What's next?, next war Romanians could be part of

I am not up to speed on the EU's motives for integrating or not integrating new members, but from a novice's perspective, it seems to me that Russia would bristle with each step the EU takes towards the East. Given the historical past, Moldova would seem a bit too far East for the EU. And, let's face it, Russia perceives the EU - and implicitly NATO - as a threat. A resurgent Russia has been flexing their weakened muscles as hard as they can in front of a militarily and politically weakened USA.

I hope I am wrong, but I do not see - given the present situation of the US - any further integration of Eastern European nations into the EU.

it will not happen, not even in the mid-term future. croatia might be admitted and maybe even montenegro. then it will stop for quite some time. it is not even possible to sell the admission of turkey, which is far ahead of albania or molodova, to the population(s).

I had earlier a comment on other topic, but I think is very good here, too. It is about new Russian military doctrine.

New military doctrine of Russia, until 2020, approved in 5 february, says that the main danger for Russia is NATO enlargement and second the missile shield. On this doctrine, Russia express his avaibility to use first nuclear strikes.

"Earlier, several officials involved in the creation of Russia’s new military doctrine said it would provide more liberties in terms of the use of nuclear weapons. Stronger reliance on nuclear deterrence is to compensate for the downsizing of the Russian armed forces. The military reduction, however, is part of a major military reform, which is aimed at making the army better equipped to meet modern challenges."

"According to the new doctrine, Russia views the expansion of NATO as a primary threat to its security, as well as part of a tendency to give NATO global security functions.

Another threat mentioned is the deployment of the strategic missile defense system that undermines international stability and violates the established balance of forces.

Arms deployment in space and the creation of new high-precision conventional weapons are also listed as threats in the doctrine."



For more:
http://rt.com/Politics/2010-02-05/russia-m...e-approved.html

usually I am a pacifist, but when it comes to trasnitria I realize this one cant be solved by talking
the only real solution is to bomb them into oblivion ,, after all it is a small petch of lkand, probably comparable with Gaza in size, and in thsi small strip of land the most of it is ocupied by the population and the leaders only have some military bases and "govormental" buildings,
we should omb them to hell, and we could do it from a safe distance, you dont even have to invade the terytory, you just need foir the mkoldovian regim to let us place our long range artilery on the western bank of Nistru and iin a couple of hours oof heavy bombing transnitrian regim would be finished
of course, that would be received by the russians as a provocation.

OK, you suggest this as a pacifist. But, what would you suggest if you were not a pacifist?
Radu

OK, you suggest this as a pacifist. But, what would you suggest if you were not a pacifist?
Radu

I thought I was clear, when it comes to transnistria I AM NOT A PACIFIST

so that was my solution as a warmonger, not a pacifist
I dont have a pacifistic solution for transnistria

however if my solution is too soft
than I would suggest impaling ( tragere in teapa ) the surviving enemy comanders and any other enemy soldier who can be proven that he did atrocities during the ocupation, like killing inocent people, raping women, etc

This post has been edited by TYPHON on February 11, 2010 08:20 pm

I think Transnistria is like Russia's army in miniature. It not a bunch of drunken mercenaries, and not an army of truly high trained profesional soldiers, but you can find here both.

For more info, look here, are some interesting aricles about Transnistrian military dates, geopolitics, and more. And, of course, where and what arms are produced and sale from Transnistria.

http://www.civicnet.info/Dosarul_transnistrean.asp

And about how Transnistria become a frozen conflict in 1992, look here:

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabel_cronolo...in_Transnistria

I must think of another scenary. If Moldova, tomorow, or maybe the next year, or after five years, will show his desire to be united with Romania, and a referendum take place and the majority will say yes, what should be the answer of Romania? Will Romanian army cross the Prut river like in 1918 or in 1941? And what will the answer of Transnistria?

A brief completition about Transnistria
In the last years the Operational Group of Russian Forces in Moldova (the remains of the soviet/russian 14th Army) was reduced, the remaining strength as of 2006 is about 1,200 troops, and comprises - two Separate Motor-Rifle Battalions (Peacekeeping missions), one Independent Security and Support Battalion, a helicopter detachment (Tiraspol airport) and several small administrative detachments. As a comparison in 1992 there was a complete Motor Rifle Division, two or three Engineer or Pontoon-Bridge Regiments, at least one Independent Communications Regiment, one Independent Artillery Regiment, one Mixed Antiarmour Artillery Regiment, one Missile Brigade, one Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, and other units with over 6.500 soldiers (around 8.000 soldiers in summer 1992). So in those 18 years who passed the russians have managed to pull out a part of their troops from the region. So, the Moldovan government would have in a certain moment the opportunity to release the region from the rebel paramilitary formations. Why not with our unofficial aid, for instance with special operations units?

Moldova doesn't need Transnistria and that patch of land should be no part of or obstacle to a hypothetical union between Romania and Moldova. 60% of Transnistria's population is made up of Russians and Ukrainians and given that ethnic situation no attack on Transnistria is possible without Russian and Ukrainian backlash.

I must think of another scenary. If Moldova, tomorow, or maybe the next year, or after five years, will show his desire to be united with Romania, and a referendum take place and the majority will say yes, what should be the answer of Romania? Will Romanian army cross the Prut river like in 1918 or in 1941? And what will the answer of Transnistria?

I am sorry, it was my mistake for not being to clear

my scenario was to do what I said in the case moldova decides to unite with us, and thus by the right of soveranity the second day we could blow to pieces those pupets from transnistria

This post has been edited by TYPHON on February 13, 2010 10:58 am

sorry to tell you but ou are wrong, that statistic was maniulated by the russians, th mjority of the population is romanian, not ruso/ukrainian
and moldova needs that region because most of its industry and energy plants are located there

In that case offer us the correct statistic, preferably with a source.

And if Moldova unifies with Romania it sure wouldn't need Transnistria any more. Moldova has lived without it for almost 2 decades, it sure could live without her as part of Romania.

Imperialist, if Moldova disclaim Transnistria, without take something in change, it will be the first time in history when a state gives up peacefully a part of his teritory, recognised by all ONU members.
Moldova can try to made an exchange with Ukraine, to take southern Bassarabia in change for Transnistria, but Ukraine, who play a doble sense role here, don't want to hear about this.
It was a little tentative, when Romanian president, after aparition of Belkovski plan, said that everybody talks about Moldova to give Transnistria, but nobody talks about returning southern Bassarabia to Moldova. Next day, Romanian ambassador was called to Foreign Minister in Kiev, for explanations.