Talk:War of Transnistria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Russian and Soviet military history task force

Archives
Archive 1 (January 2006 -)

Contents 1 Political background 2 Events that prepared the war 3 Moved section 3.1 Timeline of events before the war 3.2 To do 3.3 Key players 3.4 End date 4 Language law and MPF 5 New source 6 Smirnov, honorary cossack 7 Separate timeline article

[edit] Political background

The end of the Communist rule in neighboring Romania in December 1989, and the partial opening of the border between Romania and Moldova on 6 May, 1990, led many in Transnistria to believe that a union between Moldova and Romania was soon possible, ending them inside Romania, where they could no longer demand the return to Russian as the official language.

Er, what? What about the massive nationalist demonstrations in Chisinau? Popular Front activists presenting the union as an imminent event? A wave firings of Russian(only)-speakers following the establishment of the language law? Besides, Transnistrians would be able to demand the return to Russian as the official language even if Transnistria became part of Romania... --Illythr 15:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a gross simplification to blame only the end of Communist rule. It would be more historically correct that the Popular Front for a while became the largest and most potent political force. It campaigned on a unification platform. When you see the largest political group advocating a union, the "led many in Transnistria to believe" statement is actually an understatement. I would have believed the same at the time. - Mauco 16:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, before the end of Communist rule in Romania I don't believe anybody in Moldova would want to unite with Romania. As a Romanian, in 1989 I followed the Moldovan press and I was delighted with the degree of freedom it enjoys. Freedom in Moldovan SSR in 1989 was bigger than freedom in Romania under Ceauşescu. Don't understand why anybody in Moldovan SSR would want for reunification with Romania as long Ceauşescu was still in power. If I would live in Moldovan SSR at that time, I would be against unification with Ceauşescu's Romania.--MariusM 17:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Adition: At the end of 1989 Ceauşescu's regime imposed restrictions at subscribing at Moldovan press. I was not able to subscribe again at "Literatura şi Arta" for 1990, which I subscribed at end of 1988 for 1989 (when it was still written in cyrillic).--MariusM 17:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, Moldovan (CYR) was already official in MSSR, on par with Russian. The new law basically just abolished Russian and reinforced Moldovan/Romanian. This part is kinda vague thoughout the articles - it sometimes looks like Moldovan wasn't official in MSSR at all. --Illythr 16:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Was it? I'm not sure, I will check. I was always under impression that Moldovan SSR didn't have an official language (de facto official was Russian), contrary with Caucasians SSR.--MariusM 17:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you know, I was sure that every SSR had its own language in addition to Russian, which was the "main" language. I better double check as well. --Illythr 18:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

nah...not only did the MSSR not have an official language (until 1 September 1989), but the USSR didn't even have one. jamason 18:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not Russian/Romanian/Moldovan or anything Eastern European, but just a researcher. But from what I recall, each SSR had what was referrred to as the "titular language" (which in this case would have been called "Moldavian") as well as the "language of inter-ethnic communication" (always, without any exceptions, Russian). - Mauco 18:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Each republic definitely had a titular nationality (with its own language), but I'm not sure that the Soviet governmental organs codified the place of these languages in any sense. (That is not to say that the Communist Party didn't often have policy initiatives addressing various aspects of national live in various spheres--e.g. korennizatsia.) I do know, however, that the role of Russian was not codified in 1989: the VS MSSR established Russian as the "language of inter-ethnic communication" after it passed the language laws as a compromise in the hopes of stopping the strikes at that time. jamason 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice to find the text of the Constitution of the MSSR, then. Meanwhile, looks like Jamason is correct:This edit suggests it, if indirectly. I will withdraw my statement, then.--Illythr 18:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Illythr was convinced, but my friend Mauco is still not convinced. For his enlightment, a comment about Moldavian SSR Constitution is here. Quote: "In accordance with the provisions of Article 34, the citizens of the Moldavian SSR are given "the possibility of using their mother tongue and the languages of the other peoples of the Soviet Union". Therefore, there is no mention of a right, but merely of a possibility, just as there is no mention of directly identifying the "Moldavian" language (Romanian written in the Cyrillic alphabet) as the first language in use in the Moldavian Republic, but merely as the mother tongue of some of its citizens. This language is thus placed on an equal footing with the approximately 130 other languages spoken in the Soviet Union. [4] The Constitutions of only three union republics -- Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia -- mention the language of the titular nationality as the state language. Moscow made a concession to national sentiment in these three cases only in the face of public pressure. [5] The fact that this right has been granted to the three Transcaucasian republics may have made some "Moldavians" more concerned over the lack of official primacy of their language in their republic. Nonetheless, at present the "Moldavian" language thus has merely a limited official role, used in education, the legal system, and in some cultural publications. Article 43 provides "the possibility of school education in the mother tongue." Once again, however, it is the possibility, not any specific right that is mentioned, and the use of the term "Moldavian" language is again avoided, preference obviously given to the more general wording of "mother tongue." A Reuter correspondent noted that "the Russian language dominates across the republic, and Moldavian fathers cheerfully admit to sending their children to schools operating in the Russian language to give them a better chance of getting top-level jobs when they become adults," [6] thus reflecting a trend among many other nationalities of the Soviet Union". This was CIA propaganda of 1978, article was speciffically writen for Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. My guess: First time ever Russian language aquired a official status in Moldovan SSR was by the language laws of 1989 (status of language of inter-ethnic communication). I mean official/legal status, not de-facto status.--MariusM 19:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Your friend Mauco will never be convinced ...only if US will speak russian... that is it ...I know that I should be neutral ...by I am...I am neutral .. but that Mauco is not...he is a russian propaganda puppet ( don't forget that). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catarcostica (talk • contribs) 07:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Events that prepared the war

• August 1990: Modovan SSR refused to participate at the referendum for the keeping of Soviet Union, but in Gagauz and Transnistrian regions, with the help of Soviet 14th Army (according agreement between A. Lukianov and Igor Smirnov), referendum was organised.

14th Army in Gagauzia?

14th Army was even in Chişinău, if I remember well.. The teritorry of 14th Army included all Moldova and even some parts in Ukraine (Odesa region).--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what time you are talking about. Originally, its HQ was in Chisinau, but it was moved to Tiraspol in the 1980s. --Illythr 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't talk about the HQ of 14th Army, but about 14th Army in general. Military units from entire Bessarabia were also part of 14th Army, including those which acted in Gagauz region. You chalanged the accuracy of my source based on the fact that is impossible for 14th Army to be present in Gagauzia. Your argument is wrong.--MariusM 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I find more info on the activities of the 14th army in Bessarabia (and more specifically, Gagauzia) somewhere? I remember Transnistria sending volunteers to Gagauzia against volunteers from Moldova. Surely, there was no need for that if the 14th army was there. --Illythr 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I already told the source, and I repeat it: Anatolie Muntean & Nicolae Ciubotaru - "Războiul de pe Nistru", AGER-Economistul publishing house, Bucharest 2004. To answer criticism that I didn't provide page numbers, the timetable of events (more detailed than we discuss here) is in Anex 1, pages 311-354. Problem solved.--MariusM 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• 16 September 1990: A meeting against separatism is held in the village Lunga, near Dubăsari

Any profound influence on the war?

After the proclamation of PMR not everybody in Transnistria was ready to accept it.--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That is probably true. But this particular meeting is not a key event that led to the war. --Illythr 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Each event separately is not enough to led to the war, but all those together had this outcome. We can change the title of the section if you propose a better one.--MariusM 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the name of the section is well-chosen, if ill-formed. "Timeline of key events that led to war" or somethig would probably be better. The problem remains, however, that many of these events, were not "key" and that many others are excluded. The inherent POV of such a section lies in that it really should read "Timeline of key events that someone thinks had led to war". Hmm... --Illythr 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the name of the section, I took out the word "key" in order to avoid POV disputes which event is key and which is not. With this, I think this particular problem is solved.--MariusM 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• 2 November 1990: The bridges over Dniester are blocked by separatists. At the bridge near Dubăsari, clashes are held between the police which wanted to open the bridge and separatists. Deaths and woundeds are registered at both sides.

Both sides? Exact numbers, names? (I vaguelly remember that one policeman was wounded, will look for more info)

The main source I used - Muntean & Ciubotaru - "Războiul de pe Nistru", where is a timetable of the conflict, is not giving details.--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem. The "mirror source" Mauco provided says "Moldovan police used weapons on demonstrants in Dubossary. 3 killed 16 wounded". This is a fact, too. The way it is presented is more inportant than the fact itself. --Illythr 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Come with clear proposals to improve the article. Mauco's source is not specifying from which side were the victims, mine is specifying in general that victims are from both sides, without numbers.--MariusM 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove most of those events and place those you think appropriate as footnotes to support parts of the main text. Many more from the other side need to be added before the timeline is inserted back into the mainspace as well. Inserting it as it is now warrants a {{NPOV-sect}} or {{Missing information|Moldovan chain of events}}. Oh, and {{spelling}}, too.. --Illythr 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as the numbers go:
TASS, 2 November 1990: “according to Mircea Druc, he ordered the police to clear the bridge, the roads and offices in the city...[the arrival of Moldovan forces] prompted a sharp negative reaction of residents—who began throwing stones. A police officer was wounded.” According to city authorities (i.e. separatist Dubossary city soviet), 6 were killed and 30 wounded.
TASS, 3 November 1990:“’Militias who blocked the bridge used barbaric methods—lances, crow-bars and stones.’ Costas said. ‘A huge crowd of people attacked militiamen, using even petrol bombs.’”
Dubossary City authories (again, a partisan source) later adjusted the figure to 3 killed (Geletiuk, Mitsul, Gotka), 13 wounded by gun fire. The numbers repeated in the TASS reports were always attributed to the Dubossary city soviet (the Moldovan authorities did not provide numbers of killed and wounded separatists), but Druc indicates that only one police officer was wounded. jamason 21:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In the book of Vlad Grecu - "O istorie a conflictului de la Dubăsari", Prut International, Chişinău 2005, page 33, which is quoting a written eye-witness account which was received by Ştefan Urîtu, who latter give it to Mircea Druc, one of the deaths - Oleg Gheletiuc from Lunga, was a supporter of Moldovan government which was killed by fire opened from a military unit of 14th Army, in the Fontan neighborhood of Dubăsari. Commetn at Grecu's book, including the mentioning of this incident, is here. I will rephrase this sentence in: 2 November 1990: The bridges over Dniester are blocked by separatists. At the bridge near Dubăsari, clashes are held between the police which wanted to open the bridge and separatists. 3 deaths and several woundeds are registered.--MariusM 10:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• As result of their support for the coup in Moscow, several separatists leaders, including Igor Smirnov and G. Pologov, are arrested. They will be freed later.

Was that really a result of their support for the coup? Must've been pure coincidence that they were arrested by Moldovan units in Kiev.

Do you deny they supported the coup? You can add the place where they were arrested. Was Pologov arrested in Kiev?--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I deny this. "As a result of their support..." is a wild and irresponsible statement. Please state if this support was material (as in men, arms, money, logistical planning, etc) or if is was a statement of sympathy (as in "great, finally some Law & Order in Moscow"). If so, millions of people throughout the USSR supported the coup. They turned on their TV and saw it. Lots of folks did not support it. Lots of folks did. There were millions of people on both sides of the issue. Smirnov and other OSTK leaders happened to fall into one of these two groups. But their "support" did not extend to anything material whatsoever. If you claim support, please prove it. - Mauco 03:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My source (Muntean & Ciubotaru) is specifically telling that PMR leaders supported the coup. Is not inherently bad to suport the coup. As you know, millions of true Russian patriots did support the coup, we are not blaming them, we are just reporting the facts, they should be proud of what they did. Quote from my source: "19 august 1991: La Tiraspol şi Tighina s-a introdus starea excepţională, toate drumurile au fost închise, s-a organizat patrularea miliţiei şi gărzilor OSTK. Liderii separatişti s-au adresat populaţiei rusofone să susţină puciul de la Moscova" (page 315). The love between coup leaders and PMR leaders was reciprocal - Anatoly Lukianov, who supported PMR, was also a coup leader. In the article wasn't included a claim that support was material (arms, money, logistical planning), don't use straw man arguments.--MariusM 12:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That is rich. It is of course NOT a straw man argument. Please learn to be civil. This is a very real concern which is related to the edit. If this alleged "support" if important enough to be included in an encyclopedia (and you seem to think so), then you must find a source to explain what form this support took. Surely you are not claiming that they were arrested merely for holding an opinion, like millions of others who privately agreed with the failed coup and cheered it on from the sidelines for political reasons? If so, then the new "democratic" Moldovan state was a lot less democratic than its supporters at the time had led us to believe. If your source does not have any information on the kind of support, then please find one that does. If you can not do this, then the edit will not be suitable for inclusion. It is an unsupported blanket statement with no proof of any significant, material support of any kind, and certainly not the kind of support that would merit an arrest, as you sentence implies. - Mauco 13:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely my concern. The sentence says that he was arrested because he supported the coup. This implies that his support was so serious that it warranted an arrest. This is like saying that Ilashku was arrested for organizing a terrorist cell in Transnistria without mentioning the political background for that arrest. Even then, this was the official reason. I wonder, if there was an official reason for Smirnov and the other Transnisntrian leaders. --Illythr 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My source is specifying the kind of support PMR leaders gave to the coup. Their suport for coup is clear, but I agree that they were arrested for their actions in Moldova, the failed coup was only a favourable moment. Before the coup Moldova didn't dare to arrest Russian nationalists from Transnistria. If you want to take away "as result of their support for the coup in Moscow", is O.K. with me. We should mention the arrest.--MariusM 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about your source, but the statement above certainly doesn't clarify what kind of support that was. You have also misplaced the label "nationalists", I'm afraid. The fact of arrest must be mentioned, of course. --21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I took out "As result of their support for coup". Problem solved.--MariusM 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• 15 November 1991: In Tighina and Dubăsari people are forbidden to subscribe at Romanian-language newspapers from Chişinău.

It may be worth noting that subscription to the (few remaining) Russian language newspapers in Chisinau was allowed only together with the subscription to the Romanian language edition of "Nezavisimaya Moldova""Moldova Suverană" at the time.

First time I heard this. Is it original research? Russian-language press in Chişinău is doing well, AFAIK. I am not convinced that a Romanian language edition of Nezavisimaya Moldova existed. AFAIK, "Moldova Suverană" was an independent newspaper, with its own staff.--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about that particular period. Yes, my own experience does qualify as OR, I suppose. And yes, it was "Moldova Suverană", I thought that it was the same newspaper, because I had the name translated for me. --Illythr 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Find a source and we will include it. It is important however to see exactly which time period was this.--MariusM 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

1989-1992. But I think this one is a prime footnote candidate. --Illythr 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• 27 November 1991: A delegation of International Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights visit Moldova, but Igor Smirnov refused to disscuss with it.

Was he invited to Chisinau for the... discussion? :-)

My source (Muntean & Ciubotaru) specifically tell that the meeting was supposed to be held in Tiraspol. I will add this clarificaton in the article.--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, this is interesting, I'll look into it. --Illythr 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Explanations were added, problem solved.--MariusM 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• 1 December 1991: A group of 20-25 persons, 6 with automatic guns, enter in the village Mălăieşti, Grigoriopol district, asking the organisation of elections for Transnistrian authorities. However, the villagers refused to participate in ellections. Same actions hapened in Speia, Butor and Taşlîc.

This sounds weird. Did they ask or demand elections? Why didn't they use their weapons?

I don't make assumptions.--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your source does that for you. It also provokes certain assumptions from readers. --Illythr 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Is just reporting facts.--MariusM 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sourced information, problem solved.--MariusM 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• 9 December 1991: At police section from Tighina a group of separatists leaded by Kogut from Tiraspol arrived and informed the comandant V. Gusleacov that he was dissmissed, asking him to give the keys and all the documents to the new apointed boss. Gusleacov refused, and the police was surrounded by Transnistrian guards. Policemen who came to the section were arrested and disarmed, the building of road police attacked and the cars stollen. In the help of police came people from nearby village like Varniţa, Chircăieşti, Ursoaia and Transnistrian guard was forced to withdraw.

This sounds highly dubious.

But it can be true.--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How could unarmed villagers force the armed guards to withdraw? Unless the guards were reluctant to use arms on the local population... Also, in this particular context, the proper word is "confiscated", not "stolen" :-) --Illythr 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Policemen inside police section were armed. Opening fire against population could cause reaction from policemen. I agree to change "stollen" with "confiscated" to make you happy.--MariusM 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Word "stollen" changed with "confiscated". Problem solved.--MariusM 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• 10 December 1991: S. Trocin and V. Oprea were arrested in Tighina and kept several days in a basement only because they spoke Romanian in Sovetskaia street.

Hm, no official reasons? Should we also mention all the Russians-speakers who were threatened or beaten (one was even killed) on the streets of Chisinau at that time for exactly the same reason?

Do you have a source for official reasons?--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I don't think this belongs to the timeline. --Illythr 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody stopped you to include in timeline whatever abuses against Russians in Chişinău if you can prove them. I am not the person to object at inclusion of factually correct facts. However I doubt that authorities in Chişinău took actions against anybody just because he spoke Russian. My source is clearly indicating the reasons for the arrest of Trocin and Oprea: they spoke Romanian on a street in Tighina.--MariusM 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Such info would only be worth including as a footnote elsewhere. Still, good point, I'll see if I can find anything. --Illythr 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem with this onformation. When aditional info will apear, we will discuss it.--MariusM 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• 27 December 1991: The building of democratically ellected raional Soviet of Dubăsari, which refused to accept separatism, is blocked by Transnistrian authorities.

Heh, I understand that only those raional Soviet that opposed separatism were democratically elected, then? :-)

You should understand exactly what is written: Dubăsari raional soviet was democratically ellected.--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that the others (Tiraspol, Rybnitsa, Bender) weren't? --Illythr 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make such an affirmation, don't use straw man arguments. It should be mentioned that authorities of Chişinău didn't try to stop the activities of pro-OSTK local Soviets. They issued statements that some of the decisions of those Soviets are not legal, but they didn't take violent action against those Soviets.--MariusM 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, doesn't arresting them (Smirnov et al) count as "violent actions"? And jamason has a point there. --Illythr 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For avoiding disputes, I took out "democratically ellected". Problem solved.--MariusM 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• 13 January 1992: E. Martin and V. Plămădeală were shoot by transnistrian guards.

Shot or shot at? And who are they? And where did this happen?

My mistake I didn't explained. They were wounded at feet at the exit of Dubăsari, at "Poltava" road.--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Explications added, problem solved.--MariusM 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• 2 February 1992: At Lunga is wounded the policeman V. Rusu.

?

What is difficult to understand? His car was stopped by 18 separatists.--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not a telepath to understand "His car was stopped by 18 separatists." from "At Lunga is wounded the policeman V. Rusu." --Illythr 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake I didn't explained. I added a large amount of text (not everything is written in my source) and I was tired. Now, I hope is clear.--MariusM 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Explication added, problem solved.--MariusM 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• 14 February 1992: People from Transnistria were going to Moscow to inform public opinion about Human right abuses in Transnistria.

?

I will check Grecu's book, I think he has more details about this.--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• 20 February 1992: Peacefull demonstrators in Lunga, near Dubăsari, who protested against referendum organised in the village by Transnistrian authorities, are scaterred by force. Fire was opened against them and tear gas was used, at the order of Alexandru Porojan, separatist leader from Dubăsari.

One man's separatist is another man's demonstrator, I see.

We are reporting facts here.--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, The way they are is presented is often more inportant than the facts themselves. Besides, this list contains strictly the facts from the perspective of one side. This is bad. --Illythr 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Find an other perspective and we will discuss.--MariusM 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That'd be jamason's points and Mauco's link (too bad it's in Russian). --Illythr 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem here regarding the sentence, just a need to find other views about the incident, if such view exists.--MariusM 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• 22 February 1992: Military unit 01002 is atacked by separatists. 95 officers and soldiers were embused and drove until the bridge over Dniester, where they were told to go to Chişinău by foot.

Attacked? Losses?

No mention about losses in my source.--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement correct, no problem here.--MariusM 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• 29 February 1992: Near Dubova, unknown persons armed with automatic guns stopped a car, killed the driver N. Boiniceanu, wounded an other person and robbed the passengers

Errrrr?! An event that prepared the war?

Lawlessness in the region is relevant.--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Such lawlessness was common everywhere in the former USSR at the time. This particular event did not lead to the war. Although the general background is indeed worth noting. --Illythr 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really everywhere, I guess. I guess in Transnistria lawlessness was more common. One of the accusation raised against Transnistria in pro-Moldovan books is that they armed persons taken from prisons, which received pardons if they accept enrollment in Transnistrian guards. An specific example of Russian citizen Şişanov, which received a 6 year sentence from Odessa Court, was pardoned by Mărăcuţă and enroll himself in Dniestrian Gurd is showed by Muntean & Ciubotaru, with documents. An other example is with ukrainian citizen Kuţan, which was released from prison and was found also in Dniestrian guards. The claim is that it was a widespread situation.--MariusM 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't belong to the timeline. Instead, insert it into "political background" with a footnote reference. --Illythr 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In short, not even our local (Chisinau) pro-Moldovan sources are that one-sided when descibing the events that led to the war. --Illythr 16:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You know only Russian-language sources from Chişinău. My main source for this timetable is Anatolie Muntean & Nicolae Ciubotaru - "Războiul de pe Nistru", AGER-Economistul publishing house, Bucharest 2004.--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The article became worse, not better, with this latest addition. (And a new atrocity was added to the list already committed in the war of Transnistria: spelling). A timeline is an excellent idea. But I propose that we move it here, while we work on making it NPOV. For a bit of balance, we can look into a mirror: Same events, same timeline, different conclusions. And equally onesided. The look in the mirror is here: http://priznanie.tiras.ru/page.php?18 - Mauco 17:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You can add events if you have source.--MariusM 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly will. The timeline is a good idea, but not based on a blatant POV source. So I propose that we move it here, while we work on making it NPOV through collaborative editing. You do want to collaborate, don't you? - Mauco 03:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree to remove the section. You should propose improvements on this section, not apply censorship. You can remove info only if you can prove it is incorrect.--MariusM 04:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, buddy. That is not how it works. You can not just introduce a controversial, biased section and then refuse to work on it here, in Talk. As you can see above, Illythr has dissected it step by step and almost every single line is questionable. I have even more concerns than he does. We are both willing to work with you, but try to seek consensus for your edits. They are highly POV based, and you have been told so more than once from both of us within the last 24 hours. - Mauco 05:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you don't really care about things like "consensus" when pushing your side. I'll hang out the tags for now. I'll compile an acceptable version later today. --Illythr 13:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved section

[edit] Timeline of events before the war

Now, let us work on this. Starting with the headline: this is not good, proper English. - Mauco 05:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You should come with proposals for improvements, but don't delete the entire paragraph. You are wellcome to add other events if those are factually correct and you can provide sources.--MariusM 12:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• 30 december 1988: In Chişinău, with the help of A. Bolşakov, the manager of "Tocilmaş" factory from Tiraspol, is formed the movement "Interdvijenie", later renamed "Edinstvo", a movement with the aim of defending the interests of Russians from Moldova. This movement was against acceptance of Moldovan (Romanian) as official language, latin script for Moldovan and later supported Transnistrian separatism.
• 15 July 1990: A. Lukianov, chairman of Supreme Soviet from Moscow, sent to the widespread Russian newspaper Izvestia a letter of Transnistrian and Gagauzian separatists.
• August 1990: Modovan SSR refused to participate at the referendum for the keeping of Soviet Union, but in Gagauz and Transnistrian regions, with the help of Soviet 14th Army (according agreement between A. Lukianov and Igor Smirnov), referendum was organised.
• 2 September 1990: Transnistrian Republic is proclaimed at Tiraspol.
• 16 September 1990: A meeting against separatism is held in the village Lunga, near Dubăsari^[1].
• 2 November 1990: The bridges over Dniester are blocked by separatists. At the bridge near Dubăsari, clashes are held between the police which wanted to open the bridge and separatists. 3 deaths and several woundeds are registered.
• 12 March 1991: Based on the order of V. C. Bogdanov, place tenant of Tiraspol city Executive Comitee, a 200 people strong military unit is formed, with weapons and ammunition received from Soviet Army. Same developments hapened in Tighina, Dubăsari and Rîbniţa.
• May 1991: The Supreme Soviet of Transnistria order to all policemen from Transnistrian teritorry to obey separatist authorities. A separatist Ministry of Interior and Prosecutor office is formed.
• 19 august 1991: Separatist authorities proclaimed exceptional situation at Tiraspol and Tighina. Dniester guards are patrooling the cities, roads are blocked. Transnistrian leaders asked the population to supoort the coup which was done in Moscow.
• Several separatists leaders, including Igor Smirnov and G. Pologov, are arrested. They will be freed later.
• 6 and 18 September 1991: Separatist authorities order that all military units of Soviet Union in the region need to obey the jurisdiction of Transnistria.
• 10-20 September 1991: At the indications of Odessa military district leadership a general assembly of officers and non-coms from Soviet Army in Transnistria is held. With this occasion, is expressed the will to support transnistrian separatism, independent of Moscow's orders.
• 11 September 1991: The Russian military unit 03517 from Rîbniţa decided to defend the Transnistrian Republic.
• 19 September 1991: Police section in Rîbniţa is taken by separatists.
• 22 September 1991: Police section in Camenca is taken by separatists.
• 2 October 1991: Tiraspol city Executive Comitee issue a decision asking local police to refuse subordination to the authorities from Chişinău.
• 16 October 1991: At Dubăsari, an explosion was done at the police, which was still loyal to Chişinău.
• 8 November 1991: The newspaper Nezavismaya Moldova is publishing facts about Human rights abuses in Transnistria: explosions and burning of houses of people which refused to accept separatist authorities, threats against the family of policeman Vladimir Colesnic, second in command of Dubăsari police section which refused to accept separatist authorities; the situation of refugees.
• 15 November 1991: In Tighina and Dubăsari people are forbidden to subscribe at Romanian-language newspapers from Chişinău.
• 19 November 1991: Weaponry and ammunition is transferred from 14th Soviet Army to separatist authorities.
• 21 November 1991: Authorities from Tiraspol forbid local entreprises to colaborate with Moldovan National Bank.
• 26-30 November 1991: Transnistrian guard from Rîbniţa received weapons and ammunition from 14th Army military unit of Colbasna.
• 27 November 1991: In the building of local authorities from the village Teia, Grigoriopol district, 6 persons from Tiraspol. 2 with automatic guns, forced local authorities to organise a voting section for the elections of Transnistrian president. Same situation appeared in other localities of Transnistria.
• 27 November 1991: A delegation of International Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights visit Moldova. Igor Smirnov refused to participate in Tiraspol at the meeting with this delegation.
• 27 November 1991: Trudovoi Tiraspol, a newspaper run by OSTK, is publishing the list with names and adresses of Moldovan policemen from Transnistria who refuse to obey separatist authorities, asking repressions against them.
• 1 December 1991: A group of 20-25 persons, 6 with automatic guns, enter in the village Mălăieşti, Grigoriopol district,a asking the organisation of elections for Transnistrian authorities. However, the villagers refused to participate in ellections. Same actions hapened in Speia, Butor and Taşlîc.
• 1-5 December 1991: All the bridges over Dniester are blocked by separatists.
• 5 December 1991: Viktor Malic, assistant of Soviet Union Ministry of Interior, in an interview in Nezavisimaia Moldova, is telling that the result of research done by Soviet Union prosecutor office regarding the events in 2 November 1990 in Dubăsari, shows that transnistrian authorities made the disorders and Moldovan police acted within legal limits.
• 6 December 1991: A group od armed separatists is imposing Slobozia police section to accept the jurisdiction of Transnistria. The commander of police section was beaten and his acces to the police section was forbidden.
• 6 December 1991: Transnistrian guards are opening fire against a car belonging to Moldovan police, at the brigde over Dniester at Gura Bîcului. The policeman N. Dociu is wounded.
• 8 December 1991: L. Toderaş, prosecutor of Tighina city, is arrested by separatists and interogated at OSTK.
• 8 December 1991: 700 Transnistrian guards and cossacks, armed with bren guns, armored chariers, grenade throwers received from Russian 14th Army, are concentrated in the outskirts of Dubăsari. The police receive an ultimatum to swear allegiance to the Transnistrian Republic.
• 9 December 1991: At police section from Tighina a group of separatists leaded by Kogut from Tiraspol arrived and informed the comandant V. Gusleacov that he was dissmissed, asking him to give the keys and all the documents to the new apointed boss. Gusleacov refused, and the police was surrounded by Transnistrian guards. Policemen who came to the section were arrested and disarmed, the building of road police attacked and the cars confiscated. In the help of police came people from nearby village like Varniţa, Chircăieşti, Ursoaia and Transnistrian guard was forced to withdraw.
• 10 December 1991: Near the village Lunga, 5 transnistrian guards stopped the car with the policeman A. Ismailov, take him out of the care, beat him and confiscate his gun.
• 10 December 1991: S. Trocin and V. Oprea were arrested in Tighina and kept several days in a basement only because they spoke Romanian in Sovetskaia street.
• 11 December 1991: Ellections are held for the president of Transnistrian Republic.
• Night of 12 to 13 December 1991: Police section in Dubăsari is besieged by separatist. 35 policemen are in the building threatened by death.
• 13 December 1991: A group of policemen was send to help the besieged Dubăsari police station. They are attacked with bren guns. 4 policemen will die: Ghenadie Iablocikin, Mihail Arnăut, Valentin Mereniuc and Gheorghe Caşu.
• 13 December 1991: At Tighina, a reporter of Moldovan television is arrested, his camera confiscated. He will be freed at the intervention of Moldovan police.
• 14 December 1991: In Dubăsari, is opened fire against A. Terentiev, electrician, and against a truck belonging to the raional Soviet (which refused to accept separatism). The truck driver, V. Chiriac, and his passenger, are wounded.
• 14 December 1991: Policemen S. Lopatiuc and V. Dorofenco are taken hostage by separatists. The later will be hospitalized after beatings.
• 14 December 1991: The newspaper Drujba from Grigoriopol, which was against separatism, is closed by Transnistrian authorities. Local radio station is attacked.
• 15 December 1991: Moldovan president Mircea Snegur is meeting with Igor Smirnov.
• 21 December 1991: Igor Smirnov is ellected honorary cossack.
• 27 December 1991: The building of raional Soviet of Dubăsari, which refused to accept separatism, is blocked by Transnistrian authorities.
• 3 January 1992: The KGB section from Tighina is occupied by separatists.
• 3 January 1992: The mayor of Varniţa, A. Cuconescu, and other several people are arested in Varniţa town hall and taken to Tiraspol, where are interogated and threatened with prison. They will be freed at request of Chişinău authorities.
• 6 January: On the road Dubăsari-Rîbniţa 6 armed transnistrian guards arrested Moldovan policemen P. Frecăuţan and H. Adam. They were forced to leave the rayon with their families, if they want to live.
• 9 January 1992: 70 armed separatists attacked a column of trucks from military unit 07481, which transported weapons from Hlinaia (Grigoriopol district) to Chişinău. Trucks, weapons and ammunition are captured by separatists.
• 12 January 1992: Transnistrian guards open fire against a car belonging to Moldovan police in Dubăsari. 2 persons (policemen S. Ţîstoi and a passenger) are wounded. In an other incident at Dubăsari, other 2 persons are wounded (policeman S. Manole and G. Damaschin).
• 13 January 1992: E. Martin and V. Plămădeală were shoot by transnistrian guards and wounded at legs, at the exit from Dubăsari.
• 15 January 1992: 2 policemen and a woman are wounded when fire is opened against a Moldovan police car.
• 22 January 1992: The prosecutor of Tighina, L. Toderaş, is arrested again. As result of the disscussion of Moldovan police he will be freed.
• 25 January 1992: New arrest for L. Toderaş, prosecutor of Tighina. His family and coleagues are intimidated.
• 29 January 1992: Separatist militsya arrest some drunken cossacks in Tiraspol. The headquarters of militsya is blocked by women comitee, and the cossacks are freed.
• 30 January 1992: Attacks against several sections of Moldovan police in Tighina. 39 policemen were agressed. Road police section is stormed and put on fire. 18 guns and 6 cars are stollen.
• 31 January 1992: 4 policemen were arrested in Tighina and beaten.
• 1 february 1992: F. Ţurcan is killed near Dubăsari, in the village Lunga, at a checking pont organised by Transnistrian guards, when fire was opened against his car, despite the fact he stopped at Transnistrian gurads request.
• 2 February 1992: At Lunga is wounded the policeman V. Rusu, after his car was stopped by 18 separatists.
• 4 February 1992: the deputy of Tighina police, A. Corolicov, and the police officer O. Pavliuc were arrested when they returned from their job. They were beaten and their weapons confiscated.
• 12 February 1992: The school for medical nursery in Tighina is closed by Transnistrian authorities.
• 14 February 1992: People from Transnistria were going to Moscow to inform public opinion about Human right abuses in Transnistria.
• 19 February 1992: The custom building in Dubăsari is attacked by separatists, custom-house officers are beaten, their weapons confiscated.
• 20 February 1992: Peacefull demonstrators in Lunga, near Dubăsari, who protested against referendum organised in the village by Transnistrian authorities, are scaterred by force. Fire was opened against them and tear gas was used, at the order of Alexandru Porojan, separatist leader from Dubăsari.
• 21 February 1992: In Slobozia, the bank accounts of 2 schools which refused to accept Transnistrian authorities, are closed.
• 22 February 1992: Military unit 01002 is atacked by separatists. 95 officers and soldiers were embused and drove until the bridge over Dniester, where they were told to go to Chişinău by foot.
• 29 February 1992: Near Dubova, unknown persons armed with automatic guns stopped a car, killed the driver N. Boiniceanu, wounded an other person and robbed the passengers^[2].

[edit] To do

This section clearly needs a great deal of work. Global issues:

1. The events here are often minor and occasionally footnotes to larger phenomena. MariusM implicitly recognizes this himself in such statements as "Lawlessness in the region is relevant." If lawlessness is relevant it should be mentioned in the article and the incident could be used as an example in a footnote. Let's think big here. What about the broken cease-fires, the mobilizing of troops, the declarations of state of emergency? Events that are important are overwhelmed by the minutia. jamason 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Include whatever you consider relevant in the timetable. Nobody stopped you to do this.--MariusM 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

1. But, like Jamason correctly says: "Events that are important are overwhelmed by the minutia" so the first order of business would be to weed out the stuff that is clearly not relevant for an encyclopedia. Maybe it fits in a book, and maybe in yesterday's newspaper. But there are a lot of clearly minor items that had no significant influence on the events leading up to the war, so please don't cry censorship if we take them out. It is just good editing. - Mauco 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1. POV. Illythr and Mauco have already commented on this extensively. We can also witness that every possible apocryphal story of attacks on Moldovan cops is included, while attacks on (and the murders of) PMSSR or OSTK activists are ignored. In fact, the "Moldovan side" is hardly mentioned. The point is, of course, that everything that was done to precipitate the conflict was done by the separatist side. A position that stretches credibility, even if one is inclined to believe that one side was largely to blame. jamason 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Not every possible apocryphical story was added, I was to lazy to add everything is written in the book. Jamason, you should read the book before comenting on it.--MariusM 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

   POV can be undue weight alone, and I think that this is what Jamason is referring to. The timeline, while good, is giving excessive detail to crimes and misdemeanors of one side, exclusively. That in itself is POV. - Mauco 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Sources. This list has only one source and the page numbers are not provided. jamason 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Page numbers for timetable in Ciubotaru & Muntean book are 311-354. Is the problem of other editors to come with other sources, and aditional info will be added when is sourced. This is how Wikipedia works.--MariusM 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Why does it stop in February 1992? Was this a conscious choice or did the book from which this was drawn stop on 29 February? jamason 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Because the war "proper" began in March, most likely. --Illythr 18:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Fair enough. jamason 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Yes. The "official" start date of this war is 2 March 1992. But since this is not clear in the timeline and in the article itself, in its current form, it should be made clearer. - Mauco 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1. The timetable in the book is continuing until August 1992. I stopped at February because it was a large amount of text to add and I was tired, also I thought that later events should be added in an other section.--MariusM 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

1. "Tired" is OK. But how about a timeline for the war itself? And maybe even a section on some of the events that happened after the war (like the creation of the JCC, with a link to our article on JCC). - Mauco 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Smaller issues:

1. "the democratically ellected raional Soviet of Dubăsari"? You've said on another page that the elections of 1990 were not democratic. [1] jamason 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   I've said that in 1990 were the most democratic ellections in the entire history of Transnistria, while still not 100% democratic (for example, MPF didn't have its own newspaper and was not able to submit candidatures in all electoral districts). Anyhow, to make people happy, I removed "democratically ellected".--MariusM 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

2. What happened to 1989? Is the creation of ID Edinstvo-Unitate really more important than the creation of the Popular Front?jamason 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   In 1992 MPF was not in power, Snegur ousted Druc before the war (in May 1991) and MPF was in oposition with Snegur (see position of MPF in December 1991 elections). You can not blame war on MPF. When Druc government was in power there were 3 deaths in Transnistria, after Druc was ousted 1000 deaths appeared.--MariusM 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That is an exaggeration (understatement first, overstatement second). But yes, we can most certainly blame the war on Moldovan hardline nationalists. Foremost among them: Mircea Druc. Another extreme nationalist was general Ion Costas, ministru al Apararii. Could the war have been avoided if more moderate voices had been in charge? Probably. Transnistria did not go to war, or seek a war with Moldova. - Mauco 19:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1. What happened to most of 1990? Is it not important that the Popular front won many seats in the Supreme Soviet of the MSSR and OSTK supporters won many seats in Transnistrian local government? Unfortunately, I don't have time to go through line by line, but I agree with Illythr in many of his concerns for specific events in the list. jamason 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   You are a wikipedian like all of us, you can come with proposals for adding relevant events. But don't pretend we can not add the events in the article only because you don't have time to check.--MariusM 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Key players

There are four key players in the conflict. The actions of all four need to be mentioned in the timeline before it is introduced into the mainspace to provide an objective picture:

1. The Moldovan Popular Front and its activists. They are responsible for organizing the demonstrations, proposing the language law, sending armed volunteers to the wayward parts of the country and generally creating the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty among the non-Moldovan population that fueled the separatist sentiments*.

   Currently no info, except for disbanding.

2. The Moldovan Government, principally Mircea Snegur, who capitalized on the rise of nationalism and, by making promises and later, concessions to the nationalists, secured the Presidential seat for himself**.

   Currently no info.

3. The OSTK, headed by Igor Smirnov, who, likewise capitalized on the fears of the populace and came to power.

   Currently, the exclusive focus of the timeline.

4. The 14th Army, that "supplied" the separatists and later intervened to stop the war.

   The mention is more or less given.

Additionally, the defunct Soviet and (later) Russian government played a notable role, but before the war they mostly limited themselves to issuing orders and notes to which nobody really paid any serious attention.

(*) In fact, the adopted version of the language law was rather soft (as compared to the Baltic states, for example). It was the frontists' activities throughout Moldova (like the "Statue of Stefan's bride" Lari, Druc and others), that caused the minority ethnics to fear for their future.

(**) He disposed of the MPF when it became a threat to his power (sort of reminiscent of Ion Antonescu and his relations with the Iron Guard back in 1940), demanding unification with Romania. Nevertheless, the damage was already done. --Illythr 23:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End date

Besides rounding out the list as Illythr suggests above, we might also think about bringing in events that occurred during the war as well — particularly since they are no longer "key" to precipitating the conflict
The only problem is what to call such a list. "Timeline of Events" is fine but dull. I actually like the title that Muntean and Ciubotaru give the list in their book (with a slight alteration) on which MariusM originally based this addition: "Destabilization of the situation in Transnistria, a chronology of events (1988-1992)." jamason 15:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Or simply "Timeline of the Transnistrian conflict". --Illythr 21:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language law and MPF

The source (judging by the timeline presented) is highly biased, ignoring many of the inconvenient key events (protests against the language law, firings after its implementation, refusal of Moldovan authorities to grant Russian official status anywhere in the Republic, the events described in the Cocieri-Dubăsari area), etc . I also have to say that the news media in Chisinau are bilingual with the exception of explicitly nationalist sources like Flux, Ţara or Literatura si Artǎ. I wouldn't consider those sources neutral or accurate. --Illythr 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you consider that Moldovan authorities had an obligation to grant Russian official status. I don't agree with this. Regarding firings, I know that language law tell about a 5 years period in which Russian speakers have time to learn Romanian. Afterwards, the examinations of Russian speakers was dropped anyway. What firings are you talking about, as result of the law? Any incompetent Russian which lost his position is claiming national persecution. BTW, "Ţara" did have a Russian-language edition at begining, MPF did try a dialogue with Russian speakers. Sorry that Russians were not interested to buy this Russian-language newspaper and it had to stop for economic reasons.--MariusM 06:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What I think is totally irrelevant. This was a proposed solution to the crisis that the Moldovan government refused. The wave of firings came immediately after the passing of the law and was punitive action against strikes that occurred before. All those Russians became "incompetent" within a month. The "dialogue" with Russian speakers initiated by the MPF was mostly in the form "will the occupants leave by themselves or do we have to show them the way?" until after the war, when the popular support for the MPF had all but vanished.

As you are from Chişinău I supposed you lived in Chişinău also during 1988-1992 (please confirm) and probably you have more information than me about the events (I wonder how old were you at that time). My information are only from Moldovan press which I followed at that time. However, as the majority of Russians from Moldova, you took your information on MPF only from Russian-language press and I think you have a distorted image. MPF organised demonstrations and pushed for language law, but this is not a criminal fact, only a democratic right. The law was "soft", as you notice, compared with the Baltic versions. No Russian was fired as result of this law, as it contained a 5-years period in which all Russian-speakers can learn Romanian. Afterwards even this 5 years period was dropped. You tell now that firings occured as result of punitive actions against strikes - is a little bit different story. Language law has nothing to do with firings. MPF also has nothing to do with firings - I quote your words: "All those Russians became incompetent in a month". Language law was adopted in August 1989, that means firings happened in September 1989 - when MPF was in oposition! The Moldovan government was made by Communist party (I think Ivan Calin was prime-minister) and MPF was the main opponent of Communist party. In November, several MPF activists were arrested and, as consequence, MPF supporters attacked the building of Moldovan Ministry of Interior (led by Vladimir Voronin) - this was the event that lead to the dissmissal of Simion Grosu from the head of Moldovan Communist Party and his replacement with Petru Lucinski. Until Simion Grosu lead the Communist Party the opposition between Popular Front and Communist party was serious, and November events are showing that. For Simion Grosu, MPF was the main enemy, and MPF was the cause of the end of his political career. Why you blame MPF for things that happened during the government of Communist party, when Communist party was lead by Grosu? MPF was part of the government only in 1990, when Mircea Druc became prime-minister, and even then was not an MPF-only government, but a coalition government. Deputy prime-minister was Andrei Sangheli. In May 1991 MPF government was dissmissed. MPF can have responsibility for things that happened in Moldova during Druc government, not before and not after! They were in strong opposition to the government in September 1989, when firing of Russian speakers occured, per your original research, and they were also in opposition in 1992, during the War of Transnistria. Why is everything blamed on MPF when it didn't had the political power? Those who had political power in Moldova, both in 1989 and in 1992, considered rightly that MPF is the main danger for their political power. After Druc dissmissal, Snegur passed an electoral law that didn't allow Druc to compete for December 1991 presidential elections. A requirement for a minimum period of living in Moldova prior to candidacy was imposed, specially designed to stop Druc (who spent most of his life in Leningrad and Moscow, returned in Moldova only in late 1989 or early 1990, don't know exactly). There is an opinion that War of Transnistria was started by Snegur not to destroy Transnistrian separatism, but to destroy MPF. Some statements of Ilie Ilaşcu are suggesting this interpretation.--MariusM 22:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

An important thing that Illythr is talking about is "the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty" among Russian speakers. He is blaming for that Moldovan Popular Front, mainly Lari (a women writer, now living in Romania) and Druc. In the case of Mircea Druc, prime minister in 1990, the accusation is strange: He was not even present in Moldova during events of 1988-1989, he can not be the cause of the fear of Russian speakers which entered in strike in August-September 1989. When he was prime-minister, he acted against Transnistrian separatism. During his government, 3 people died in Transnistria. After he was dissmissed, there were 1000 deaths. During Grosu, Communist Party organised an intensive propagandistic campaign against MPF and Moldovan national movement. Exactly this campaign, which portrayed national demands of Moldovans as extremist, fascist etc., was responsible for the atmosphere of fear and uncertainity that Russian speakers had regarding Moldovan national movement - Illythr is a representative example. Normal and, in fact, "soft" demands - as Illythr noticed comparing Moldovan language law with Baltic similar laws, were considered extremist by Russian speakers, as they were told to consider so by Communist party propaganda in 1987-August 1989. In August 1989 there were 100000 strikers against language law (according jamason's research) but also 500000 people demanding the law in the biggest political meeting that ever took place in Moldova (I took also jamason's number). Communist government stopped the circulation of buses between several cities and Chişinău, but people were coming on foot to ask for language law! Ignoring the opinion of 500000 people was not a realistic option. Mircea Snegur have no responsibility for the creation and development of Moldovan national movement, he only saw the opportunity of using it for his political career. We can compare the situation in Moldova with the situation in baltic states, where war was avoided exactly because Communist party was not as much opposed against national demands as in Moldova, during Grosu's period. Fear and uncertainity among Russian speakers was deliberately created by Moldovan Communist Party propaganda, in the attempt of Communist leaders from the time of stagnation to keep the political power. Some of those Communist leaders switch the camp in 1989 when they saw the power of national movement.--MariusM 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, an interesting perspective. So, the frontists blamed their failures on the Communists and Snegur. They might've been correct, actually. Snegur could've indeed started the war to get rid of the MPF, but was he the one to send those volunteers into Gagauzia and Transnistria to sow peace and reconciliation? ;-)

Other than spending most of 1988 and two months of 1992 outside the country, I was there for the most part of that time. Born, raised and all that. At the time I was quite young and didn't immediately understand the sudden hostility towards me and my family. My information on the war, as well as the situation in other parts of Moldova may come from different sources, but the events in Kishinev I remember myself. A significant part of the information I had acquired directly from the streets or TV broadcasts.

The law was actually found to be in violation of the Soviet Constitution, but I never claimed that it was criminal - its proposal and adoption was one of the key issues that led to the conflict and later, war. That is why it must be highlighted - after all, it doesn't really matter if it was discriminatory (well, it actually denied a 15%+ minority to have their native language official (many Ukrainians, Jews and even some Moldovans spoke Russian as a native language; the Ru speakers' concentration was even greater in Transnistria)) - only that that it was one of the official reasons for secession. The firings were also the result of the abuse of that law, as well as numerous other pretexts (the strike was condemned by the central Soviet, after all).

I am blaming all nationalist activists of the time (you say Dabija wasn't a Front member, right?), those who were rousing the crowds as well as those writing inflammatory articles clearly showing the people, who their enemy is (Jews were also hit by this, but they were already departing for Israel en masse). I mentioned only Lari, because I personally heard her hysterical screaming on the central square.

Atmosphere: I'm afraid you don't understand the situation of the time. There was no need to organise a propaganda campaign - you only needed to listen what the people in the streets were talking,shouting,chanting about. You can believe me that when there's a huge crowd shouting things like "Down with Russian occupation!"(that's a rather moderate slogan, BTW) in the central square, there's going to be quite a lot of fear and uncertainty about what they might do next, especially with people whispering around you things like that and that guy getting fired for nothing or beaten up in the streets for speaking Russian. There were even pogroms. Nothing like the earlier Kishinev pogrom, of course - some editorial office was burned down (Molodezhnaya Gazeta, or something like this, never read it), the Jewish cemetery was vandalized, some riots here and there (at least that's all I can remember) - but quite enough to keep people on their toes. (This is my POV and OR, I don't expect any of this to be inserted into the mainspace until I happen to find some sort of a source to support it; still the role of the Front and other nationalists in the whole mess should be obvious even to its sympatizers.)

The demands certainly appeared extreme to those who had lived most or all of their life in the MSSR and knew only one language - Russian. For the elderly, it was especially hard, because it was vitually impossible to learn a second language at 60+ and too late to start a new life elsewhere. The situation eventually calmed down after 1994, but in 1989-1991 it seemed certain that the frontists will win and that we'll become a province of Romania within a few years.

Opinion: Aw, come on, don't you know that in a country like the MSSR people were used to have their opinion given to them by someone else, who knows better? The play on ethnic grievances is as ancient as the concept of ethnicity itself. It was relatively fresh in the MSSR, and the "superior" behavior of many Russians did annoy a lot of people, so they bit the bait and followed the nationalists in hopes of a better life. As usual. Later, when the economy plunged, these people realized that "bread doesn't grow on hatred" and I even heard ethnic Moldovans themselves saying "Now we have our own tongue, but nothing to put on it" (most likely, such neat phrases didn't spring up naturally, too).

Baltic states: The Russian population was not as well organized (both politically and geographically) and had no 14th army to back them up. Besides, the switch, while much harsher occured much more smoothly there. The now Ukrainian Crimea is another interesting example, where a similar situation didn't lead to bloodshed and separation.

PS: I'd like to point out that these walls of text are uncomfortable (and probably uninteresting) to read for the other users here, so I suggest to move this discussion to either your or my talk page, with a minimal summary of what is directly relevant to the actual article here. --Illythr 02:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Check this source that we have in the article. It provides numerous other key events that preceded the war and is not as one-sided, as yours. --Illythr 02:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Language law: Re: The law was actually found to be in violation of the Soviet Constitution (Illythr). Who found this? I doubt, as even before perestroika in 3 Soviet Republics (Armenia, Azerbadjan and Georgia) local language was official. This is only misleading propaganda that the forces of stagnation spread among Russian speakers in Moldova. Re: For the elderly, it was especially hard, because it was vitually impossible to learn a second language at 60+ (Illythr). No 60+ person needed to learn the language, nowhere was written the need to know the language to take your pension. In fact, only for those in management position was prescribed in the law the necesity of knowing the language, and this only after 5 years. Free classes for studying the state language were organised. However, as of 2006, in the Moldovan government there are still 5 persons who don't speak the state language, including the minister of reintegration, the main person from the Moldovan government who is dealing with Transnistrian issues [2].--MariusM 14:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Volunteers. Why Transnistrian volunteers, recruited in all parts of Russia (cossacks) are O.K. and Moldovan volunteers are not? Moldovan volunteers were a reaction at the formation of Transnistrian and Gagauzian paramilitary groups.--MariusM 14:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting - The Cossack volunteers weren't recruited. They came to Transnistria on their own, and they were very few. Most sources put their number at less than 1,000. The Moldovan "volunteers" are estimated at between 10,000 to 20,000 depending on sources. They were only volunteers in name. In reality, they were paid contract soldiers. They were given arms and uniforms by the government of Moldova. They were called "volunteers" in order to skirt the Soviet ban on union republics creating their own armed formations. Since the Soviet Union still had an Army (the 14th) and Interior Ministry troops (national guard-like) in Moldova at the time, it was necessary to play with words and camouflage these troops as volunteers. - Mauco 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re: inflammatory articles clearly showing the people, who their enemy is (Jews were also hit by this) (Illythr). It will be good to have examples of such inflamatory articles, my guess is that you didn't read in Moldovan language at that time, you base your feelings only from what Russian-language press was telling about Russian-eaters MPF activists. "Down with Russian occupation" was indeed a slogan of the time, but not only in Moldova, in Baltic states also. Why in Moldova such slogans became casus beli and in Baltic states not? Because in Moldova Communist Party chose to oppose national revival at early stage and used such slogans to develop fears among Russian speakers, while Baltic Communist parties were more tolerant, and Russians there were explained that indeed in 1940 it was an occupation, not an eliberation what Soviet Army did. In Narva region of Estonia, with more than 90% Russian population, situated imediatelly near Russian border, autonomy/separatist/irredentist movement failed without a war, while in Transnistria, with only 30% Russians, far from Russian border, we had a bloody war and problems still not solved.--MariusM 14:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Discrimination against Russians: Comparing with the percentage of Russians in total population, the percentage of Russians in management positions was higher in the entire history of MSSR (imediately after the war, the number of bessarabians in the leadership (Central Comitee) of Moldovan Comunist Party was zero; it started to grow smoothly in the 70's). Starting with perestroika, people were allowed to discuss such things, which was disliked by Russian speakers. However, this was only a normal thing when you have free speech. In USA, whites are not going hysterical because some studies are published showing that blacks were less represented in management positions.--MariusM 14:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Economic disaster: Not a Moldovan only phenomenon, Russia also had its recession. To be notice that MPF was not in power when it happened, it can not be blamed for people who have "nothing to put on the tongue".--MariusM 14:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Language law: On November 10, 1989 the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. However, you may be right - the decree was rather vaguelly named "On the unconstitutionality of certain legislative acts of the Union Republics", concerning the national laws of those republics. I was not able to find the decree itself, but indirect evidence[3] suggests that it referred only to the Baltic countries and Azerbaijan. Nevertheless, the law was used as a powerful propaganda weapon by both nationalists and separatists, serving as a major stumbling block in the whole conflict. The quality of most Romanian classes sucks even today (like you can get anything good for free), back then it was awful. Also, to know that the law was not that bad you had to actually read it, not have it intrepreted to you by the gleeful nationalists, citing it as the first step to freedom from Russian oppression or the separatists, claiming it to be a base violation of human rights.
• Volunteers: Were there actually paramilitary groups in Gagauzia, aside from its own police force? Anyway, the volunteers were called up by the MPF as early as 1990 and directly participated in the conflict before and during the war. Nevertheless, there's not a word about them in the timeline, whereas the Cossacks are mentioned quite extensively. Weird, huh?
• inflammatory articles: Not relevant, posted on MariusM's talk page.
• Russian language press: Note that at the time, even the Russian language press was heavily biased - The Russian TV channels were closed as well as many Russian newspapers.
• Discrimination against Russians: Freely discussing the situation is one thing. Shouting "Chemodan, vokzal, Rossiya!" (etc) in the streets is another. In USA the white/black situation did not reverse within several years. In fact, it never did.
• Economic disaster: The MPF &Co had dropped the snowball at the top of the mountain. That Snegur was in charge when the avalanche began , makes him responsible as well. Come on, even if we ignore the whole conflict, the economic decline was still a direct result of the independence of Moldova. The MPF et al were the main drive towards in (until and partly during Snegur's rule).
• Baltic states: Marius, your naive view on the issue is stunning. Do you honestly think that once the Russians were explained, that because the 1940 and 1944 events were an occupation and that because of this they are no longer welcome as citizens in their own country, those Russians "understood" and agreed to become second-class citizens as penance for crimes their (grand)parents have allegedly commited?

---

Anyhow this is getting off topic. I am not proposing to add text that blames any party in the conflict. My intention is to ensure that all involved parties and their respective actions are mentioned. My proposal is to rework the timeline entries to only critical events (clashes, decrees...) highligting all sides of the conflict. As the Transnistrian side is already covered in meticulous detail, I intend to balance the timeline with input from these (Russian) sources On national minorities in Moldova(1992, translation needed) and Moldova/Transdnestr section of the book (although it focuses mostly on post-war peace-keeping activities of the Russian forces). Any input from jamason or anyone else able to present a good source is particularly welcome at this point. --Illythr 00:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Would that include me? I have access to a good deal of old Associated Press articles and stuff like that from the period. Most of it is 1992, but some of it is earlier. I can probably also find other research. I will try to focus on NON-Russian sources so MariusM can check them, too, without the need for a translator. But if Russian sources are OK, there is also the "White Book" on the War of Transnistria which Regnum.ru published in 2006. It is biased to the PMR side, but only in the way that it presents the material, juxtaposes the photos, etc. None of the actual/factual statements are untrue. Nor does it have any of the hyperbole of the text by Muntean and Ciubotaru. - Mauco 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Illythr, you seem to be on the right track with the Memorial Human Rights Center reports, though they are limited in time period. Mauco will probably be able to come up with some good stuff from the AP. The problem that I've run into in my own experience with period news media is that there is so much to go through, you end up looking at dates on which you already know something happened, thereby missing events you don't know of. Someday soon I'd like to do coding of events data (a political science technique to avoid bias/blank spots--let's see, is there a wikipedia article? Ummmmm....sort of: coding it's no. 5; I guess no one has gotten around to creating it yet). It's hard for me to suggest sources for this timeline, though, since I'm somewhat old school in the sense that I mostly use hard copies (almost all of the internet sources I am aware of are the suggestions of either Mauco or MariusM). If you have access to library and inter-library loan, I would maybe suggest two English-language (so that MariusM can check citations) academic works:
Kaufman, Stuart J. Modern Hatreds: the Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. New York: Cornell University Press, 2001.
King, Charles. The Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and the Politics of Culture. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 2000.
Both of these have a chapter on the conflict with a narrative that hits some of the highlights you mention above. jamason 17:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Illythr wrote: "My proposal is to rework the timeline entries to only critical events (clashes, decrees...) highligting all sides of the conflict." I fully agree. Right now, there are a lot of non-critical events. These can safely be removed without losing anything that isn't crucial to understanding the events leading to war. - Mauco 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe we should not delete events from timetable, but add other events from other sources. We will not put all events in main Transnistria article, but this is a secondary article where details can stay.--MariusM 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete the unimportant events. When possible, add them to other articles. For instance, the fact that Igor Smirnov was made an honorary Cossack really has no bearing on the war whatsoever (he never fought in a Cossack regiment). It could be added to the Igor Smirnov article, however. - Mauco 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, while I think that adding is better than deleting, the timeline is already quite large, and when we start adding more events, it'll get bloated. Some entries are also written in a very POV way. Fire opened at demonstrants? How many dead, then? Injured? Or did they shoot up in the air or above heads? Sorry, a bit busy right now, more later. To William: yes any good sources would be welcome. The better the quality, the, well, better! :-) --Illythr 00:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New source

Found this one: 5. "Dynamics of the Moldova Trans-Dniester ethnic conflict (late 1980s to early 1990s)" on the site of the United Nations University. Looks good so far. Neutral, sourced, no political agenda detected. Reading it now... --Illythr 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please come with proposals to include in the timeline.--MariusM 23:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a total revamping in mind. It'll take lots of time, though. In the meantime, I'd like you to comment on the source. It contradicts several of your statements, especially concerning the MPF and its pre-war role and activities. --Illythr 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I just read section 2 of that sourse, and here are a few point I found:

• Under the terms of the Paris Treaty of 1856, Romania received southern Bessarabia ...
• Sfatul Tserij
• The Soviet government did not recognize the legitimacy of the inclusion of Bessarabia into Romania but says nothing about the rest of the world, as if Bessarabia were rightfully a Russian possession.
• the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (MASSR) was created as a national-territorial unit within the Ukrainian SSR, a Soviet protest against the recovery of Bessarabia by Romania It is like saying USA set in 2002 the Iraki government in exile as a protest to Saddam being in power. The Iraki exile government was set with the aim of ousting Saddam from power. MSSR was set with the aim of occupying Bessarabia in the future.
• which included five western districts of the abrogated MASSR within the Ukraine (Grigoriopol, Kamenka, Rybnitsy, Slobodzeja, and Tyraspol districts) Dubasari was also a district from 1924.
• from that text an outsider would wrongfully conclude that Bender is on the left-side of the river, and that localities have Russian names + spelled incorrectly even in Russian
• A similar situation is found regarding the ethnic distribution of the population in Southern Moldova, where the Gaganz, a Christian Turkish group which migrated to Bessarabia from Bulgaria in the early nineteenth century, predominate. Not true, the south of Moldova has much more population than UTA Gagauzia only, and Moldovans predominate. It should have said "a small area in the south".

By omitting a thing here and there, or saying ceveral false things, which separetly are not of big importance, it is easy to create a wrong general impression to an outsider. So, it depend how you want to use it as a sourse. Everything you would take from section 2, except these objections above, can be taken and this sourse can be given. But it someone would try to use this sourse to argument for the things I pointed above, then I would say the sourse coppied itself from biased sourses.

I read quickly section 3, also, and that seems better. Except for the fact that all names are in Russian, I don't see any particular objection to use that section as a sourse. I will read it again, though, but apparently things are fine. I skipped quickly throught the rest of this sourse, and it seems a good sourse for the events. The comments might be at points off, but the factuality seems all right. You did found a good sourse. Now you'll have to come forward with proposals based on it, for example things to include in the timeline. :Dc76 03:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I intended to use sections 3 through 9, actually. Section 2 is a secondary target to enhance what is missing from the "Historic background" section (and a lot is missing there, btw).

The names can be fixed. The part about Soviet government gives the position of the Soviet govt and its reasons for future actions (Bessarabia was previously a Russian territory, after all). The protest part was the official reason, I understand (probably taken from a Soviet source) - it can be omitted here anyway. The Bendery problem can be easily be clarified.

There is also a "non-apparently-Russian" POV problem in the text "Left-bank Moldova, however, became a Ukrainian possession." It never ceased to be. This can be easily misunderstood, unless "modern Moldova" is considered. But this belongs to the history of Transnistria and Moldova articles anyway. --Illythr 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smirnov, honorary cossack

Mauco deleted "*21 December 1991: Igor Smirnov is ellected honorary cossack.". I believe is worth to mention this fact (which is taking only one line), because later PMR propaganda, after cossacks were involved in many abuses, tried to distance Smirnov from cossacks. Even in jamason thesis (page 105) is quoted a declaration of Smirnov from June 1992 distancing himself from cossacks. A propagandistic declaration in my opinion, and election of Smirnov as honorary cossack shows the real love story between Smirnov and cossacks. Vlad Grecu, the writer of "O viziune din focarul conflictului de la Dubăsari", is telling that his own apartment from Dubăsari was given by local authorities to a cossack, after the war. Facts like this are showing that cossack involvement was wellcome by transnistrian authorities.--MariusM 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This: In late February hundreds of Cossacks from the Don region of Russia began to arrive in left-bank Moldova in response to appeals made by the Trans-Dniestrians to their Russian ethnic brethren. Their arrival served to heighten ethnic tensions. Soon afterwards, groups of Romanian volunteers were reported arriving in right-bank Moldova expressing their solidarity with the Moldovans in the struggles against separatists (KU, 2 March 1992; IZ, 5 March 1992), taken fron the above source, as well as In addition, there were 5,000-6,000 volunteers[citation needed] who came forward after an appeal was made on Russian television for fighters to go to Transnistria to support the cause, already present in "Military strength" section, demonstrate quite clearly that the Cossack involvement was welcomed by Transnistrian authorities, because they had issued a call to help which the Cossacks answered. These facts also state this directly, making the honorary Cossack point redundant. It's worth including into the article on Smirnov, though.

The problem is that, if you had checked the source I found, you can see that the timeline there is HUGE and pretty much everything looks important. So, if I just go ahead and add everything (the proper way, not c/p), the size of this article will probably double. In fact, it may warrant the creation of a new article, Timeline of the War of Transnistria, sort of like this one. This will also mean that all the minor/obscure incidents will have to go or be degraded to footnotes to make room for the larger scale events. Starting with the formation of the MPF in the summer of 1988, it'll contain some fifty-plus events, most of them larger than one line. --Illythr 01:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The honorary Cossack appointment, while true, wasn't really relevant to the outcome of the war or even to how the war was conducted. If anything, the Cossacks had a marginal influence compared to the other four players: Romania, Moldova, PMR and Russia. It is not the only minor/marginal event that has to be removed from the timeline, of course. The timeline ought to focus on what is important for an encyclopedia. That way, we actually help our readers and future scholars of this subject. - Mauco 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"in response to appeals made by the Trans-Dniestrians to their Russian ethnic brethren": I'm curious who authored the appeals, in what form they were delivered and how they were phrased. It would take me a long time before I would be able to check the citation to see what the articles in Kuranty and Izvestiia actually say (if they even specify), but if anyone comes across this information, I would be happy to see it. My guess is that it was the Black Sea Cossack leadership (Vitalii Bondarchuk and Aleksandr Kucher) that issued any appeals to other Cossack groups and not the PMR government directly. jamason 02:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with Mauco's opinion that cossack influence was marginal. They had an important role, they were the most enthuziastic fighters for PMR. Even the start of the war - attack on Dubossary police - was done by cossacks (see Grecu). In the same time I believe Romania's role was marginal. I saw once at a private Romanian television a comment that Romania supplied weapons to Moldova in 1992 (they said that it was bad quality, half of the grenades didn't explode, probabily old material prepared for scrap from Romanian military depots, good for our Moldovan brothers). The "groups of Romanian volunteers" are a hoax of Russian propaganda. No organisation in Romania organised volunteers for Transnistria war, there were only few journalists which went there. At most, there were few individuals which went to Transnistria on their own. I don't know who signed the appeal to cossacks published in Russian press (BTW, no similar appeal in Romanian press), however even if it was signed by cossack leadership this is not excluding the posibility of cossack leadership acting at the request of PMR leadership. After they arrived in Transnistria, cossacks received support from PMR (like housing). We should keep in the article the apointment of Smirnov as honorary cossack in order to help our readers and future scholars to avoid current misleading revisionist propaganda which claim that cossacks acted without consent of PMR leadership.--MariusM 12:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the appointment of Smirnov as honorary cossack was marginal. The rest can be debated. The sentence does not say (or even imply) anywhere that cossacks acted without consent of PMR leadership. That is beyond the point. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. That is beyond the very specific point: Is an entry like this - and many other minuscule details like it - really relevant for the overall timeline? Does it add to the quality of the article or does it detract from it? - Mauco 13:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate timeline article

I would not mind a separate timeline article. I would help MariusM develop it. At the same time, we can keep the current timeline section but trim it. Using the principle "summary here, details there." The detailed timeline article could have all the major AND minor items. The summary, as a section within this War of Transnistria, would have just major offensives, ceasefire agreements, generally cited important dates. - Mauco 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is already a secondary article of History of Transnistria, which is a secondary article of Transnistria. Our readers usually don't look in hundreds of article to understand a subject, this is why I object creating an other secondary article. Anyhow we have contents, readers can chose if they want not to read a chapter.--MariusM 13:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why we can't do this, if we already do it for the Israel-Lebanon war (with a timeline as a subset of a war which is itself part of history, and the overall articles). But if you insist that a separately timeline is inappropriate, then in that case, trim the timeline. Include only what really matters. You can't have it both ways. - Mauco 13:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe actually we need to add some events in the timeline, not to delete. I am waiting for your or Illythr proposals. Please notice that the formar headline of timeline section was changed, we are not pretending anymore that those events were "key" for preparation of the war.--MariusM 21:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So, no trim at all? The non-events that have no relevance to the war should stay? You've got to be kidding. And I also think that you are alone on this point. Please see what all the other currently active editors of this page feel about it. - Mauco 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Might we revisit the suggestion of a separate timeline article? I am convinced that the pros outweigh the cons, and really don't buy the objections stated here by only one single editor. Let us try it, please. - Mauco 23:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)