Jump to content

Talk:Russian military presence in Transnistria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page views of this article over the last 90 days:

Untitled

[edit]

I like Mauco's idea (Transnistria talk page) to include in the article the involvement of cossacks in the fight for Transnistrian independence. Afterwards we can change the title of article. I am requesting your opinion - is O.K. to add info about the cossacks here?--MariusM 23:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well they weren'te really part of the 14th army. Maybe that information should go in the main War of Transnistria section.TSO1D 00:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Here's how we can do it: Tie the two together by having a brief (one sentence or less) mention of Cossacks in this article, with a blue link that doesn't go to Cossacks but to a section in the War of Transnistria article where we can have one or two paragraphs, under a separate subheader, which deals with Cossack involvement. Just a suggestion... - Mauco 16:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the Name

[edit]

Regarding the reverted name, I have never been satisfied with the "Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic" and I am happy to see that it is falling out of favor with others as well. The most authoritative academic work on the creation of the statelet, The Moldovans by Charles King, uses the name "Dniester Moldovan Republic" as does the US State Department now (see: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61664.htm). I would suggest we use that in this article as well, but for the sake of consistency within wikipedia it might be better to use the stated preference of the PMR government: Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika or Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic. Whatever the final decision is, I vote we toss the "trans-" from the official title. Jamason 14:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us have already had this discussion before, on the Talk page of the main Transnistria article (now archived). We looked at how other country pages did it on Wikipedia. We came to the conclusion that we should keep Transnistria as the general moniker, and that we can also use Pridnestrovie (although we rarely do so) as the secondary term. The abbreviation should always be PMR (not TMR, DMR, or anything else). If you want to refer to the offical entity, rather than the geographical area, you may also do so by saying Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika or Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic. This is now our Wikipedia "housestyle" and should be applied consistently. However, outside of Wikipedia I also talked to Edward Lucas about it (journalist from The Economist and he explained to me why they have a different housestyle (they use Transdniestria in order to avoid the "Nistru" part which is offensive to the majority of the population; ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians). Anyway, since we have already had this discussion, we should not change it now, please. And if we change it in the future, it should we Wiki-wide and not just in this particular article. - Mauco 16:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14th army today

[edit]

I realize that this is only a draft, and that we still have a long way to go. But I want to mention this sentence "Since the end of the conflict, the 14th Army has remained in the region as a peacekeeping force." My impression was that the 14th army got disbanded and that the troops which are there are now there under a different name. We would also need to clarify the reduction in troop strength which is down to <1500 (from, what, around 10,000 or more back then? Facts?) and have a link to Joint Control Commission so we give the historic continuity, all of which will be helpful to others who use this resource for their research. - Mauco 16:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I also thought about pointing out that Moldova has never accepted their peacekeeping role or their presence, but I cannot give sources for this (if my impression is indeed accurate). Unfortunately, my familiarity with developments drops off precipitously after about mid-1992 so someone else is going to have to make those edits. Jamason 16:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. However, the peacekeepers (under Joint Control Commission) are there with Moldovan agreement. This was the 1992 Boris Yeltsin - Mircea Snegur ceasefire, which is an official document and can be sourced. It is even online (don't have the link here, but it can be found). I think that the confusion stems from the fact that Moldova objects to other Russian troops which are not peacekeepers. Currently there are a little under 1500 Russian troops in Transnistria, and only half of those - or 750 - are assigned to peacekeeping (with an average of 385 on active duty at any given time). The other half are guarding the Kolbasna weapons and ammo dump. I think that these are the troops which Moldova objects most vehemently to, and it is possible that the 1992 agreement does not cover these troops. With regards to the peacekeepers they are they under an agreement with Moldova. The issue gets clouded because whenever Moldova and the US State Department talks about it, they lump "Russian troops" under one category, but in this contemporary history it is useful to distinguish between the troops which are there as per the agreement with Moldova and then the troops which are not. Politicians rarely do that, but we should, for accuracy. OSCE, on the other hand, makes this distinction. They are not very loud about it, so you have to look closely, but they are aware of the situation and know the facts on the ground. If you need specialized info which is not readily available I can help because I have some friends who work at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. - Mauco 17:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another source is the book "ДНЕСТРОВСКИЙ РАЗЛОМ" which is quite detailed and covers events from pre-independence until 2000 / 2001. It is onesided (in the sense that Moldova is portrayed as the bad guy, and PMR can do no wrong) but we here know enough about this so that we can add from other sources to get a fuller picture. Meanwhile, the strength of ДНЕСТРОВСКИЙ РАЗЛОМ is that it has a lot of first-hand detail not found anywhere else. It is available here: http://www.olvia.idknet.com/razlom/razlom.htm - Mauco 03:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, a Russian source about the 14th army's involvement in this war is "General Lebed – Russian Enigma", Vladimir Polushin, Vneshtorgizdat Publishing House, 1996. - Mauco 02:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian arms shipments / Air bombings

[edit]

It would be extremely interesting to see, from our sources, in what way any 14th Army involvement might have been triggered by the escalation of the Moldovan paramilitaries' activities; if any. It will require some close correlation of the dates. If this theory can be substantiated, the two keys events to look for would be the stream of arms shipments supplied by Romania (which was constant, from the very beginning. This was acknowledged in August 2006 by the foreign minister of Romania) followed by Moldovan use of aircraft in attacks on Bender and attacks on 14th Army installations in Transnistria. - Mauco 03:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of 14th Guards Army

[edit]

The management of 10-th Guards shooting case generated in the autumn of 1942, Supervised over armies at clearing Odessa (in structure of 5-th shock army), in fights for Budapest (in structure of 46-th army), and has finished Great Domestic war in structure of 46-th Armies of 2-nd Ukrainian front in fights for the Vein, in Австрии.31 After end of Great Domestic war management of 10-th Guards The Budapest shooting case carried out a management of armies in structure of Odessa Military district, and after association of the Odessa and Taurian militarian округовхх was It is developed in management of 14-th Guards общевойсковой armies. On the beginning 1991 management of 14-th гв. ОА, besides formations of " the army complete set ", United 59-th Guards Краматорскую and 180-th Kiev мотостредковую divisions, Deployed in Tiraspol (Moldavian ССР) and Belgorod (the Odessa region УССР) accordingly. For November, 19th, 1990 14-th гв. ОА had 229 tanks, 305 БМП and БТ—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.106.191 (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proposal to move

[edit]

Is there any opposition to moving this article to 14th Guards Army title? As it is, it is misnamed in any case since the 14th Army served in the North, and was disbanded soon after the Second World War. The full name of the 14th Guards Army in its last formation was the 14th Combined Arms Guards Army.--124.184.3.135 (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, this should be an article about the army with its involvement in trans being just a section of it. --Illythr (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to move this article to something like Russian military involvement in Transnistria, which will include the 14th Army and the Cossacks voluntaries which were involved in the war.--MariusM (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that'd be some kind of WP:SYNTH merging of different military forces based on their ethnicity. --Illythr (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not based only on ethnicity. Based also on the side of the conflict they were. They cooperated, they were part of the same Russian expansionist policy. For Moldovans, there is not much difference between cossacks and 14th Army - both are Russian invaders who occupied their land.--MariusM (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, Russian expansionist policy? Russian invaders who occupied their land? Oh, boy. Last time I heard that, it was from the PF activists rousing the crowds in Kishinev to "oust the occupants" (meaning Russians and Jews in Moldova) and take their Chisinau flats along with any valuable possessions as rightful owners. --Illythr (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you sincerely believe there is no such thing in the world like Russian expansionist policy? WP:NPOV is requesting to show in Wikipedia articles all relevant points of view, including Popular Front's POV. Flats and valuable possesions were taken in Transnistria from many people, who are actually refugees and are pressuring the authorities in Kishinev to give them flats (quite recently I read such a story). For example, Vlad Grecu, the writer of "O viziune din focarul conflictului de la Dubăsari", lost his flat in Dubăsari, as Transnistrian authorities gave his appartment to a cossack (this is what he wrote in his book).--MariusM (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At that point, in that area, no. The book by the commandant of Tiraspol, Mikhail Bergman, demonstrates (and denounces as "betrayal") the indecisiveness of the Soviet and later Russian leadership, who just kept replying "carry on!" to Netkachev's (commander of the 14th army before Lebed') desperate requests for orders, as the situation in the region continued to escalate. Besides, it's pretty silly to claim that the 14th army "invaded" the area it's been based in for over 30 years, drafting many locals into its ranks throughout all that time. Also, only the peacekeeping force was ordered into the area by Russian officials. The Cossacks were volunteers, and the 14th army was already stationed in the region, and its (eventual) decisive actions were due to personal orders from Lebed'. --Illythr (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving error

[edit]

I don't know what's causing the archive box on this talk page to show a bunch of irrelevant redirects instead of the actual archives. I reported the problem but didn't receive an answer. As of this writing, the actual archives for this talk page can be found here: Talk:14th Army involvement in Transnistria/Archive 1. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on 14th Army involvement in Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on 14th Army involvement in Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 January 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14th Army involvement in Transnistria → Russian military presence in Transnistria – As the article says, the 14th Army is disbanded since 1995. Therefore, the scope of this article would only be from 1990/1 to 1995. However, there is a big part of the article dedicated to the 14th Army's successor in Transnistria, the Operational Group of Russian Forces (OGRF), so this title is somewhat problematic. I don't think we need an article exclusively for the presence of the 14th Army in Transnistria anyway, I don't see it as notable enough, and it could also imply that the presence of the OGRF should be covered in a separate article. I think it would be better if we renamed this article to "Russian military presence in Transnistria" and expand its scope. However, from what I've seen, there are no similarly named articles on Wikipedia, so I am not sure what would the most appropriate name of this article be.

By the way, I pretend to restrict this article's scope mainly to post-war presence, since Russian troops present in Transnistria during the war should be covered along Romanian advisors and Romanian and Ukrainian volunteers in Moldova and Transnistria in a separate article that for now is titled Foreign involvement in the Transnistria War in the conflict's navigation box. Noting this in the case that it is deemed important during the move discussion or for potential new move proposals. Super Ψ Dro 14:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nomination. Creating an article with a main title header that limits its scope solely to the campaign in a small region of Europe of an army that disbanded in 1995 appears to be counterintuitive. Moreover, as the nomination points out, the range of the article does indeed expand beyond the detailed specifics of the currently existing header. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Might consider merging with the OGRF article later. —Michael Z. 21:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_military_presence_in_Transnistria&oldid=1208240799"