` November 2006 (UTC)  ::: And no one is asking Wikipedia to do so, so what is your point? We can cover the influence of Russia in a way that is consistent with the facts. But this is NOT how we are doing it in the current version. Like Mark reposted, so I will I:  About Russia's involvement, yes, the section can be improved. First, we have this sentence: The Russian authorities contributed both militarily and politically to the creation of a separatist government in Transnistria. Militarily, this is debatable. You have heard the old saw that ``winners write history``, right? Well, in this case, there are no clear winners ... and as a result, there are two different versions of history. The Moldovan side overstates Russia's role. The Russian side tries to minimize it. ECHR was divided between a majority opinion and some fairly substantial minority arguments of a good segment of their judges. Jamason has started to work on some indepth research, and it has been covered by some German scholars in the recent past too. As regards our sentence, the word ``contributed`` is a bit imprecise but it wouldn't necessarily be inaccurate. Next sentence: The PMR remained under the effective authority, or at the very least under the decisive influence, of Russia, and in any event it survived by virtue of the military, economic, financial and political support that Russia gave it. This is crapola. Even the author of the sentence knew the problem. ``PMR is under Russian authority`` .. erm.... ``Well, maybe not, but at the very least under decisive Russian influence`` ... wait, hold on, maybe not that either ... ``well, at least at any event, then it survives because of Russian help...`` So what is it? If we are not sure, it shouldn't be included. If we are sure, then that should be included and it should be accurate. Russia has certainly given aid to PMR, but so has Ireland, and the United States' State Department, and several other countries within the last year alone. -  01:13, 9`