Where will the next front vs. Russia be? Here's a bit of information on where I think escalation is quite plausible: Modova, if only because legacy media all but avoids the topic
And contrary to what you write the Russian "Peacekeepers" in Transnistria do not have and have never had a UN Mandate to there. In fact by agreement they were supposed to have withdrawn in 1994. The only involvement the UN has ever had in relation to them was to pass a resolution of the General Assembly in 2018 for the Russian forces to leave.
I trust that the above mistruths are due to you sloppily parroting bad sources and not deliberate dishonesty.
Thank you for spotting this--this was my bad, as I presumed the OSCE-ex-post arrangement having UN backing, which was lacking. I've since corrected this in the introductory paragraph.
When you start your article with a wildly inaccurate assertion (Transnistria is not "mainly" Russian - its about 30% Russian, about the same percentage Moldovan, and a little less than a quarter Ukrainian). it becomes difficult to trust any of the other facts you subsequently present.
In any event, Tranistria only exists because of heavily subsidized Russian gas. When that comes to an end, union with Moldova (and even Romania) will become the most attractive option.
I wrote about the much more difficult ethnic composition in one of the two above-linked pieces.
You don't need to trust the other facts I present--which is a translation of Mr. Röper's piece, as shown above. Mine are the introduction and the 'bottom lines'.
As to the point about the 'heavily subsidised Russian gas', well, that's true--but there's something else to note:
'"Transnistria is dependent on Europe for 70 per cent of its trade, while it relies on Russia for free energy imports and political support", said a 42-year-old entrepreneur, who asked not to be identified for security reasons. "But Moscow wants authorities to take a clear stance in support of their historic partner. These incidents are a kind reminder."'
And contrary to what you write the Russian "Peacekeepers" in Transnistria do not have and have never had a UN Mandate to there. In fact by agreement they were supposed to have withdrawn in 1994. The only involvement the UN has ever had in relation to them was to pass a resolution of the General Assembly in 2018 for the Russian forces to leave.
I trust that the above mistruths are due to you sloppily parroting bad sources and not deliberate dishonesty.
Thank you for spotting this--this was my bad, as I presumed the OSCE-ex-post arrangement having UN backing, which was lacking. I've since corrected this in the introductory paragraph.
When you start your article with a wildly inaccurate assertion (Transnistria is not "mainly" Russian - its about 30% Russian, about the same percentage Moldovan, and a little less than a quarter Ukrainian). it becomes difficult to trust any of the other facts you subsequently present.
In any event, Tranistria only exists because of heavily subsidized Russian gas. When that comes to an end, union with Moldova (and even Romania) will become the most attractive option.
I wrote about the much more difficult ethnic composition in one of the two above-linked pieces.
You don't need to trust the other facts I present--which is a translation of Mr. Röper's piece, as shown above. Mine are the introduction and the 'bottom lines'.
As to the point about the 'heavily subsidised Russian gas', well, that's true--but there's something else to note:
'"Transnistria is dependent on Europe for 70 per cent of its trade, while it relies on Russia for free energy imports and political support", said a 42-year-old entrepreneur, who asked not to be identified for security reasons. "But Moscow wants authorities to take a clear stance in support of their historic partner. These incidents are a kind reminder."'
Source: https://www.ft.com/content/cb2169d3-7335-4e82-906e-10b1d47d1aa5
As always, all these things are much more complex when looked at closely.