The Impact of the Ukrainian Factor Over the Political Elite and the Civil Society of Transdniestria

There are studied political, social and other grounds of formation of the Transdniestrian political elite and civil society as self-sustained political phenomena. These institutes have been developing not isolatedly but in the framework of those political processes that were typical for the region during the period of its establishment and existence in different social and political conditions. There are summarized and analyzed different aspects of the Ukrainian factor impact over these processes as by direct influence of the Ukrainian political elite and civil society, as well as in the context of ideological concepts formulated in the Ukrainian political discourse during a long period of time.

Concrete methods of the Ukrainian political class impact over the Transdniestrian political elite and civil society are also presented. A very special activity of the Ukrainian side could be seen up to 2014, when the Transdniestrian political elite had been considered in Kiev as an independent subject with its own interests that in its turn determined the choice of certain forms of impact. Direct inter-elite communication used to be one of the most meaningful forms of such impact, that allowed to identify the sides’ interests and to find mutually acceptable decisions on the highest and high levels.

Since 2014 the situation has changed dramatically. The Ukrainian political elite refuses to recognize the Transdniestrian political elite’s status of a separate (independent) subject and considers it to be a tool for the Russia’s interests’ implementation. There appears a special role of the border factor as of a key resource for pressure over the Transdniestrian political elite, its business interests, options for traffic etc. The same way the Ukrainian side minimized contacts with the Transdniestrian civil society. But at the same time Ukrainians keep for themselves the option for monitoring the Transdniestrian political system.

In the Ukrainian political narrative there appears a contradiction, when the Ukrainian political authorities can’t use a symbolic potential of a number of Transdniestrian locations, actual for the modern political ideology of Ukraine only because that these locations are situated on the territory controlled by the Transdniestrian political elite whilst Ukrainians avoid any contacts with the latter.

1. Mikhnovsky M.I. Independent Ukraine. Kyiv: Diokor; 2002. 80 p. (In Ukr.)

2. Lukianenko L. The National Idea and the Political Will. Kyiv: IAPM; 2003. 296 p. (In Ukr.)

3. Gaida A.F. Borders and Frontiers: the Terms “Ukraine” and “Ukrainians” in Their Historical Development. Moscow: Modest Kolerov; 2019. 200 p. (In Russ.)

4. Zhiltsov S.S. History of the Ukrainian State Formation (Prior to the USSR Breakup). Post-Soviet Issues. 2018;5(3):309-328. (In Russ.)

5. Druzhinina E.I. Southern Ukraine at the Period of the Feudalism Crisis in 1825-1860. Moscow: Science; 1981. 216 p. (In Russ.)

6. Rendiuk T.H. Hetman Ivan Mazepa — Known and Unknown. Kyiv: ADEF-Ukraine; 2010. 480 p. (In Ukr.)

7. The Constitution of Independent Ukraine. Editors: V.F. Pohorilko, Iu.S. Shemshuchenko, V.O. Yevdokimov. Kyiv: The Institute of State and Law named after V.M. Koretsky of the NAS of Ukraine, the Union of Lawyers of Ukraine; 2000. 428 p. (In Ukr.)

8. Marunchak M.G. The Ukrainians in the Soviet Union out of the Borders of the Ukrainian SSR. Winnipeg: The Ukrainian Free Academy of Sciences in Canada; 1974. 248 p. (In Ukr.)

9. Podeisky N.A. Soviet Moldavia. The Our Country. 1938;5:13-17. (In Russ.)

10. Babii B.M. The Ukrainian Soviet State at the Period of Recovery of National Economy (1921-1925). Kyiv: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR; 1961. 384 p. (In Ukr.)

11. Sciborsky M. Stalinism. The Trident. 1940;IV(5):22-41.

12. Teslya I. The Geography of Ukraine and of the Ukrainian Settlements. The Third Revised Edition. Toronto: New-York: The Publishing House of the Ukrainian Educators’ Union; 1957. 240 p. (In Ukr.)

13. Rudnitskyi S. The Elementary Geography of Ukraine. The Second Revised Edition. New-York: Philadelphia: The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America. The Edition of the School Council; 1957. 136 p. (In Ukr.)

14. Kulik V.A. About the Question of Ukrainian Role in the Transdniestrian Settlement. In: Transdniestria in the Geopolitical System of Coordinates in the XXI Century. Tiraspol: CSPS “Perspective”; 2002. PP. 58-67. (In Russ.)

15. Yenin E.V. Securing of the National Interests of Ukraine in the Transnistrian Settlement Process: autoref. sis. ... cand. polit. sciences. Kyiv: the National Institute of the Problems of International Security at the CNSD of Ukraine; 2010. 20 p. (In Ukr.)

16. Smirnov I.N. To Live on Our Land. Moscow: The Soviet Writer; 2001. 240 p. (In Russ.)

17. Kravchenko M. The Transdniestrian Campaign of UNSD 2Kyiv: Orientir, 2017. 36 p. (In Ukr.)

18. Mozer S.V. The Arrangement of Joint Control at the Checkpoints at the Ukraine — Moldova State Border (the Transdniestrian Factor). Tiraspol: 2009. 176 p. (In Russ.)

19. Munteanu I. and others. Moldova on its way to democracy and stability. From the post-soviet space into the world of democratic values. Chisinau: Cartier; 2005. 264 с.

20. Korobov V.K., Byanov G.N. Renewal of the Transnistria. Kherson: Naddneprianochka; 2006. 28 p. (In Russ.)

21. Korobov V.K. Desiring Machine and Images of the Transdniestrian Future. The Bulletin of the Center for Southern Ukrainian Borderland Studies. 2007;1-2:8-22. (In Russ.)

22. Kulik V.A. Missed Fortune of the Ukrainian Chairmanship in OSCE. Weekly Mirror. 2013. 8-15 Nov. (In Russ.)

23. Getmanchuk A., Yenin Y. and oth. Scenarios for the Development of the Transnistria Conflict. Challenges to European Security. Kyiv: Institute of World Policy; 2011. 138 p. (In Ukr.)

24. Serdiuk O. Instability belt. Ukrainian Defense Review. 2019;3:12-15.