Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06MOSCOW6131
2006-06-07 12:31:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Moscow
Cable title:
RUSSIAN MFA DEMARCHED ON TRANSNISTRIA MAY PROTOCOLS
how-toVZCZCXYZ0040 PP RUEHWEB DE RUEHMO #6131 1581231 ZNY CCCCC ZZH P 071231Z JUN 06 FM AMEMBASSY MOSCOW TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7302 INFO RUEHBM/AMEMBASSY BUCHAREST PRIORITY 0664 RUEHCH/AMEMBASSY CHISINAU PRIORITY 1007 RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KIEV PRIORITY 8895 RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY 6721 RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE PRIORITY 2340
C O N F I D E N T I A L MOSCOW 006131
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/07/2016
TAGS: OSCE PBTS PREL MS RS UP
SUBJECT: RUSSIAN MFA DEMARCHED ON TRANSNISTRIA MAY PROTOCOLS
REF: STATE 90492
Classified By: Minister-Counselor for Political Affairs Kirk Augustine.
Reasons: 1.4 (b/d).
C O N F I D E N T I A L MOSCOW 006131
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/07/2016
TAGS: OSCE PBTS PREL MS RS UP
SUBJECT: RUSSIAN MFA DEMARCHED ON TRANSNISTRIA MAY PROTOCOLS
REF: STATE 90492
Classified By: Minister-Counselor for Political Affairs Kirk Augustine.
Reasons: 1.4 (b/d).
1. (C) With Ambassador-at-Large Nesterushkin on vacation
until the end of the week, poloff delivered reftel demarche
June 7 to Mikhail Yalkin, Moldova Section Chief, MFA Second
CIS Department. Yalkin said that there was no change
whatsoever in Russian policy or approach to Transnistria. He
characterized the protocol issued following the May 23
meeting between Deputy PM Zhukov and Transnistrian
"president" Smirnov as simply a summary of the discussion
they had had. Despite the fact that some in the media had
portrayed the protocol as a new agreement or understanding,
Yalkin insisted it was nothing of the kind. He resisted even
calling the protocol a "plan of action," emphasizing that
Moscow remains guided by the 1997 Moscow Memorandum as the
basis for its dealings with Transnistria. Nevertheless,
Yalkin added that practical cooperation had to and would
continue to exist between Russia and Russian citizens, first
and foremost, in Transnistria.
2. (C) Regarding the draft "Protocol on Transit" that
Nesterushkin distributed in Brussels May 24, Yalkin said it
was merely the latest iteration of a draft protocol Russia
put forward at the April 19 "three-plus-two" meeting in
Moscow. He claimed all partners had been invited to comment
on the draft. The May 24 version incorporated those
suggestions, including those, Yalkin said, from OSCE
Ambassador Hill. He added that Nesterushkin and Hill had
discussed the draft. Moscow had no intention of moving the
draft forward, Yalkin continued, unless all sides agreed to
it, since the parties all had a stake in it. He was vague
about when further comments were expected and emphasized that
the idea of a transit protocol was fully in line with the
Moscow Memorandum.
3. (C) Yalkin offered numerous complaints about Chisinau's
approach to a settlement. He said Moldova should focus on
building social links with Transnistria, such as exist in the
realms of sports and religion, instead of expecting
intractable political questions to be solved first. He
warned that Chisinau was getting close to alienating the next
generation in Transnistria, upon whom the responsibility for
a final settlement will lie; he thought Chisinau was losing a
real opportunity by refusing to talk with new Transnistrian
parliament speaker (and Russian citizen) Shevchuk. He
complained that many businesses had registered with Molodovan
authorities, but Chisinau's new licensing requirements were
making it more difficult for companies to comply. He added
that Moscow found "weak" Chisinau's justification that it was
implementing WTO standards.
4. (C) Yalkin said Moscow had no influence on a possible
early-fall independence referendum. He called the
possibility more "psychological" than practical, and asserted
the outcome of the vote was no foregone conclusion.
BURNS
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/07/2016
TAGS: OSCE PBTS PREL MS RS UP
SUBJECT: RUSSIAN MFA DEMARCHED ON TRANSNISTRIA MAY PROTOCOLS
REF: STATE 90492
Classified By: Minister-Counselor for Political Affairs Kirk Augustine.
Reasons: 1.4 (b/d).
1. (C) With Ambassador-at-Large Nesterushkin on vacation
until the end of the week, poloff delivered reftel demarche
June 7 to Mikhail Yalkin, Moldova Section Chief, MFA Second
CIS Department. Yalkin said that there was no change
whatsoever in Russian policy or approach to Transnistria. He
characterized the protocol issued following the May 23
meeting between Deputy PM Zhukov and Transnistrian
"president" Smirnov as simply a summary of the discussion
they had had. Despite the fact that some in the media had
portrayed the protocol as a new agreement or understanding,
Yalkin insisted it was nothing of the kind. He resisted even
calling the protocol a "plan of action," emphasizing that
Moscow remains guided by the 1997 Moscow Memorandum as the
basis for its dealings with Transnistria. Nevertheless,
Yalkin added that practical cooperation had to and would
continue to exist between Russia and Russian citizens, first
and foremost, in Transnistria.
2. (C) Regarding the draft "Protocol on Transit" that
Nesterushkin distributed in Brussels May 24, Yalkin said it
was merely the latest iteration of a draft protocol Russia
put forward at the April 19 "three-plus-two" meeting in
Moscow. He claimed all partners had been invited to comment
on the draft. The May 24 version incorporated those
suggestions, including those, Yalkin said, from OSCE
Ambassador Hill. He added that Nesterushkin and Hill had
discussed the draft. Moscow had no intention of moving the
draft forward, Yalkin continued, unless all sides agreed to
it, since the parties all had a stake in it. He was vague
about when further comments were expected and emphasized that
the idea of a transit protocol was fully in line with the
Moscow Memorandum.
3. (C) Yalkin offered numerous complaints about Chisinau's
approach to a settlement. He said Moldova should focus on
building social links with Transnistria, such as exist in the
realms of sports and religion, instead of expecting
intractable political questions to be solved first. He
warned that Chisinau was getting close to alienating the next
generation in Transnistria, upon whom the responsibility for
a final settlement will lie; he thought Chisinau was losing a
real opportunity by refusing to talk with new Transnistrian
parliament speaker (and Russian citizen) Shevchuk. He
complained that many businesses had registered with Molodovan
authorities, but Chisinau's new licensing requirements were
making it more difficult for companies to comply. He added
that Moscow found "weak" Chisinau's justification that it was
implementing WTO standards.
4. (C) Yalkin said Moscow had no influence on a possible
early-fall independence referendum. He called the
possibility more "psychological" than practical, and asserted
the outcome of the vote was no foregone conclusion.
BURNS