Talk:Transnistria War/Archive 1

message: An absolutely one-sided article, showing only the Moldavian point of view.
:Whose would be the other, non-Moldovian point of view, then ? --Lysy (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article contains almost exclusively facts. Those are already discussed on Transnistria. It is sure that there are some interesting memory books of the Russian actors in that war (for example, Colonel Bergman, military commander of Tiraspol Russian garrison in 1992). The most of the facts discribed in the article were discussed and analyzed at European Court of Human Rights, on Ilie Ilascu and others v. Russia and Moldova. You will find only one paragraph with some kind of "general comments": Some national minorities opposed these changes in the Moldovan political class of the republic, since during Soviet times, local politics had often been dominated by non-Romanians, particularly by those of Russian or Ukrainian origin. The language laws presented a particularly volatile issue as a great proportion of the non-Romanian population of the Moldavian SSR did not speak Romanian. The problem of official languages in the Republic of Moldova has become a Gordian knot, being exaggerated and, perhaps, intentionally politicized. Some described the language laws as "discriminatory" and criticized their rapid implementation. This displeasure with the new policies was manifested in a more visible way in Transnistria, where urban centers such as Tiraspol, had a Slavic majority. The scenes of protests against the central government of the republic were more accute here. It is "neutral" and looks accurate to me. The paragraph is important because the language/script dispute consists the pretext of the conflict. If someone will try to study the real cause of the conflict, that would be a problem of "neutrality". There could missing some important events from the article -like so-called Ilascu group. --Vasile 00:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see what is disputed then. --Lysy (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled section

message: I don't really feel one way or the other, but this article definately strikes me as slightly biased toward the moldovan side. Stuff like the following should be sourced.
No military or volunteer from Romania, however, took part in the fighting, despite what the Russian mass-media reports.
Scare quotes should not be used as in the following.
Days after the truce had been agreed upon, a military confrontation between a local "self-defence unit"
Seems to be making excuses for the Moldovan army.
The Moldovan army was in a position of inferiority which prevented it from regaining control of Transnistria.
All in all, the article is fairly neutral, both sides are represented, just could do with a non-partisan observer to do some small cleanup. - FrancisTyers 15:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you volunteering? Otherwise I would be willing to jump into the fray. The important thing is to stick to neutrality. We don't want another War of Transnistria right here on Wiki. William Mauco 17:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go ahead :) - FrancisTyers 17:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done. See if you like it. Like you, I didn't found much evidence for the alleged Moldovan bias other than a few snipes here and there which I tried to rephrase. I also fleshed out some more content where I felt that it was needed, and changed some strange phrasing. Finally, in order to clarify I divided the article into a couple more sections such as "background" and "ceasefire". It would be good to later add a photo or two, or maybe a map. William Mauco 23:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed neutrality

message: Forces of the 14th Army (which had owed allegiance to the USSR, CIS and the Russian Federation in turn) stationed in Transnistria, had fought with and on behalf of the Transnistrian separatist forces.
I've moved this part here for now. No real proof has been given about 14th Army joining transnistrians in their struggle.--Theocide 06:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see what others have to say before removing it. I'll add a  tag to it for now. —Khoikhoi 06:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is partly true, but it is an over-simplification and it should be rewritten. I will find some sources but as a general rule it is also important to be careful when citing sources because most of them are biased one way or the other, even without wanting to. Remember that there were not any historians present so they base their accounts on reports from the front and other documents of the time, and war propaganda is notoriously misleading. A lot of supposedly neutral history which is in English is based on the Moldovan version of events, whereas most accounts in Russian are based on PMR's version of events. - Mauco 10:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reference for that claim is currently broken. What gives? --Illythr 22:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  14th Army fighting together with transnistrians? 

message: From the book of Anatolie Muntean and Nicolae Ciubotaru - "Razboiul de pe Nistru" (The War on the Dniester), AGER-Economistul publishing House, Bucharest 2002. First author is a direct participant at war, Moldovan policeman (colonel), second author is a historian. Authors consider that Moldovan high military command betrayed. Is mentioned the example of Moldovan general Pavel Creanga, who sent troops in Tighina unarmed, the armament being in an other truck, the result being the killing of more than 100 soldiers (page 210). President Mircea Snegur and general Fiodor Dabija-Kazarov are also strongly criticised, for both incompetence and treason. A quote about Dabija-Kazarov: “Everything is to be paid in this world, while I don’t want bad for anybody. After retreat, the general died in a car accident” (page 376). In the book is explained also the formation of the Moldovan Army, after the dissolution of Soviet Union. Is claimed many officers in Moldovan Army were of Russian origin, and collaborated with the enemy. Even if they were discovered, no measures were taken against them.--MariusM 23:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all the Moldovan troops who were sent to attack Tighina were unarmed, I can assure you of that. Neither were the planes who launched a campaign of carpet bombing from the air, primarily razing civilian dwellings. Do we have instances of any Transnistria's troop attacking Moldovan towns and villages in a similar way? - Mauco 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who told that all the troups were unarmed? Please refrain from straw man arguments. It was a specific incident where more than 100 Moldovan soldiers died (in fact, this incident alone amount to a significant part of total Moldovan casualities of the war). And please spare me with your propaganda about "carpet bombing from the air, primarily razing civilian dwellings". You need to read more about Transnistrian conflict, and not only Russian sources.--MariusM 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mentioned the unarmed troops, not me. With regards to the Moldovan carpet bombing attacks, I am not sure what you mean: Are you denying that this happened? Or are you claiming that Transnistria also engaged in airborne bombing attacks against Moldovan towns or villages? - Mauco 01:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Straw man argument. I mentioned one incident with unarmed troups and you put in my mouth "all the troups were unarmed". And regarding "carpet bombing from the air, primarily razing civilian dwellings", I don't believe it happened. In the book I quote is mentioned that airplanes were used only once by Moldova (not against civilian targets) and after that were not used anymore, which is an other sign of betrayal or incompetence of Moldovan high military command (not using in a war all available weapons that can bring victory). I am sure that Transnistria bombed Moldovan villages, maybe not from air but with rockets and artillery, the effect being the same.--MariusM 01:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I did not put words in your mouth. I specifically said that "Not all the Moldovan troops who were sent to attack Tighina were unarmed". Or are you denying that, too? - Mauco 01:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I recently read a memoir by a soldier for the Moldovan military with a different take on some of the issues you are debating here. In Benderskie Khroniki, Sergei Skripnik argues that General Dabizha-Kazarov was incompetent (but not traitorous) and so disliked by his men that he feared for his life once the battle began going poorly for the Moldovans. Also, both Skripnik and contemporary Soviet/Moldovan media reported on one MiG bombing. But that was an attempt to destroy the bridge that connects Tighina to Parkany (it failed). There is some debate (that I've heard) over whether stray bombs hit houses in Parkany, but I haven't heard anyone claim that it was an intentional attack on civilians. Jamason 02:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does Sergei Skripnik report anything about enthusiasm (or rather, lack of) among Moldovan troops? William Crowther notes that Moldova really didn't care much about getting Transnistria, and that this sentiment was generalized among civilians It appears that Ion Costas and other top Moldovan "hawks" at the time were isolated in their enthusiasm for the war, which can also be seen by the cabinet changes that took place immediately after the war ended. While Transnistria enthusiastically went all out in defense of the territory, the war enjoyed almost no support from a highly skeptical Moldovan population, according to Crowther in: "Moldova: caught between nation and empire", page 322, in New States, New Politics (Cambridge University Press, 1997). The first thing which came to my mind when I read the words 'Betrayal and incompetence' was the background info by Crowther on how unloved this military adventure was in Moldova at the time. - Mauco 02:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, most of the material I have seen portrays the Moldovan armed forces as poorly equipped, poorly led and not particularly enthusiastic. I think particularly as the battle of Tighina progressed and it became clear just how large the disparity in armaments were (the PMR had tanks), the Moldovan armed forces suffered something of a crisis of morale. Jamason 02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An other book on this subject - Vlad Grecu - "O viziune din focarul conflictului de la Dubăsari", Prut International Publishing House, Kishinev 2005. The author was enthusiastic to participate at the war, as a native from Dubăsari he enrolled as a volunteer in Moldovan forces, but he describes that they didn't received orders to attack from high millitarry command, and when they attack on their own they received orders to retreat from the position conquered. This description is confirmed by Muntean & Ciubotaru. Is possible however that those persons who were not enthusiastic about the war (on both sides) are less probable book writers. Grecu also claim incompetence of Moldovan Army (especially officers, soldiers and volunteers are described as heroic fighters), he said however that Transnistrian Army was also incompetent but better equipped. Regarding the tanks, I believe those didn't belong to PMR but to Russian 14th Army who fought for PMR.--MariusM 04:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We probably don't need to re-fight this battle, but I would add a slight qualification: the tanks that participated in the conflict were mostly "privatized." 14th Army personnel under the command of 14th Army generals (i.e. excluding individual partisans) did not join the battle until July. In other words, the PMR did have tanks--tanks it had obtained from the 14th Army, but tanks that were under the Dniester Guards' chain of command. Of course the 14th Army generals did join the battle, but they mostly limited themselves to artillery attacks and then only later in the fighting. Jamason 07:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Betrayal and incompetence, important aspects of the war

message: Suggestion: If it is agreeable to other editors, I would like to include a small section (near the end) on refugees. I have read account that at one point there were as many as 100,000 people who were forced to flee their homes due to the fighting. Is that true? If so, what happened to them? How many went home, and how many are still displaced (either IDPs or displaced in Ukraine and Russia). I do not have all the answers for this, but would like to start the section. Then hopefully, with collaborative editing, it can expand over time and we can get others to add sources as well. - Mauco 13:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess no opposition? - Mauco 16:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe propose the section here, first? --Illythr 16:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Smart move. Safer that way. Avoids (me hopes) the usual revert warring. - Mauco 16:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refugees