Alegerile parlamentare din 2021 în Republica Moldova -

Shevchyuk riddle

|print version||
Maxim Kuzovlev / February 15, 2008
ADEPT logo
“…in politics unconscious motivations and intentions are as frequent as in poems.”
Richard Hughes, “The wooden shepherdess”

The desire to see anybody else but not Igor Smirnov ruling Transnistria challenges information waves in the Moldovan and foreign mass media.

An article titled “Lider Pridnestrovia idyot protiv techenya” (Transnistrian leader goes against the stream) published by the Russian newspaper “Kommersant” on January 28 is the latest “sensation”. The message of the article was the following: being disappointed by Smirnov’s obstinacy, Moscow has found another favourite — the speaker of the Supreme Soviet of the MTR.

The topic clinched in the Republic of Moldova, too. But here it is discussed like something achieved. The story goes that Shevchyuk will rule Transnistria soon.

But look out! Evgeny Shevchyuk did not hear something like that. It is said that Shevchyuk visits Moscow very often and resolves all problems related to relations with the Russian Federation. Isn’t it? Does Smirnov visit Moscow less often? Or does Litskai stay in Tiraspol for a long time? No, it isn’t. They have travelled much and they did not stop to do this at present.

It is also said that the son of Igor Smirnov, Oleg Smirnov, leader of the Patriotic Party of Transnistria, has a cooperation agreement with the Russian party Spravedlivaya Rossya, while Evgeny Shevchyuk, head of the Obnovlenye Party, has signed a cooperation agreement with Yedinaya Rossya.

Beware! You observe who is stronger, isn’t it?

But it does not mean that Smirnov does not meet representatives of the Russian ruling party Rossya Party. The Russian leadership has a business with Transnistria, but it does not make a difference between persons — Shevchyuk or Smirnov.

Is there a conflict between them? Yes, there is. Shevchyuk reveals this in an interview with the same newspaper Kommersant. It makes no sensation. It is like some “normal” relations.

Is it true that Shevchyuk and forces supporting him are not very strong? No, it isn’t. They are strong enough. Like Smirnov, Shevchyuk meets foreign ambassadors, mounts the rostrum on September 2, when the Day of the Republic (MTR) is celebrated. Shevchyuk’s rhetoric regarding communication with the Chisinau Government is as categorical as of Smirnov is. Like the head of Transnistria, Shevchyuk seeks the fulfilment of previous agreements, an equal footing for the sides participating in negotiations; that means the old Transnistrian conditions.

Or maybe those who made noise are too sure that Evgeny Vasilievich is better than Igori Nicolaevich anyway? Or perhaps these articles aim to split the branches of the power in Transnistria?

One should not be a great specialist in Transnistrian politics in order to realise that Transnistrian leaders have the same opinions about basic problems such as Tiraspol-Chisinau relations. Shevchyuk was elected speaker of the Supreme Soviet by the major faction “Obnovlenye”, which represents de facto the odious Serif. This corporation has very bad “recollections” about “collaboration” with Chisinau. The situation of these representatives of Transnistrian economic elites is not at all a merit of Chisinau’s policy. It is clear that these little men will be hardly persuaded that they will be better in a (united) Moldova, isn’t it? Better than now? But now it is not bad. And the gathered capital may be invested in calmer, larger areas with a more foreseeable policy. Let’s say Ukraine.

Evgeny Vasilievich is above all a manager grown at home, who knows well the life in Transnistria, and he has started participating actively in the political and economic life in Transnistria.

He represents a very precautious force which would not operate radical changes without an appropriate support. Then what is the sense of the fuss around the name of Shevchyuk? Just to disturb the sleep of Smirnov?

Or maybe the conviction: “Anybody else but not Smirnov!”

Visa facilitation agreement: “Beer for members of trade unions only?!” Party institutionalisation and elections