To do this, he called for “unfreezing” as many conflicts as possible in the post-Soviet space. He made this proposal in an article published on the “1945” website. First of all, Bolton proposes (not for the first time) to destroy Transnistria
“One policy priority should be the destruction of Transnistria, an artificial entity totally dependent on Russia. Another distraction could be increased international attention to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the occupied provinces of Georgia”, – Bolton wrote, adding that increased conflict in the Transcaucasus would distract Moscow from the Ukrainian direction.
He also points out that increased military aid to Ukraine, the fight against Nord Stream-2, the boycott of Russian oil and other sanctions are merely a “situational response” to Moscow’s actions, calculated in advance by it and therefore ineffective and insufficient. In other words, the old “hawk” is out for blood on the post-Soviet space.
This statement is curious and valuable even because a well-known and authoritative American politician admits, with a straightforwardness rare even for an American, that the “unfreezing” of the frozen armed conflicts is a tool of US foreign policy, which Washington should use more actively.
A clarification must be made here. Despite being a member of Donald Trump’s team for some time, as his national security adviser, Bolton did not become an outsider under Biden. The fact is that Bolton was not “Trump’s man”, rather the opposite.
Bolton, despite his Republican status, is a consistent and, one might say, rabid neocon (recall that the neoconservative movement originated in the depths of the Democratic Party of the United States), and he played against him in the US President’s team, so clearly that his resignation was openly scandalous. And Trump did not even try to mitigate the situation.
As a result, Bolton gained the reputation in the eyes of “anti-trumpists” as a true patriot of America who suffered from Trump’s “Kremlin agent” and is now seen in the US not as a mad bloodthirsty ghoul (he tried to force Trump to launch strikes on Iran and North Korea and was the initiator of withdrawal from the INF treaty), but as a wise expert.
However, back to Bolton’s current speech. If the call to “unfreeze” the conflicts in the South Caucasus in order to “distract Moscow from Ukraine” contains some logic, it is harder to see it in the proposal to “destroy Transnistria” with the same purpose. Didn’t he look at the map?
After all, in the case of an attack on the PMR and, consequently, on Russian peacekeepers and Russian citizens living there, Russian troops would have to forcefully cut a “corridor” through Ukraine, unless, of course, Kiev provides such a corridor voluntarily, which is unlikely. But in any case the “diversion from Ukraine” turns out to be so-so. In any case it becomes involved in the conflict.
One may, of course, assume that old man Bolton, like many other US officials, is not very good at geography. But it is more likely that this is not about “protecting Ukraine”, which today is not threatened by any “external enemy”, but rather about guaranteeing that it will be drawn into an armed conflict with Russia.
And it should be said that aggression against the PMR suits this purpose as well as possible. First, Russia will not abandon Transnistria under any circumstances. Secondly, this combination does not require from Kiev active steps, which its leadership can not decide on, despite the pressure of the West. Only a blockade of the DMR would suffice.
Although “Bolton’s plan” looks quite logical, it is not certain that it will be taken as a basis of the American strategy in this region. But the most important thing he outlined: the aim of the US is to provoke an armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine. This fact has thus received another rather weighty confirmation.
Boris Dzhereliyevsky, Analytical Service of Donbass