First, recall what has happened. Two residents of the Moldovan village of Parata driving the Lada car through a checkpoint on a bridge over the Dniester River near the town Vadul lui Vodă ignored a traffic sign “Stop” and did not comply with peacekeepers’ demand to stop. After 20 minutes the car came back, bypassed the exposed barbs, and the driver (was drunk) again did not react to a signal to stop.
The commander of the post fired several shots into the air, and after this had no effect, opened fire on the car with a machine gun. The bullet pierced the door of the car and seriously injured the 18-year-old Vadim Pisar. Ambulance took him to a Kishinev hospital, where he died shortly after.
Of course, this incident was acutely perceived in Moldova and Transdniestria, and indeed in Russia, where an official regret was expressed over the incident, although the shooter acted in full accordance with official regulations.
The incident will be investigated further, but now I want to talk about something else. About an unreasonably severe reaction of the West, and especially of the United States to the incident. Americans write and speak about a nearly-deliberate murder committed by the Russian peacekeeper, about the cruelty of the shooter, and cry the dead boy a river.
One would have done justice to Washington politicians’ “tenderheartedness”, believed in their sincerity, if it had not been for one circumstance. The whole world knows how many murders in various spots of the world, including premeditated ones, the U.S. military have committed, and this did not cause any feeling of protest or disturbance in Washington. So the attempt of transatlantic guardians of morality to boost a sad but yet single instance on the bridge over the Dniester River into an extreme event to be treated as a crime against humanity, requiring some special international investigation nearly on the level of the Hague Tribunal, seems to be completely unfounded.
We know what the American (and indeed British) soldiers did in Iraq and Afghanistan, deliberately killing hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians, jeering at and torturing the captives (for which, by the way, some American military were brought to trial at home). They were shooting at military posts, in the streets, fired without any warning, just desiring to have fun, hit a live target.
And is it possible to forget what NATO members did during the aggression in Yugoslavia in 1999, barbarously bombing Belgrade, destroying homes, killing peaceful inhabitants of the Yugoslav capital? And in their home country, the United States, American soldiers or policemen often commit murders, unnecessarily shooting at people of different age and sex, about which, by the way, local press repeatedly wrote. So why has such a fuss been raised over the Moldovan incident?
The explanation is quite simple, if you read the statement by the U.S. Ambassador to Moldova concerning the incident. It says that “this incident highlights the need for demilitarization of the safety zone in order to prevent similar incidents in the future.” This means that according to Washington it is necessary to remove Russian peacekeepers (recall that in due time the West required to remove them from the zone of Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetian conflict, it is clear why), put an end to their mission that has for many years maintained peace in Transdniestria.
If Russian peacekeepers leave, in their place the American ones will appear, and Washington will be able to directly affect events in the region being so far poorly controlled by the United States. An important region neighboring Ukraine and situated near the Black Sea coast.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the USA is trying to gain a foothold in many areas of the former Soviet Union - Caucasus, Ukraine, Central Asia ... So Moldova and Transdniestria are no exception. That is all the explanation of the hype raised in the West, primarily in the United States because of an accident on the bridge over the Dniester River.