (most of whom have previously been turned into purported Russian citizens through “passportization”).
The presidential decree also envisages the drafting of further Russian government initiatives on the “economic development of these two republics” and “protection of Russian citizens” there. Economic development probably implies accelerating Russian takeovers of property and launching construction work in Abkhazia, ahead of the Winter Olympic Games to be held in nearby Sochi. Protection of its citizens may well turn into an excuse for deploying additional Russian troops. The presidential decree stops short of mentioning activities by military and security services, long the main instruments of Russian policy in the two territories.
The decree also stops well short of offering diplomatic recognition or establishing diplomatic relations. Consular affairs are to be handled out of offices in Russian territory adjacent to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Moscow’s move seems to follow the motto: “Everything but official recognition.”
In a prelude to Putin’s decree, the Duma had recommended on March 13 and 21that the Russian government consider a wide range of direct interactions with the authorities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and protection of Russia’s citizens there.
On April 3 Putin wrote a letter in response to an appeal from Abkhazia’s and South Ossetia’s de facto leaders, addressing them as “Presidents” and announcing that Russia would take “not declarative, but practical steps.” Timed to the NATO summit in Bucharest, where Putin arrived that same day, his letter could be taken as implying that Russia would take those steps in Abkhazia and South Ossetia if Georgia moved toward NATO membership. Following the NATO summit, Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov and the Chief of Armed Forces’ General Staff, General Yurii Baluyevsky, warned on April 8 and 11, respectively, that Russia would take measures against Georgia. Responses in the West were few and feeble, apparently emboldening Moscow into proceeding with this set of measures.
Following the publication of Putin’s decree, the European Union finally managed to muster a response through its Slovene presidency (EU Statement, April 17). Apparently a lowest common denominator, the EU statement essentially passes the buck to the United Nations regarding Abkhazia and the OSCE regarding South Ossetia. The document variously expresses regret and concern to all sides involved, in a studiously even-handed manner. The Office of the EU’s High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, called through a spokesperson for a peaceful resolution to “these types of conflicts” (press release, April 17). It remained unclear what types of conflicts that office thinks these conflicts are. Meanwhile, the EU’s Permanent Representative for the South Caucasus, Peter Semneby, has yet to speak up, evidently for lack of authorization from his superior Solana.
The OSCE’s Finnish Chairmanship has taken this opportunity to “reaffirm full support for the existing negotiation mechanisms “in the formats agreed on by all parties,” a position in line with Russia’s and contradicting Georgia’s goal of reforming those Russian-created mechanisms. The Chairmanship’s statement also evenhandedly urges all parties to behave peacefully (press release, April 17)
Within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a list is open for signatories to a written declaration criticizing Putin’s decree and Russia’s latest moves against Georgia. Calling attention to the violation of international law, risk of regional destabilization, attempts at forcible territorial changes, and a breach of multiple Russian commitments to international organizations, the written declaration urges Russia to reverse these moves. It also notes that Russian “peacekeeping” troops are not neutral but a party to the conflicts. The European Parliament (EP) may well react in similar terms; but irrespective of how many PACE or EP members may line up behind such interparliamentary resolutions, their terms of reference underscore the growing irrelevance of the UN and OSCE.
NATO can find relevance in filling this vacuum of international authority. Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has issued a statement criticizing Russia’s violation of Georgian sovereignty and urging Russia to reverse these measures (press release, April 17). // Eurasia Daily Monitor
Featured
FC Sheriff Tiraspol victory: can national pride go hand in hand with political separatism?

A new football club has earned a leading place in the UEFA Champions League groups and starred in the headlines of worldwide football news yesterday. The Football Club Sheriff Tiraspol claimed a win with the score 2-1 against Real Madrid on the Santiago Bernabeu Stadium in Madrid. That made Sheriff Tiraspol the leader in Group D of the Champions League, including the football club in the groups of the most important European interclub competition for the first time ever.
International media outlets called it a miracle, a shock and a historic event, while strongly emphasizing the origin of the team and the existing political conflict between the two banks of the Dniester. “Football club from a pro-Russian separatist enclave in Moldova pulls off one of the greatest upsets in Champions League history,” claimed the news portals. “Sheriff crushed Real!” they said.
Moldovans made a big fuss out of it on social media, splitting into two groups: those who praised the team and the Republic of Moldova for making history and those who declared that the football club and their merits belong to Transnistria – a problematic breakaway region that claims to be a separate country.
Both groups are right and not right at the same time, as there is a bunch of ethical, political, social and practical matters that need to be considered.
Is it Moldova?
First of all, every Moldovan either from the right or left bank of Dniester (Transnistria) is free to identify himself with this achievement or not to do so, said Vitalie Spranceana, a sociologist, blogger, journalist and urban activist. According to him, boycotting the football club for being a separatist team is wrong.
At the same time, “it’s an illusion to think that territory matters when it comes to football clubs,” Spranceana claimed. “Big teams, the ones included in the Champions League, have long lost their connection both with the countries in which they operate, and with the cities in which they appeared and to which they linked their history. […] In the age of globalized commercial football, teams, including the so-called local ones, are nothing more than global traveling commercial circuses, incidentally linked to cities, but more closely linked to all sorts of dirty, semi-dirty and cleaner cash flows.”
What is more important in this case is the consistency, not so much of citizens, as of politicians from the government who have “no right to celebrate the success of separatism,” as they represent “the national interests, not the personal or collective pleasures of certain segments of the population,” believes the political expert Dionis Cenusa. The victory of FC Sheriff encourages Transnistrian separatism, which receives validation now, he also stated.
“I don’t know how it happens that the “proud Moldovans who chose democracy”, in their enthusiasm for Sheriff Tiraspol’s victory over Real Madrid, forget the need for total and unconditional withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria!” declared the journalist Vitalie Ciobanu.
Nowadays, FC Sheriff Tiraspol has no other choice than to represent Moldova internationally. For many years, the team used the Moldovan Football Federation in order to be able to participate in championships, including international ones. That is because the region remains unrecognised by the international community. However, the club’s victory is presented as that of Transnistria within the region, without any reference to the Republic of Moldova, its separatist character being applied in this case especially.
Is it a victory?
In fact, FC Sheriff Tiraspol joining the Champions League is a huge image breakthrough for the Transnistrian region, as the journalist Madalin Necsutu claimed. It is the success of the Tiraspol Club oligarchic patrons. From the practical point of view, FC Sheriff Tiraspol is a sports entity that serves its own interests and the interests of its owners, being dependent on the money invested by Tiraspol (but not only) oligarchs.
Here comes the real dilemma: the Transnistrian team, which is generously funded by money received from corruption schemes and money laundering, is waging an unequal fight with the rest of the Moldovan football clubs, the journalist also declared. The Tiraspol team is about to raise 15.6 million euro for reaching the Champions League groups and the amounts increase depending on their future performance. According to Necsutu, these money will go directly on the account of the club, not to the Moldovan Football Federation, creating an even bigger gab between FC Sheriff and other football clubs from Moldova who have much more modest financial possibilities.
“I do not see anything useful for Moldovan football, not a single Moldovan player is part of FC Sheriff Tiraspol. I do not see anything beneficial for the Moldovan Football Federation or any national team.”
Is it only about football?
FC Sheriff Tiraspol, with a total estimated value of 12.8 million euros, is controlled by Victor Gusan and Ilya Kazmala, being part of Sheriff Holding – a company that controls the trade of wholesale, retail food, fuels and medicine by having monopolies on these markets in Transnistria. The holding carries out car trading activities, but also operates in the field of construction and real estate. Gusan’s people also hold all of the main leadership offices in the breakaway region, from Parliament to the Prime Minister’s seat or the Presidency.
The football club is supported by a holding alleged of smuggling, corruption, money laundering and organised crime. Moldovan media outlets published investigations about the signals regarding the Sheriff’s holding involvement in the vote mobilization and remuneration of citizens on the left bank of the Dniester who participated in the snap parliamentary elections this summer and who were eager to vote for the pro-Russian socialist-communist bloc.
Considering the above, there is a great probability that the Republic of Moldova will still be represented by a football club that is not identified as being Moldovan, being funded from obscure money, growing in power and promoting the Transnistrian conflict in the future as well.
Photo: unknown
Politics
Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilita meets high-ranking EU officials in Brussels

Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova, Natalia Gavrilita, together with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicu Popescu, pay an official visit to Brussels, between September 27-28, being invited by High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell Fontelles.
Today, Prime Minister had a meeting with Charles Michel, President of the European Council. The Moldovan PM thanked the senior European official for the support of the institution in strengthening democratic processes, reforming the judiciary and state institutions, economic recovery and job creation, as well as increasing citizens’ welfare. Natalia Gavrilita expressed her confidence that the current visit laid the foundations for boosting relations between the Republic of Moldova and the European Union, so that, in the next period, it would be possible to advance high-level dialogues on security, justice and energy. Officials also exchanged views on priorities for the Eastern Partnership Summit, to be held in December.
“The EU is open to continue to support the Republic of Moldova and the ambitious reform agenda it proposes. Moldova is an important and priority partner for us,” said Charles Michel.
Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilita also met with Paolo Gentiloni, European Commissioner for Economy, expressing her gratitude for the support received through the OMNIBUS macro-financial assistance program. The two officials discussed the need to advance the recovery of money from bank fraud, to strengthen sustainable mechanisms for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises in Moldova, and to standardize the customs and taxes as one of the main conditions for deepening cooperation with the EU in this field.
Additionally, Prime Minister spoke about the importance of the Eastern Partnership and the Deep Free Trade Agreement, noting that the Government’s policies are aimed at developing an economic model aligned with the European economic model, focused on digitalization, energy efficiency and the green economy.
A common press release of the Moldovan Prime Minister with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission, Josep Borrell Fontelles, took place today, where the agenda of Moldova’s reforms and the main priorities to focus on in the coming months were presented: judiciary reform; fighting COVID-19 pandemic; promoting economic recovery and conditions for growth and job creation; strengthening state institutions and resilience of the country.
“I am here to relaunch the dialogue between my country and the European Union. Our partnership is strong, but I believe there is room for even deeper cooperation and stronger political, economic and sectoral ties. I am convinced that this partnership is the key to the prosperity of our country and I hope that we will continue to strengthen cooperation.”
The Moldovan delegation met Didier Reynders, European Commissioner for Justice. Tomorrow, there are scheduled common meetings with Oliver Varhelyi, European Commissioner for Neighborhood and Enlargement, Adina Valean, European Commissioner for Transport and Kadri Simson, European Commissioner for Energy.
Prime Minister will also attend a public event, along with Katarina Mathernova, Deputy Director-General for Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations.
Photo: gov.md
Politics
Promo-LEX about Maia Sandu’s UN speech: The president must insist on appointing a rapporteur to monitor the situation of human rights in Transnistria

The President of the Republic of Moldova, Maia Sandu, pays an official visit to New York, USA, between September 21-22. There, she participates in the work of the United Nations General Assembly. According to a press release of the President’s Office, the official will deliver a speech at the tribune of the United Nations.
In this context, the Promo-LEX Association suggested the president to request the appointment of a special rapporteur in order to monitor the situation of human rights in the Transnistrian region. According to Promo-LEX, the responsibility for human rights violations in the Transnistrian region arises as a result of the Russian Federation’s military, economic and political control over the Tiraspol regime.
“We consider it imperative to insist on the observance of the international commitments assumed by the Russian Federation regarding the withdrawal of the armed forces and ammunition from the territory of the country,” the representatives of Promo-LEX stated. They consider the speech before the UN an opportunity “to demand the observance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the Russian Federation with reference to this territory which is in its full control.”
“It is important to remember about the numerous cases of murder, torture, ill-treatment, forced enlistment in illegal military structures, the application of pseudo-justice in the Transnistrian region, all carried out under the tacit agreement of the Russian Federation. These findings stem from dozens of rulings and decisions issued by the European Court of Human Rights, which found that Russia is responsible for human rights violations in the region.”
The association representatives expressed their hope that the president of the country would give priority to issues related to the human rights situation in the Transnistrian region and would call on relevant international actors to contribute to guaranteeing fundamental human rights and freedoms throughout Moldova.
They asked Maia Sandu to insist on the observance of the obligation to evacuate the ammunition and the military units of the Russian Federation from the territory of the Republic of Moldova, to publicly support the need for the Russian Federation to implement the ECtHR rulings on human rights violations in the Transnistrian region, and to request the appointment of an UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur to monitor the human rights situation in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova.
**
The Promo-LEX Association concluded that 14 out of 25 actions planned within the National Action Plan for the years 2018–2022 concerning respecting human rights in Transnistria were not carried out by the responsible authorities.
The association expressed its concern and mentioned that there are a large number of delays in the planned results. “There is a lack of communication and coordination between the designated institutions, which do not yet have a common vision of interaction for the implementation of the plan.”
Promo-LEX requested the Government of the Republic of Moldova to re-assess the reported activities and to take urgent measures, “which would exclude superficial implementation of future activities and increase the level of accountability of the authorities.”
Photo: peacekeeping.un.org