[ - Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo:] It looks as if Russia behaves towards the independent Moldova as “the gardener’s dog”: he does not like the fruit and vegetables, but does not allow others to taste them either. The relations between Russia and Moldova are neither good, nor bad. Why did Russia during 19 years prefer to use the Transnistrian conflict as a slipknot, though it could have obtained the entire country as ally? Moldova was the closest to Russia among the Soviet republics by religion, language and culture. 99.9% of Moldova’s population speaks Russian fluently; some people even better than their mother tongue. These factors haven’t been taken into account. Russia has always looked for motives to damage the relations. They improved slightly when the new governors took over in Chisinau. But the people who follow these processes could easily predict that the relations will worsen anyway. This is not my personal impression. It seems that Russia might change the model of bilateral relations with Moldova within the modernization process it launched. Earlier, it exerted military pressure on Moldova, while now – economic. If Russia wants to exert influence, it can do it in a more attractive way. The relations will be then more comfortable and economically advantageous. But Russia chose an incorrect way to promote its interests. [ - Dmitry Danilov:] – I consider Moldova is not the only country in the post-Soviet area towards which Russia used an incorrect policy. Its policy in this area lacked form and content. At first, we stated this is the policy of a civilized divorce. Then, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) turned into a poker table by which President Yeltsin tried to exert influence on the partners that also tried to influence Russia by convincing it to sign certain documents that it did not need, to my mind. This post-Soviet policy was nonproductive and it passed to Vladimir Putin as inheritance when he came to power. But Putin was also a product of the epoch and system. The administrative policy pursued at that time was rather common and understood – to use a matter or a conflict as instrument. These are clear political games aimed at achieving a certain goal. But later, it turned out that the CIS was not functional as results were achieved in an area and, simultaneously, losses were sustained in another. The first reorientation focused on the bilateral relations with the CIS. But nothing changed because there wasn’t a common product, new values. It was more like a tug of war. The situation was much the same in Central and Eastern Europe. Things started to be reassessed. As experts, we struggled a lot to prove that you cannot have an interested partner on a long term if you tie their hands as they will always want to get free. “If you want somebody to become free, you act like this, but if you do not the policy must be changed.” Firstly, Russia’s attractiveness must be improved. Secondly, the sociocultural factor in the governmental programs increased significantly. The cultural and humanitarian cooperation is not declared. It becomes a real factor of the Russian policy, including in the post-Soviet area. Thirdly, it became evident that the stability of the post-Soviet countries, which is important to Russia, cannot be ensured by supporting only the ruling elites of these states. The planned moves contributed to the worsening of the situation. It happened so in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Moldova. Stability is not the stability of the regimes, but stability in the development of the country. Emphasis should be laid on real partnerships. Russia is to blame for many things, but it is not the only one to blame in this case. It started to realize many things, but does not yet have a new strategy in the relations with Moldova. Who has it? Moldova does not. I can agree that Russia uses the conflict as instrument, but the problem resides in the lack of strategies and Russia is in a rather difficult situation. Today’s behavior of Russia is a consequence of yesterday’s policy. I say so because Russia wants Moldova to exist as a state. But how should we settle the dispute. There is will to resolve it, but nobody knows how. Do you think Russia is interested in Transnistria’s independence? But who will ensure Transnistria’s real independence if Moldova agrees to this? Let’s assume that the talks in the 5+2 format are resumed tomorrow. The President and the Parliament will agree to recognize Transnistria. What will happen next? Who will pay? Where will the money be taken from? What kind of regional ties will be there? Will new relations between Moldova and Transnistria be possible? How will Moldova develop in such a case? Many problems will appear. Russia cannot back the idea of a unitary state as it is doomed to failure. Transnistria will never accept the idea of unification. All the solutions will become unacceptable and the strategy unreal over time. Russia is interested in stability, in settling the conflict so as to ensure this stability, but it does not know how. [Info-Prim Neo Note:] The interview forms part of a discussion between a group of Moldovan journalists and Dmitry Danilov, who came to Moldova at the invitation of the Foreign Policy Association as independent expert. Dmitry Alexandrovich Danilov is division head at the Institute for European Security of the Russian Academy of Sciences.}