Letter From the Editors
This week’s peace talks in London were doomed to fail before they even started, with President Trump pronouncing several days ahead of them that he would tell any party that made them difficult: “You’re foolish, you’re fools, you’re horrible people.” Although his words were directed at Russia and Ukraine, his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, apparently took them to heart and pulled out of the talks at the last minute, to be followed by the German and French foreign ministers. In Gennady Petrov’s words, this meant the talks had “less representation” than expected, meaning that that they “were run by people who do not have any authority to agree on any peace plans.”
Nevertheless, there was still speculation about the conditions of a possible peace plan. In particular, Western news outlets were reporting that Trump’s terms included, among other things, Ukraine’s recognition of the Crimea as Russian. Yevgeny Shestakov, however, says this step would amount to “political suicide” for Zelensky. But Zelensky is perhaps not the leader in the most precarious position. As Aleksandr Zhelenin points out, Trump “is not a warrior, but a merchant,” and the US’s withdrawal from the London talks marks “the beginning of Trump’s catastrophe on the international stage.” In this situation, Zhelenin says, there are no reasonable prospects for peace until next fall or winter.
Clearly, Trump doesn’t understand much about the intricacies of the war and the history behind it. But what about Putin? The answer to this question may lie in the case of Ivan Popov, a popular general who could be characterized as “a loyal servant to the tsar and a caring father to his soldiers.” Popov, who described himself as “the tip of the spear attacking the enemies of our Motherland,” was stripped of his rank, fined and given a five-year prison sentence for fraud and falsification of records. What he really did, however, was make the mistake of going over the head of Russian General Staff chief Gen. Valery Gerasimov and trying to appeal directly to Putin about the real state of affairs in the Russian Army – about the lack of manpower, drones and equipment, among other things. And that, writer and Z-community researcher Ivan Filippov posits in Kholod, was ultimately his undoing. In Gerasimov’s mind, Popov’s “obstinate desire to enlighten his superiors about the actual state of affairs and to address the major problems faced by the military” undermined the rosy picture of the war that Gerasimov had been painting for Putin and sealed his fate of being branded a traitor.
Amid this muddle of failed peace talks and cover-ups, it’s sometimes hard, three-plus years into the war, to recall how it all started. What’s happening right now in the Moldovan autonomy of Gagauzia is a good reminder. The Gagauz, a Turkic-speaking people and practicing Orthodox Christians, fled the Balkans in search of refuge over 200 years ago and were allocated land in what is now southern Moldova by the Russian tsar. Thus, the Gagauz have always felt an affinity for Russia. These positive feelings, however, are now threatening the autonomy’s very existence as Moldova takes steps to limit Russia’s influence and interference in the country. According to an Izvestia article, Chisinau is now poised to adopt a law giving it the authority to approve the Gagauz bashkan, who is presently chosen in a direct election within the autonomy. This move comes on the heels of the current bashkan’s arrest, the passage of a new law depriving Gagauzia of its right to appoint its own prosecutor, and repressive measures against regular Gagauz citizens suspected of having ties to Russia.
Like Ukraine in 2014, Moldova has every right to stand up to Russian interference and to protect its territorial integrity. But one people’s fight against repression often comes at the cost of another people’s fight for autonomy. And no amount of wheeling and dealing will ever be able to end this cycle.