IPN analysis: The defiant behavior of Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin has well-defined explanations and goals and forms part of a distinct style of behavior in politics and geopolitics.
---
The thought that it’s now the case and the situation to make fun of the recent visit paid by Dmitry Rogozin to Tiraspol is far from me. Rogozin is one of the few leading officials of the Russian government, where the military complex governs and which is a great world player. He is the special representative of Russian President Vladimir Putin, while Putin represents Russia and Russia is a great world player. Dmitry Rgozin is also the co-chairman of the Moldovan – Russian intergovernmental commission of commercial-economic cooperation, while the commercial-economic relations are very important for Moldova and they greatly depend on the position of Dmitry Rogozin. Thus, there is no hint of irony or sarcasm in the title of the analysis. It is rather an invitation to examine the motives and effects, especially for Moldova, of the Russian Deputy Premier’s defiant behavior that runs counter to any diplomatic norms or common sense and that was renewed on the occasion of his May 9 visit to Moldova’s Transnistrian region that is managed by a separatist regime.
Historical roots of the style
Thus, things can be explained easier if we admit that Dmitry Rogozin’s style of asserting himself is part of the style that is named conventionally “political/geopolitical buffoonery”, with all its typical features and consequences. The given style has deep roots in history. Each royal court had buffoons, who did silly, but amusing things. However, most of the times, these persons, who were mainly disabled, had an increased level of intelligence and very great powers, especially as regards the formulation of messages instead of august persons, unequivocal and in direct language. The kings in certain cases, and for different reasons, avoided to formulate these messages by themselves. Even if the ‘professionals’ of the style didn’t bother to provide arguments to everyone’s understanding, high-ranking officials of the kingdom could remain without heads as a result of their verdicts and this was something normal. Nobody else from the king’s company could afford such freedom of expression. They enjoyed as much freedom as the king allowed them to.
Public-private partnership
If we look at things from such an angle, we will better understand why the Russian Deputy Prime Minister said that his visit, which hadn’t been coordinated with the Moldovan authorities that openly expressed their disapproval of it, was a private one, but appeared in Tiraspol wearing the uniform of Russian government official and led a delegation that included submissive officials, counting members of the Russian government and parliament. He gave speeches in the name of the government of his country by which he offered and promised support to the Transnistrian separatist regime in continuation, but also warned the government of the sovereign Moldova not to sign the Association Agreement with the EU until a ‘more suitable’ date. For his warning to be more convincing, he threatened the government of Moldova that if it does not do this, it will suffer the consequences of the problems that the government of his country will cause to several hundred thousand Moldovans working in Russia. He univocally spoke in the name of the Russian government and his country as no ‘private’ person from any country has such powers.
Direct attack on the NATO and EU
For the same reasons, it becomes clearer why, being on a private visit to a country, he threatens not private individuals, but governmental delegations of Moldova and of the neighboring Romania, if they dare to come to Russia. Until then, the ‘professional’ Rogozin threatens to enter by force the airspace of a NATO and EU member state, by a Russian warplane. Such threats have this time geopolitical connotations.
Earlier, the ‘professionals’ from this category did with a rod that they rode. Today they cannot do with a verbal, improvised message that does not go out the royal palaces because, meanwhile, the distinctive signs of his style changed and modernized. They now can use social networking sites, TV channels with subtle technologies for promoting the royal or propagandistic message, which is often one and the same.
Competition doomed to failure from the start
We can consider that until here we spoke about methods and effects of implementing the mentioned style in politics. But, as always, they have motives and goals. Judging by the latest developments, especially in Ukraine and in the region in general, they are mainly geopolitical in character and reveal, on the one hand, Russia’s trends to bring back the ex-Soviet states under its sphere of influence and, on the other hand, the reactivation of the geopolitical conflict between two worlds and two systems of values – Eastern and Western. In this confrontation, Russia cannot win by honest ways because, unlike the West, it does not have sufficient attraction capacities in the form of money, living standards, democratic freedoms, powerful economy, etc. That’s why it can only employ other methods, including the activation and supporting of different expressions of separatism.
The Transnistrization of Ukraine and Europe
In such conditions, the role of such persons as Dmitry Rogozin inevitably increases. The American magazine Forbes named him the main hawk of the Russian foreign policy, while the U.S administration considers him one of the high-ranking Russian officials who are responsible for the violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Russia fully exploits Rogozin’s ‘experience’, including as representative of Russian President Vladimir Putin for Transnistria, of managing the Transnistrian conflict in breach of the diplomatic norms, reducing the cult and diplomatic efforts of the ‘intellectual club 5+2’ that involves a part of the most influential players of the geopolitical arena. By all appearances, this ‘experience’ is now used in the process of “Transnistrizing” the southeastern part of the neighboring Ukraine. The Transnistrian hotbed of separatism in the post-Soviet area is now presented as a model to its successors from other regions of the world, while the messages and actions like those of Rogozin come as an evident encouragement for such regimes and processes. The fact that Rogozin recognized that he and the other ‘Russian private persons’ who accompanied him in Tiraspol took the lists of signatures and the application to recognize Transnistria out of Moldova clandestinely and illegally is only one, but very relevant example. “Moldova’s bodies confiscated only a small part of those lists. We took care that the rest reach Moscow,” the ‘professional’ wrote on a social networking site used in the interests of his profession.
A number of experts said until now that if Ukraine falls under the pressure of separatism and foreign interference, Moldova will be the next. But nobody yet said that Europe comes after Moldova.
Positive side of Rogozin’s acts
Even if it may seem strange, this style of promoting politics and geopolitics has a positive side. Without this bravado and imprudent statements, Rogozin could easier come to Chisinau to stir things up in Moldovan society, as he did last year on May 9. In his absence, things in Moldova went smooth before and after his visit even if many people anticipated provocations and destabilization, especially in the context of the regional crisis. Experts consider that the absence of incidents during the May 9 demonstrations shows that Moldova achieved particular results in ensuring conciliation. Some celebrated Victory Day, while others – Europe Day. There were people who celebrated both of the holidays or none of them. This is indeed a good result in a powerfully fragmented society. The country’s administration, the ruling parties and the opposition organized their own festivities and made sure that they do not interfere with each other. But veterans of the Soviet Army and of the Red Army communicated peacefully between them, maybe because there was no one who could cause hostilities between them. The concerts held on this occasion involved national artists and stars from Russia, Romania and Ukraine.
There were yet two serious provocations related to Dmtry Rogozin’s ‘private visit’ to Tiraspol. The first is the visit itself, made in a defiant and noisy way, while the second is the attempt of the Russian delegation to take the mentioned lists out of Moldova or even to transport a large part of them to Moscow. Anyway, Moldova’s Security and Information Service seems to have been rights when it told IPN that they need to work in a high security regime namely on May 9.
Will we sign the Association Agreement with the EU in several days?
There is one more lesson we should learn from the ‘professional’ behavior of Rogozin. If he said that Moldova should not sign the Association Agreement with the EU until this yearend, it means that it should have been signed yesterday. Even if the speed at which the signing of the accord is promoted is rather high, the last official deadline announced is June. But President of the Council of the European Union Herman Van Rompuy comes to Chisinau on May 13. He is to be met with military honors. Surely, in the described situation, he comes not only in order to meet with Moldovan officials who visit Brussels rather often and not only in order to deliver speeches before a great public. Maybe he comes to tell us that the Association Agreement will be signed at the end of May, practically in several days. At least such a term was mentioned by the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party Vlad Filat and President Nicolae Timofti on particular occasions.
Valeriu Vasilică, IPN
