Politics
Moscow treating Domodedovo ‘not as a terrorist act but as a natural disaster’
Reading Time: 3 minutesThe officials Dmitry Medvedev assembled in the wake of the explosion at Moscow’s Domodedovo airport and the behavior of other officials suggests, two of Russia’s leading specialists on the intelligence services suggest, that the Russian president is treating this outrage not so much as a terrorist act but rather as a natural disaster.
The officials Dmitry Medvedev assembled in the wake of the explosion at Moscow’s Domodedovo airport and the behavior of other officials suggests, two of Russia’s leading specialists on the intelligence services suggest, that the Russian president is treating this outrage not so much as a terrorist act but rather as a natural disaster.
That does not mean that he and those reporting to him do not believe that what happened in Domodedovo was a terrorist act, Andrey Soldatov and Irina Borogan suggest in an article in today’s “Yezhednevny zhurnal,” but rather that the leadership is not acting in the ways one would expect it to if that is the case (www.ej.ru/?a=note&id=10770).
And that in turn raises questions both about the nature of Moscow’s counter-terorrist strategy and perhaps even more fundamentally about the way in which Medvedev (and Putin) are making use of the intelligence services and even the way in which the powers that be are interacting with the population at times of tragedy.
As soon as Medvedev learned about the terrorist act at Domodedovo, the two Agentura.ru specialists say, the Russian president called three officials to meet with him: Aleksandr Bastrykin, the head of the Investigation Committee, Yury Chaika, the prosecutor general, and Igor Levitin, the transportation minister.
Thus, the two analysts say, the president assembled “only those who are responsible for reacting to a terrorist action rather than those, like Interior Minister Rashid Nurgaliyev and FSB Director Aleksandr Bortnikov who are charged with preventing terrorist actions. Nor were these two called to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
Apparently both the president and the prime minister “considered it inappropriate to ask questions” about why Domodedovo had occurred. But Nurgaliyev and Bortnikov not only failed to appear before Medvedev and Putin but they also did not show up “in front of the television cameras, thereby avoiding the necessity of answering questions from journalists.”
According to Soldatov and Borogan, “the tactic chosen by the authorities can have only one explanation.” For the president and prime minister, the terrorist action is being “equated to a natural disaster where by definition there are not guilty parties but there is only a spontaneously arising tragic situation to which it is necessary to react appropriately.”
“In such circumstances,” they add, “what is needed are not questions but orders.”
This approach, Soldatov and Borogan note, “appeared long before the terrorist act at Domodedova” this week, adding that “at the very least, during the last two years, the special services have been equating terrorism to a phenomenon of nature,” given that Bortnikov has not reported to the media in 2009 or 2010 about the results of his agencies work in this area.
The two analysts recall that a year ago they wrote of their impression that “the refusal of Bortnikov from the longstanding practice of annual reports to the press meant the FSB no longer intends to hide that the special services report only to the Kremlin.” Now, they say it appears “the FSB and MVD do not consider themselves subordinate even to the Kremlin” and that Medvedev and Putin accept that.
But the reaction of other officials highlights an even bigger disconnect. In the past, for example, Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov always visited the site of a terrorist act both to demonstrate that he was in charge and gave interviews to the media in order to underscore his ties to the population that was suffering.
“This old tradition of the 1990s died immediately after Medvedev replaced the mayor of the city,” Soldatov and Borogan say. “Sobyanin came to the site of the tragedy, that is, he fulfilled the functions of administration but he did not consider it necessary to meet with the press there.” He limited himself to “declarations before ‘his own’ television cameras.”
According to the two analysts, “it is characteristic that Bornikov and Sobyanin are both appointees of Medvedev and both with ease have rejected the practice of their predecessors, Patrushev and Luzhkov by refusing to appear before the press.” This new approach, Soldatov and Borogan say, suggests that they don’t feel “any degree of responsibility before the people.”
But that raises some serious issues, they point out. “Countering terrorists is not simply an area of administrative decisions of various degrees of effectiveness, the shortcomings of which can be covered in secrecy.” More to the point, no amount of secrecy can hide that Moscow now isn’t demanding that the force structures react to the threat in a timely fashion.
Since the announcement of a national counter-terrorism strategy in 2004 and 2006, “the chief priority is not to permit an attack of large groups of militants which would lead ot the loss of administrative control (that is, of political stability) in the region or country as a whole” rather than protecting the population.
The terrorists have changed tactics as a result, Soldatov and Borogan say, shifting to small groups, the use of suicide bombers, and attacking officials. That shift has allowed Medvedev to solemnly declare about “the completion of the counter-terrorist operation in Chechnya,” but it has left Russia and Russians less well-protected against terror than they were.
Featured
FC Sheriff Tiraspol victory: can national pride go hand in hand with political separatism?

A new football club has earned a leading place in the UEFA Champions League groups and starred in the headlines of worldwide football news yesterday. The Football Club Sheriff Tiraspol claimed a win with the score 2-1 against Real Madrid on the Santiago Bernabeu Stadium in Madrid. That made Sheriff Tiraspol the leader in Group D of the Champions League, including the football club in the groups of the most important European interclub competition for the first time ever.
International media outlets called it a miracle, a shock and a historic event, while strongly emphasizing the origin of the team and the existing political conflict between the two banks of the Dniester. “Football club from a pro-Russian separatist enclave in Moldova pulls off one of the greatest upsets in Champions League history,” claimed the news portals. “Sheriff crushed Real!” they said.
Moldovans made a big fuss out of it on social media, splitting into two groups: those who praised the team and the Republic of Moldova for making history and those who declared that the football club and their merits belong to Transnistria – a problematic breakaway region that claims to be a separate country.
Both groups are right and not right at the same time, as there is a bunch of ethical, political, social and practical matters that need to be considered.
Is it Moldova?
First of all, every Moldovan either from the right or left bank of Dniester (Transnistria) is free to identify himself with this achievement or not to do so, said Vitalie Spranceana, a sociologist, blogger, journalist and urban activist. According to him, boycotting the football club for being a separatist team is wrong.
At the same time, “it’s an illusion to think that territory matters when it comes to football clubs,” Spranceana claimed. “Big teams, the ones included in the Champions League, have long lost their connection both with the countries in which they operate, and with the cities in which they appeared and to which they linked their history. […] In the age of globalized commercial football, teams, including the so-called local ones, are nothing more than global traveling commercial circuses, incidentally linked to cities, but more closely linked to all sorts of dirty, semi-dirty and cleaner cash flows.”
What is more important in this case is the consistency, not so much of citizens, as of politicians from the government who have “no right to celebrate the success of separatism,” as they represent “the national interests, not the personal or collective pleasures of certain segments of the population,” believes the political expert Dionis Cenusa. The victory of FC Sheriff encourages Transnistrian separatism, which receives validation now, he also stated.
“I don’t know how it happens that the “proud Moldovans who chose democracy”, in their enthusiasm for Sheriff Tiraspol’s victory over Real Madrid, forget the need for total and unconditional withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria!” declared the journalist Vitalie Ciobanu.
Nowadays, FC Sheriff Tiraspol has no other choice than to represent Moldova internationally. For many years, the team used the Moldovan Football Federation in order to be able to participate in championships, including international ones. That is because the region remains unrecognised by the international community. However, the club’s victory is presented as that of Transnistria within the region, without any reference to the Republic of Moldova, its separatist character being applied in this case especially.
Is it a victory?
In fact, FC Sheriff Tiraspol joining the Champions League is a huge image breakthrough for the Transnistrian region, as the journalist Madalin Necsutu claimed. It is the success of the Tiraspol Club oligarchic patrons. From the practical point of view, FC Sheriff Tiraspol is a sports entity that serves its own interests and the interests of its owners, being dependent on the money invested by Tiraspol (but not only) oligarchs.
Here comes the real dilemma: the Transnistrian team, which is generously funded by money received from corruption schemes and money laundering, is waging an unequal fight with the rest of the Moldovan football clubs, the journalist also declared. The Tiraspol team is about to raise 15.6 million euro for reaching the Champions League groups and the amounts increase depending on their future performance. According to Necsutu, these money will go directly on the account of the club, not to the Moldovan Football Federation, creating an even bigger gab between FC Sheriff and other football clubs from Moldova who have much more modest financial possibilities.
“I do not see anything useful for Moldovan football, not a single Moldovan player is part of FC Sheriff Tiraspol. I do not see anything beneficial for the Moldovan Football Federation or any national team.”
Is it only about football?
FC Sheriff Tiraspol, with a total estimated value of 12.8 million euros, is controlled by Victor Gusan and Ilya Kazmala, being part of Sheriff Holding – a company that controls the trade of wholesale, retail food, fuels and medicine by having monopolies on these markets in Transnistria. The holding carries out car trading activities, but also operates in the field of construction and real estate. Gusan’s people also hold all of the main leadership offices in the breakaway region, from Parliament to the Prime Minister’s seat or the Presidency.
The football club is supported by a holding alleged of smuggling, corruption, money laundering and organised crime. Moldovan media outlets published investigations about the signals regarding the Sheriff’s holding involvement in the vote mobilization and remuneration of citizens on the left bank of the Dniester who participated in the snap parliamentary elections this summer and who were eager to vote for the pro-Russian socialist-communist bloc.
Considering the above, there is a great probability that the Republic of Moldova will still be represented by a football club that is not identified as being Moldovan, being funded from obscure money, growing in power and promoting the Transnistrian conflict in the future as well.
Photo: unknown
Politics
Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilita meets high-ranking EU officials in Brussels

Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova, Natalia Gavrilita, together with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicu Popescu, pay an official visit to Brussels, between September 27-28, being invited by High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell Fontelles.
Today, Prime Minister had a meeting with Charles Michel, President of the European Council. The Moldovan PM thanked the senior European official for the support of the institution in strengthening democratic processes, reforming the judiciary and state institutions, economic recovery and job creation, as well as increasing citizens’ welfare. Natalia Gavrilita expressed her confidence that the current visit laid the foundations for boosting relations between the Republic of Moldova and the European Union, so that, in the next period, it would be possible to advance high-level dialogues on security, justice and energy. Officials also exchanged views on priorities for the Eastern Partnership Summit, to be held in December.
“The EU is open to continue to support the Republic of Moldova and the ambitious reform agenda it proposes. Moldova is an important and priority partner for us,” said Charles Michel.
Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilita also met with Paolo Gentiloni, European Commissioner for Economy, expressing her gratitude for the support received through the OMNIBUS macro-financial assistance program. The two officials discussed the need to advance the recovery of money from bank fraud, to strengthen sustainable mechanisms for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises in Moldova, and to standardize the customs and taxes as one of the main conditions for deepening cooperation with the EU in this field.
Additionally, Prime Minister spoke about the importance of the Eastern Partnership and the Deep Free Trade Agreement, noting that the Government’s policies are aimed at developing an economic model aligned with the European economic model, focused on digitalization, energy efficiency and the green economy.
A common press release of the Moldovan Prime Minister with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission, Josep Borrell Fontelles, took place today, where the agenda of Moldova’s reforms and the main priorities to focus on in the coming months were presented: judiciary reform; fighting COVID-19 pandemic; promoting economic recovery and conditions for growth and job creation; strengthening state institutions and resilience of the country.
“I am here to relaunch the dialogue between my country and the European Union. Our partnership is strong, but I believe there is room for even deeper cooperation and stronger political, economic and sectoral ties. I am convinced that this partnership is the key to the prosperity of our country and I hope that we will continue to strengthen cooperation.”
The Moldovan delegation met Didier Reynders, European Commissioner for Justice. Tomorrow, there are scheduled common meetings with Oliver Varhelyi, European Commissioner for Neighborhood and Enlargement, Adina Valean, European Commissioner for Transport and Kadri Simson, European Commissioner for Energy.
Prime Minister will also attend a public event, along with Katarina Mathernova, Deputy Director-General for Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations.
Photo: gov.md
Politics
Promo-LEX about Maia Sandu’s UN speech: The president must insist on appointing a rapporteur to monitor the situation of human rights in Transnistria

The President of the Republic of Moldova, Maia Sandu, pays an official visit to New York, USA, between September 21-22. There, she participates in the work of the United Nations General Assembly. According to a press release of the President’s Office, the official will deliver a speech at the tribune of the United Nations.
In this context, the Promo-LEX Association suggested the president to request the appointment of a special rapporteur in order to monitor the situation of human rights in the Transnistrian region. According to Promo-LEX, the responsibility for human rights violations in the Transnistrian region arises as a result of the Russian Federation’s military, economic and political control over the Tiraspol regime.
“We consider it imperative to insist on the observance of the international commitments assumed by the Russian Federation regarding the withdrawal of the armed forces and ammunition from the territory of the country,” the representatives of Promo-LEX stated. They consider the speech before the UN an opportunity “to demand the observance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the Russian Federation with reference to this territory which is in its full control.”
“It is important to remember about the numerous cases of murder, torture, ill-treatment, forced enlistment in illegal military structures, the application of pseudo-justice in the Transnistrian region, all carried out under the tacit agreement of the Russian Federation. These findings stem from dozens of rulings and decisions issued by the European Court of Human Rights, which found that Russia is responsible for human rights violations in the region.”
The association representatives expressed their hope that the president of the country would give priority to issues related to the human rights situation in the Transnistrian region and would call on relevant international actors to contribute to guaranteeing fundamental human rights and freedoms throughout Moldova.
They asked Maia Sandu to insist on the observance of the obligation to evacuate the ammunition and the military units of the Russian Federation from the territory of the Republic of Moldova, to publicly support the need for the Russian Federation to implement the ECtHR rulings on human rights violations in the Transnistrian region, and to request the appointment of an UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur to monitor the human rights situation in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova.
**
The Promo-LEX Association concluded that 14 out of 25 actions planned within the National Action Plan for the years 2018–2022 concerning respecting human rights in Transnistria were not carried out by the responsible authorities.
The association expressed its concern and mentioned that there are a large number of delays in the planned results. “There is a lack of communication and coordination between the designated institutions, which do not yet have a common vision of interaction for the implementation of the plan.”
Promo-LEX requested the Government of the Republic of Moldova to re-assess the reported activities and to take urgent measures, “which would exclude superficial implementation of future activities and increase the level of accountability of the authorities.”
Photo: peacekeeping.un.org