Politics
Moscow steadily entangles Belarus into the Russian orbit
Reading Time: 3 minutesThe mid-March visit by Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, to Belarus stimulated further speculation over the tense and fluctuating relationship between the two Slavic neighbors. Putin arrived in the city of Brest for a regular meeting with the Council of Ministers of the Russia-Belarus Union State.
By David Marples
The mid-March visit by Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, to Belarus stimulated further speculation over the tense and fluctuating relationship between the two Slavic neighbors. Putin arrived in the city of Brest for a regular meeting with the Council of Ministers of the Russia-Belarus Union State. On the same day, however (March 15), Belarusian President, Alyaksandr Lukashenka, arrived in Caracas, Venezuela. Was he deliberately avoiding a meeting with Putin? Analysts are divided on the answer to this question.
The Union State is more or less defunct. Few seriously believe that the agreement, originally signed by Lukashenka and the then Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, on April 2, 1996 (then called the Commonwealth, it was formalized three years later) will ever result in an entity that satisfies both sides. However, Putin has larger ambitions for the new customs union, that includes Kazakhstan, and may (Moscow hopes) ultimately include Ukraine under its new President, Viktor Yanukovych. Putin has called for the adoption of a common currency –ostensibly the Russian ruble– by 2012. Lukashenka, it is postulated, will need Russian support to secure a fourth term as president, which will necessitate a more compliant attitude toward Moscow (Interfax, March 16).
Thus, when Putin arrived in Brest, his main goal was to combine a carrot and stick approach to persuade the Belarusians that it was in their interest to adopt a more conciliatory stance. The Russian prime minister’s schedule reflected his goal to reunite the former Soviet territories. He visited the customs point Kazlovichy-2 in Brest and then traveled to the Brest Fortress where he talked of the forthcoming common commemoration of the 65th anniversary of victory in the Great Patriotic War on May 9 (Belorusy i Rynok, March 22). Lukashenka is a frequent visitor to the fortress, which is the most important symbol of the war in Belarus.
Putin maintained that he had no plans for a meeting with Lukashenka and that the goals of his talks with fellow Prime Minister, Syarhey Sidorski ,were to discuss the economic recession, expand the scope of the customs union, and consider energy questions (RIA Novosti, March 16). The meeting also encompassed the plan to develop a unified transport system of the Union State, which ends this year, and a bilateral treaty on social security (Belarusian Telegraph Agency, March 16). Russia has frequently expressed its regret that Belarus has not yet recognized the independence of the breakaway Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, although Putin acknowledged his disappointment openly in Brest, this question was not discussed, because it requires a meeting of the respective presidents (ITAR-TASS, March 16).
Meanwhile, Lukashenka was securing an agreement with Chavez –also a firm Russian ally– to deliver up to 80,000 barrels of oil daily from May from Venezuela to Belarus. This agreement, interpreted by many as a rebuff to Russia, comes after Russian-Belarusian talks earlier this year to remove a discount on oil export duties for Russian supplies to Belarus. The talks from the Belarusian perspective failed miserably as Moscow imposed a full duty excepting supplies used for domestic needs by Minsk. The Venezuelan agreement could potentially force Russia to reroute around 4 million tons of oil each year. However, oil analyst, Aleksey Krokin, noted that the expenses entailed in sending Venezuelan oil to Belarus (involving transit from tankers to railcars) would prove prohibitive (Interfax, March 17). The oil could be refined locally, but it is more likely that Lukashenka was calling the Russians’ bluff.
If so, it seems to have partly worked. On the second day of his visit, Putin offered to remove import duties on Russian oil beginning in 2012, on the condition that Minsk agrees to enter a single economic zone. Clearly, Belarus would also be required to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of the deal (Interfax, March 16). Will Lukashenka once again be able to avoid such decisions and keep his options open, including commitments to the EU’s Eastern Partnership?
Despite his skilful maneuvers, the position of the Belarusian president is weakening. State borrowing continues from any source prepared to offer loans to Belarus –the most recent was China, which offered a $1 billion loan for bilateral projects, and $8.8 million in “gratuitous aid” as a sign of friendship (www.naviny.by, March 25). The currency has continued its decline during the recession, and on March 26 it crossed the psychological threshold of 3,000 Belarusian rubles to the dollar (it stood at 2,842 in January) (Belorusskaya Delovaya Gazeta, March 26). Its fall increases the costs of purchasing resources abroad.
The election of the pro-Russian candidate, Yanukovych, in the Ukraine also weakens the position of Lukashenka, who in the past could serve as an intermediary between Moscow and Kyiv under Viktor Yushchenko (The Moscow Times, March 23). The recent crackdown on journalists in Belarus, as well as attacks on the Union of Poles (www.charter97.org, March 26), has outraged both Washington and Brussels. The president is obliged to find new friends in Latin America and China, but in the long term it is the bilateral relationship with Russia that remains pivotal.
Perhaps, nonplussed by Lukashenka’s latest exploits, Putin can afford to be patient. His erstwhile ally is slowly running out of options to avoid being dragged into the Russian economic fold.
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