There no burden of proof here, he made an argument and the argument made fails a basic logical test. His conclusion may be true but that's beside the point, th

There no burden of proof here, he made an argument and the argument made fails a basic logical test. His conclusion may be true but that's beside the point, the last 4 posts are simply arguing the merits of the argument he made. > There haven't been atrocities in Moldovan governed territories, I think we all agree on this. > all of which contain exactly the same minority elements as Transnistria Hardly in the same proportions. > Why would Moldova have to adopt ethnic cleansing in Transnistria especially, when it did not do the same thing anywhere in Moldova. 'Have to adopt' is a strange construction. You never 'have to adapt' atrocity. It's something that can happen for various reasons intentionally or unintentionally -- for example undisciplined troops might engage in atrocity when taking a city after a bloody siege. If you dont see how that might apply specifically only to Transnistrian Russian minorities because they were the only ones fighting newly armed unprofessional conscripts then I can't help you. The broader question of Why Transnistria might not be just like the rest of Moldova is a bit like asking 'Why did the Russians have a huge war and commit terrible war crimes in Chechnya but not Tatarstan, Dagestan, etc.?'. It turns out that not everything with some similar characteristics is always the same!