VARNITSA PORT SEIZURE: RUSSIAN VIEWS

C O N F I D E N T I A L MOSCOW 004405

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/25/2016
TAGS: PREL PGOV PBTS MD RS
SUBJECT: VARNITSA PORT SEIZURE: RUSSIAN VIEWS

REF: A) CHISINAU 455 B) MOSCOW 4198 C) KIEV 1444

Classified By: Minister Counselor for Political Affairs Kirk Augustine.
Reason 1.4 (b, d)


1. (C) We raised the April 21 Transnistrian seizure of
Varnitsa Port (ref. a) with Russian Transnistria negotiator
Nesterushkin April 25. Nesterushkin compared the seizure to
the incident several years ago when Moldovan farmers tried to
farm land on the Left Bank after receiving privatization
vouchers from Chisinau. Such events are common in the many
"gray areas" left by the cease-fire lines, he claimed, and
should be settled by "civilized" dialogue between the sides.
He implied that such incidents are too common and too trivial
to be worth a discussion between the U.S. Embassy and the
Russian MFA. We countered that the issue was worth raising:
in other conflicts, seizure of disputed territory has led to
bloodshed. Nesterushkin said that fortunately this is not
the case in Moldova -- but without a functioning negotiating
process (i.e., as long as the Moldovans and Ukrainians
enforce their customs rules),who could say what might happen
in the future? He did, however, appreciate knowing that the
U.S. considered the incident significant.


2. (C) Nesterushkin claimed to have no detailed information
on the circumstances surrounding the seizure. He said he had
only heard the "cries" of each side blaming the other, and he
hoped the Joint Control Commission would be able to sort
through the claims. Despite his professed lack of knowledge,
however, he painted a detailed picture "based on
speculation:" that the port managers of Bender decided they
wanted the rent from Varnitsa which had flowed to Bender in
Soviet times, and authorized a local company to exploit
Varnitsa and pay them the rent. The seizure, in
Nesterushkin's view, might have been the company's guard
force trying to take control of the facility. Nesterushkin
categorized the incident as a "management dispute." We said
that the Moldovan version of events is far different, and
reiterated that such disputes can be destabilizing.
Nesterushkin repeated that negotiations were necessary to
resolve such issues.


3. (C) Comment: The incident comes conveniently soon after
Nesterushkin's warning that the new customs regime was
"radicalizing" Transnistria (ref. b) and preventing the
resumption of negotiations. We would read it as a reflection
of the degree to which the customs regime has unsettled the
Russians and Transnistrians.
BURNS