Zwischen Arktis Adria und Armenien

236 Sovieto-Rossica
tion of a territorial socio-cultural identity of the Transnistrians” 84 could be proven:
83 per cent of the participants in the poll opted for the preservation of TMR statehood
and 44 per cent stated that “a unique unified community . . . of the Transnistrian
people” existed. 85 More recent data is provided by another poll of April 2000 on
Moldovan and Transnistrian identity undertaken by the Moscow-based political scientist
Vladimir Kolossov. 86 This time, 498 inhabitants of the TMR as well as 513 of
right-bank Moldova were interviewed. Whereas on both sides of the river the degree
of political and territorial identification with the respective regions (and thus states)
was almost the same, significant differences existed with regard to the perception of
one’s own standard of living and the standard of living of the other side: Transnistrians
considered their own socio-economic situation in general as poor, yet still much
better than the one on the right bank. 87 In addition, the degree of trust in the TMR
leadership was considerably higher than figures in mainland Moldova: 45.2 per cent
of those interviewed trusted TMR ‘president’ Smirnov, 38.7 per cent trusted the TMR
government, and 37.1 per cent the TMR Supreme Soviet. The highest figures of trust,
however, were achieved by two non-political but politicized institutions: The Orthodox
Church with 48.6 per cent and, an unrivalled number one, the armed forces of
the TMR with 64.7 per cent! 88
VIII. The TMR interim balance sheet: A decade of
state-driven nation-building, 1992–2002
“Transnistria and the Transnistrians”, stated TMR ‘president’ Smirnov in 2000, “that
is a peculiar region with an astonishing people which has self-sacrificingly fought for
its statehood. Our state became reality. And that is the most important event of these
last ten years.” 89 What Smirnov calls here “the truth about our little but freedomloving
and viable state” 90 cannot be rejected offhand, i. e. the fact that this state-like
84 Nikolaj V. Babilunga, “Territorjal’naja identičnost’ kak faktor političeskoj stabil’nosti Pridnestrov’ja”,
in Michail N. Guboglo (ed.), Ėtničeskaia mobilizacija i mežėtničeskaja integracija
(Moskva, 1999), 192.
85 Ibid. See also Michail N. Guboglo, “Mežnacional’naja naprjažennost’ v real’nosti i v predstavlenijach
graždan”, in Guboglo (ed.), Ėtničeskaia mobilizacija, 172–184; and Nikolaj V. Babilunga,
“Ėtničeskaja identičnost’ naselenija Pridnestrov’ja”, Ėtničeskaja mobilizacija i mežėtničeskaja integracija:
Istorija. Faktory. Gorizonty. Naučno-praktičeskaja konferencija. 29 sentjabrja 1998g. Doklady
i soobščenija (Kišinev, 1999), 30–32.
86 Vladimir Kolossov, “A Small State vs. a Self-Proclaimed Republic: Nation-Building, Territorial
Identities and Prospects of Conflict Resolution (The Case of Moldova-Transdniestria)”, in Stefano
Bianchini (ed.), From the Adriatic to the Caucasus. The Dynamics of (De)Stabilization (Ravenna,
2001), 98–104.
87 Ibid., 100–101.
88 Ibid., 101.
89 I. Smirnov, “Dorogie čitateli!”, in Babilunga et al., Fenomen Pridnestrov’ja, 3.
90 Ibid.