|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|WorldWar2.ro Forum > The post-WW2 and recent military > What's next?|
|Posted by: contras February 06, 2010 06:24 pm|
| There were some interesting comentaries about what will be next, about how some new weapons Russians prepare could influence the future, the balance of forces in the world, or in our problematic region (whith many frozen conflicts in Black Sea region), and otherwise.
How Russia will strike back? How China will react? And what will be our role on the new "Great Chaseboard" (apud Zbignew Brezinski).
Republic of Moldova will influence our position at the NATO frontier? The new American bases, and the missile shield?
Many questions, few answers until now.
George Friedman, foundatory member of Stratfor, published a book, "Urmatorii 100 de ani", avaible in Romanian, too.
This is a very serious book, not a kind of Nostradamus predictions. Friedman expose here his strategic theories, and came with examples, and tried to do it on scientific bases, about economy, democraphy, military developments, aliances and many more.
He said that Russians will fall from the status of important power, and many other will raise in Eastern Europe, like Poland, Turkey, and Romania and Hungary, allied togeter.
He mentioned many possible wars, one of them implies Romania, and is dated about the year 2040. A very fascinating lecture.
|Posted by: contras February 06, 2010 11:44 pm|
| Today, Ukraine is running into presidential elections. Maybe we find more about it's future, and what directions it will take.
Few days ago, on Typhon topic, we discused about a novel about a future war between Romania and Ukraine. I hope it will remained just a novel, but I'm very interested in Ukraine's future.
|Posted by: TYPHON February 07, 2010 07:58 am|
ukraine has some heavy debts towards romania and poland
the suthern Basarabia
the Lvov region
|Posted by: contras February 07, 2010 10:15 am|
| Many strategiests and analists said that in next 10 years, Ukraine will blow up in pieces. (2,3 or 4 large ones). It can be a peaceful movement, or a violent one (hope will be peaceful, like Cekhoslovakia, not violent, like Yugoslavia).
There are too many diferences and aspirations between parts of population, like western parts and eastern ones.
|Posted by: TYPHON February 07, 2010 10:46 am|
yes, but even if they will break up, the russians will imediately send in their undecover agents which will stear the events in the desired direction by Moscow in these newly born ministates and so we and the polls will not eb able to take back our old teritories.
they will use the mass media to spread ideas similar to the ones in Moldova, liek the existance of a separate ethnic group called moldavians, they will continue to attack romania and the EU in general, like saying Romania is a gypsy state, why would you want to unite with those gypsies, Romania is an imperialistic state, they will steal your jobs etc, this kind of bullshit
|Posted by: contras February 07, 2010 01:12 pm|
|Of course, all of these maneuvres will be put in place, but in western part, inhabitans from here wanted to be part of UE and NATO. And Northern Bukovina is the eastern frontier of this part of Ukraine.|
|Posted by: ANDREAS February 07, 2010 02:27 pm|
| Interesting new topic, contras,
First, as each point of view I think that should be based on reading, I must admit ignorance since I didn't read the book in question... but even so I think that the potential danger to our country interests still coming from the east! Russia has the political, economic, military, technological and human potential to stay a big power abel to threaten our vital interests. So, first look at what happens in Ukraine... and I turn shortly on the fiction book "Cand Armele Vorbesc...". E
|Posted by: ANDREAS February 07, 2010 02:35 pm|
|Even if I found many nonsense in describing the military operations in terms of tactical, operational and strategic, not to speak about other political issues, the idea of using Ukraine as an instrument in striking our interests is possible even probable, and should make us very careful! Even if right now such a scenario does not seem possible...|
|Posted by: contras February 07, 2010 09:12 pm|
| The book George Friedman wrote comes with studies, forecasts about demographic issues, economic ones, etc, and said that Russia's power will diminish in a few years, but she don't really understand that. His eastern large provinces, practically unpopulated, are so close at hand by overpopulated China. And Russia's demographic decline, over one hundred people in Russian federation, the musulman people in southern regions with separative tentatives, a nightmare for every Russian leader.
But how Russia will colapse? I'm sure she will made many attempts to delay the inevitable, and it will be done with strong hand.
Russia proved in 2008 that is ready to use military force, but this demonstration show is weakening, too. Loses to high, for such a conflict. Loses in Chechenia, another matter.
|Posted by: contras February 07, 2010 09:24 pm|
| About "Cand armele vorbesc" scenario, IMO, Ukraina had no matter to love us very much, because many things. Haga decision last year they treated like a defeat, Iulia Timoshenko said in electoral campaign that she will attack in justice Haga decision.
Paralell with Argentina's regime Galtieri, who attacked Malvina's (Fauklands) it is well done, but until now, Ukraine is still a democracy (not a perfect one, for sure), but is not a dictatorship. Even so, I'm quite sure that it will act against us every time she can, but when is backed by Russia, even more.
|Posted by: IAR80 February 08, 2010 06:26 pm|
| 2040 is indeed a year far enough for anything to happen,but given the current "dynasty" of post-communist politicians and the ones coming from behind, any war involving Romania would likely see a repeat of the performances in both World Wars : an army that is reasonably large,but poorly equipped and led with logistics crippled by corruption.
We have all the pieces in place for a proper small country defence : be too tough to crack to be really worth it. Save one : decent political leadership.
With buffoons like the ones leading the country now, we should be VERY glad there are no conflicts on the horizon whatsoever. Wouldn't give my life for these fart-bags if threatened by a SRI operative with a machinegun,Soviet-style.
|Posted by: ANDREAS February 08, 2010 07:06 pm|
| Very interesting perspective on the future of Russia,
and somewhat positive for us - the possibility of reunification with Bessarabia (is a strong desire of mine, I confess!). It's true that population decline leads to an uncertain future as a great power for Russia and only a pronounced economic and technologic development could maintain her as a world power... even though many already consider Russia only a regional power like China or India for example (Although both countries are rapidly moving towards world power states).
Turkey is making quick steps to become a significant regional power, economic development, technological progress (including military), population growth, the ambitious foreign policy in all directions (from Georgia, Azerbaidjan and Turkmenistan to Palestina, Iraq and North Africa). I recently read in the magazine Lumea that many political experts see the Turkish role as one of much increasing significance for both its neighboring countries and some heated parts of the world. Not to forget the eyes targeted toward the Balkans where Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia-Hercegovina are important partners...
|Posted by: contras February 09, 2010 12:44 am|
| True, Andreas, in near future, we will faced with the posibility of our reunification with Bassarabia. But what about Transnistria, how we could deal with it? There is the soft and the hard posibility.
It is the choice of us, when the time will come!
|Posted by: dead-cat February 09, 2010 11:58 am|
|the EU would have to agree first. and it was hard enough to have the population convinced that Romania and Bulgaria should join. whoever would try to implement that union will be hard pressed to convince the rest of the union why they should pay for a strip of land, poorer than albania.|
|Posted by: contras February 09, 2010 05:55 pm|
| True, dead-cat, but sooner or later, EU will extend again. Therer are some countries who waited, ex-Yugoslavia, (Western Balkans), and others.
Because it is cheaper for EU to help these countries to became rich, their citizens to have rights and some good economic status, in place of protect themself against illegal imigrants and other problems.
The time for Moldova will came. The main problem is with Transnstria's status. This frozen conflict cant persist, if Moldova want's to have a chance to join EU.
This state in state can be easilly overthrown. It is just a problem of will. If Ukraine put a blockade at his borders, Moldova the same, in few days the leaders will leave to Moscow. Because the regime can't exist if the smmugling traffic is stoped.
And the traffic route is on Ukrainean territory, with the complicity of Ukrainean leaders. It is another level to blackmail Moldova and Romania.
|Posted by: mabadesc February 10, 2010 05:53 am|
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.
|Posted by: dead-cat February 10, 2010 06:55 am|
| 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).
|Posted by: contras February 10, 2010 08:37 am|
| 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."
|Posted by: TYPHON February 11, 2010 09:41 am|
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.
|Posted by: Radub February 11, 2010 11:48 am|
OK, you suggest this as a pacifist. But, what would you suggest if you were not a pacifist?
|Posted by: TYPHON February 11, 2010 08:19 pm|
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
|Posted by: contras February 11, 2010 09:15 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.
|Posted by: contras February 11, 2010 09:27 pm|
| And about how Transnistria become a frozen conflict in 1992, look here:
|Posted by: contras February 12, 2010 10:25 pm|
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?
|Posted by: ANDREAS February 12, 2010 11:02 pm|
| 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?
|Posted by: Imperialist February 13, 2010 09:37 am|
|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.|
|Posted by: TYPHON February 13, 2010 10:53 am|
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
|Posted by: TYPHON February 13, 2010 10:57 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
|Posted by: Imperialist February 13, 2010 04:19 pm|
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.
|Posted by: contras February 14, 2010 01:45 pm|
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.
|Posted by: Imperialist February 14, 2010 04:57 pm|
Moldova is in no position to ask anything from Ukraine. Moldova is in no position to militarily recover Transnistria either. In fact, the Russians and Ukrainians in Moldova itself oppose a hypothetical union with Romania. In this context the actual barter would be along the following lines - we give up our claim on Transnistria, you let us unite with Romania without stirring any internal trouble.
|Posted by: contras February 14, 2010 05:02 pm|
Andreas, thanks for info, maybe will let me know the sources.
But this figures are only about the Russian ones, former XIV'th army, converted to "peace keeping units". (a little strange, that one part in conflict become peace keeping force, like in Abkhazia or Southern Ossetia).
But there are some Transnistrian forces, military (army and police, including Special Forces, like Dniestr and Alpha battalions, who fought in Abkhazia in 1993, after the end of war in Moldova, 1992) and paramilitary, like many cossacks, retired from Russian Army who estabilished there, who can be ready for combat in very short time. Some sources (I'll check and came with quotations) estimate over 200 000 the men who can be put under arms (many of them second rate troops, but arms are so many in Transnistria, like the Colbasna deposit, from Cold War).
|Posted by: contras February 14, 2010 08:03 pm|
And what about Tighina (Bender)? It is the most important city on right bank of Nistru (Dniestr) occupied by Transnistrian forces, since the war in 1992. Moldova estabilished and mentain, since the war, two important (tacticaly) positions on the left bank, Cosnita and Cocieri, who can be a danger for Dubasari city, in case of an escaladation.
Transnistria is a strip of land, about 20 kilometres wide. It cannot resist without reinforcements in case of a conflict. And this reinforcements cannot pas than on Ukrainean soil, like in 1992 war.
|Posted by: contras February 14, 2010 08:09 pm|
| Next, who will guarantee that Russia or others will not stirr internal trouble, and other things. It was a Russian who said that treaties not worth even the paper where they are written. (Stalin)
During the wars in early '90, in Sothern Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, Checenya, Russian army comes with cease-fire arrangements, and next day were violated by their puppets, or even by them, with large scale offensives.
|Posted by: Imperialist February 14, 2010 08:25 pm|
|The bottom line is, do the Moldovans care more about getting back a Russian/Ukrainian-majority strip of land filled with decrepit industries or about uniting with Romania and thus becoming EU/NATO members? The latter is only hypothetical, but if there is one way to rule it out forever then that is to up the military ante with Transdniester and end up in the situation Saakashvili found himself in.|
|Posted by: dead-cat February 15, 2010 04:55 am|
look at the composition of the population in that area. in the region we're talking about there are more bulgarians than romanians. and ukraineans outnumber both combined.
any referendum there will fail.
|Posted by: contras February 15, 2010 09:00 am|
I know about bulgarians (gagauzi) in that area, and about lipoveni (Russians). Can you give me your sources about population composition? I'm interested to see many sources possible.
|Posted by: dead-cat February 15, 2010 09:08 am|
|Posted by: ANDREAS February 15, 2010 10:41 pm|
| Hallo contras,
My source for units and equipment of the 14th Army (extremely detailed to the battalion level) is from 2002 and was posted on a german military forum -now closed as I verified- and it was taken -as the author claimed than - from the inspection taken according to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) in summer 1991. I remember I was surprised than that such data could be found regarding the Soviet Union -even only the western and southern Military Districts, including Odessa -where the 14th Army was dislocated. Even if the ex-soviet forces dislocated in Transnistria were not impressive in numbers (but were still equipped with first class weapons -compared to ours!!), they were more than able to crush the weak moldovan police and army units (even occupy the capital Chisinau!). Without tanks and artillery (and especially qualified personnel) the moldovan troops (betrayed by many of the senior officers in Chisinau -from the new born Ministry of Defense) had no chance to resist. The recent status - 2006 -of the Operational Group of Russian Forces in Moldova I found about two years ago on the website of the moldovan Ministry of Defense -in a military situation analysis of Transnistria.
|Posted by: 21 inf February 16, 2010 06:15 am|
| Let's dont get drunk ourselfes, romanians, with cold water. We are a small state and small states are never taken into acount when the interests of big states are discussed. We received nothing during history from big states (or small states), even if we were right. We cant win something by war if big powers doesnt sustain us. We cant win something by peacefull negociations if big powers doesnt sustain us. We are expandable.
In 1859 the Union of Moldavia with Wallachia was made by romanians speculating the permision of big powers to elect a ruler, which permision didnt mentioned that it has or not to be diferent persons in both provinces. Romanians elected Cuza, who took power only because big powers of time agreed so. The big powers of the moment created this union due to their own interests at the mouth of Danube, not due to romanian's wishes for a state.
In 1877 romanians entered ruso-turkish war, gained their independence and lost at the end of the war Cahul, Ismail and Bolgrad to russians and big powers agreed that in the favor of russians.
In ww1 Romania entered war on Allied side, having the ensurance from big powers to unite with Romania all teritories inhabited by romanians from AH empire. Allied powers agreed that to Romania cos they had hard times on western fronts, not for the sake of romanians. In early 1918, after Buftea peace, Allied powers didnt recognised anymore the promises to romanians cos they lost interes into them. In 1919 also Allied powers didnt fullfiled their agreements and the same was at Paris peace conference in 1920, were romanian had a real struggle with allies to gain their promised rights. We won only because big powers wanted so.
In ww2 romanians fought at the begining on Axis side pressed also by big powers and after 23 august 1944, even fighting on allied side, Romania was treated as a defeated country, cos big powers wanted so. In the same time, Italy, which alsoo fought on both sides, was considered on "good" side at the end of ww2.
We are insignifiant quantity for big powers.
|Posted by: contras February 16, 2010 07:40 am|
I don't know if they wanted that, their aim was to estabilish a separatist region with blackmail role against Chisinau leaders. This region will treat every tentative to approach Bucarest. It works until today. Same model will be used in Georgia, with Abkhazia, Southern Ossetia, and Adjaria, last one was occupied by Georgians in 2004.
Otherwise, I don't think that in 1992 Transnistrians and 14th Russian Army had the logistic and operational capability to seize Chisinau. When they stormed Tighina with 20 tanks with Russian flag on them, they losed 6 in street fightings against Moldavians, who hadn't artilery or tanks, just with small weapons and RPG. Moldova even has an army, just police forces and volunteers.
|Posted by: Dénes February 16, 2010 12:32 pm|
Very well said (and valid not only for Rumania). Just remember the (in)famous piece of paper where Churchill and Stalin divided Central and Eastern Europe in a matter of minutes:
This fact is often not taken into consideration when discussing the root cause of certain events.
|Posted by: contras February 16, 2010 04:57 pm|
| 21 inf,
There were two major currents in Romanian media last 20 years. One was that we, romanians, were the bravest and the fiercest, and just others don't let us became what we deserved, etc.
The second is that we don't deserve anything, we are to weak, all the games were already settled, etc.
Sometimies, the same person pass from one to another current, and viceversa, in a short period of time.
The truth is somewhere in the middle.
But were recognised our rights for Dobrogea and Serpent Island, who were under Turkish occupation, and were incorporated in Romania. We obtain sealand, ports, and enourmus comercial beneficions, just because we obtain sea shore, with Constanta port and other.
Of course, we obtain more than we ever expected (Bassarabia), but lesser we deserved. If we stands with crossed arms, do you think we would obtain anything more. I'm sure we would obtain lesser. Because if we don't have Transilvania taken by Romanian army in 1919, and Maramures and others, Romania would be smaller a lot.
In January 1919, Ukrainnea forces invaded northern Maramures. One regiment (Reg 14), come from Dej and defeat Ukrainean forces, and eliberate northern Maramures, and later, with new troops, Romanian army continue to Hust, etc. We do it ourselves, not waited to great powers decisions.
If we stayed and waited the decision of great powers, who would reject Bela Kuhn? Who would eliberate Transilvania? Great powers decisions?
And because in 1919, with bayonets, we obtain more that enyone expected, great powers tried to reduce our gains, and where they could, in Banat. Because a too Greater Romania, later could be a danger for Eastern Europe, they suposed. They divided Banat, but we gave to Czecks two thirds of Maramures istoric (historical Maramures), now inside Ukrainean borders.
|Posted by: TYPHON February 16, 2010 08:01 pm|
the great powers ORDERED us to sit our arses on the mures river and not take all transilvania,
if we would have done that now we wouldnt recognise Romania today.
and we should have done the same with Banat
lets not foerget that in 1916 the allies said they would give us the ENTIRE banat, at that point there was no romanian banat and serbian banat, there was only BANAT.
but we wanted to be good boys and we left half of it into serbian hands. big mistake.
right after WW1 we were in a position where we could do pretty much anything we wanted in our region, especialy after we conquered hungary we were the top dogs in the balkans, could have took the netire Banat, the northern maramures, the Timok region ( from both serbia and bulgaria ), and lets not forget the area between Tisa and our curent border, which at that time was still inhabited by 200.000 romanians who were eventualy maghiarised after our withdrawl.
and the best part is that the great powers could do shit about it ( france and england were exhausted and their people wanted peace ) , russia was in tormoil ( whites vs reds ), bulgaria was always weak ( only had a word to say when they were allied with our powerful enemies ), hungaria was already under our ocupation, the serbs have recently freed their country and were ill organised, plus they could not properly defend a patch of land, the moment our armies would have attackjed the serbian army guarding banat would have found themselves with the backs to the danube and nowhere to retreat.
we had our oportunity and we only took it less than half.
sometimes politicians must take a step back and let the army do its business.
|Posted by: 21 inf February 16, 2010 08:37 pm|
| To contras and Typhon:
I didnt said that we romanians are extraordinary or very weak people.
Of course we had gains and loses during time.
I just tried to point out that even if in some times we gained something with our own powers, we needed the aproval of "big brothers" in order to keep what we gained. If we lost sometimes, we lost sometimes only because we were told by "big brothers" "Behave yourselfes!" and we had to comply.
We romanians can do good things or bad things, just any other nation on this earth, we are no better or worse than majority of other nations. But we are a small nation and like all small nations, we always were at the good will of greater powers when something decisive had to be decided for ourselfes.
I documented as much as I could to make to myself a documented idea about our nation, romanian, in order to see if we are so cool or so bad as we use to depict ourselfes. My late opinion is that we are normal and regular people, like others. "Cool" or "bad" it's just depending what one wants to see.
It is just like on the saying with the optimistic or pesimistic guy: one will see the full part of the glass filled with water, the second will see only the empty part. But there can be a third option. Maybe the glass is too big or too small
|Posted by: contras February 16, 2010 09:05 pm|
| Yes, Typhon, we could do a lot, but I think the leaders scared themselves, because they gained over their expectations (look at Bassarabia), and thank they could not defeat all we gain. In east, enemies, Russians, who attacked permanently our borders (look at 1924 attack, with Revolution at Tatar Bunar). In west, enemies, we just occupied Budapest. We tried an agreement wits Czechs, because we didn't want another enemy, and we were allies against Bella Kuhn regime. We didn't need Bulgaria as an enemy, because we had a lot of them. With Serbs, the same, we were allies, and even if wanted to attack them (improbable behavior), they were there with French army (including in Banat), under comand of gen Franchet d'Essperey, who replaced gen. Sarrail.
At peace conference, at Paris, Serbs protested against possibility to gave entire Banat to romania, because Romanians guns could be placed at few kilometres from Belgrade, and put their capital under fire (what kind of explanation for an ally). We offered them guaranties, but no way.
|Posted by: Dénes February 16, 2010 09:12 pm|
That large area of the Hungarian plain up to River Tisza was occupied by Rumanian troops, up to the late 1920, with the intention to keep it as part of the so-called 'Greater Rumania'. However, it was eventually reluctantly vacated, due to firm insistence of the Entente powers, as it was not part of the territories originally offered to Rumania in exchange for entering the war on their side, in a desperate time for the Entente.
As for the 200.000 "magyarised Rumanians" left behind, that's no more than a myth.
|Posted by: contras February 16, 2010 09:28 pm|
| Romanian leaders don't want to keep this part, between actual border and tisa river, because Hungarian population was in majority, and to mantain this area, it could become a permanent reason for tensions betwenn these two countries. It was kept only the time needed for military operations.
Unfortunatelly, Horthy, who was during that time leader of "White Guard", do not apreciate the service we made to him, see 1940.
|Posted by: contras February 16, 2010 09:34 pm|
| But, back to the topic, could we united with Bassarabia in 1991, imediatelly after Moldova gainde his independence?
The USSR disolution begins, Baltic States and others proclaimed their independence, Moscow was under the shock after the putch who tried to overthrone Gorbatchev, Eltsin prepare himself to gain the power.
Was it a good moment? If we had proper leaders, of course.
|Posted by: 21 inf February 16, 2010 09:38 pm|
At least from the point of view of population's spirit from both sides of Prut, there was a very favorable moment for the union. I dont know what was "behind", in the minds of the political leaders of the time, but for sure we missed a great oportunity.
|Posted by: contras February 16, 2010 09:52 pm|
| Of course,
Transnistrian separatist movement don't errupt yet, and immadiately after the fall of Moscow putch, Eltsin and other soviet leaders were very upset against the Transnistreans, because they prepared and were ready to send a batallion of "volunteers" to suport the putchists.
If Snegur imposed the law at that moment, with force, Russians were not against. Even 14'th army stood in barracks, waiting orders, and don't know who are the leaders and what they had to do.
|Posted by: ANDREAS February 16, 2010 11:08 pm|
Yes I also think that the moment of time -august 1991- may be the one -the only one- that could bring the union that we (I hope we) waiting for nearly 20 years!
But... let's think at the practical aspects... back then in 1991... were our leadership prepared? our army? our secret services? not asking about economy or... remember september 1991 -mineriada... just thinking!
|Posted by: 21 inf February 17, 2010 04:10 am|
Of course that for a good life imediately after the presumed union, it would be of great use to have every aspect well prepared and in good shape: administration, army, secret services, economy (not necesarilly in this order), to smooth the transition from 2 separate states into one.
But more important was the population's mood and spirit, which was great and would surpass the dificulties.
Let's remember that in 1918 when Bessarabia united with Romania, the situation in both countries was disastrous: several years of war, famine, epidemics, great number of deaths due to these horrors, Romania practically out war and Bessarabia wandered and looted by bolshevic russian soldiers returnig home from fronts. The same was in late 1918 when Transylvania united with Romania. In Transylvania war afected romanian population double time as in Romania, half a milion transylvanian romanian men sent to war (significant percent KIA or disabled due to wounds or diseases), extended famine due to war, busineses closed or reduced due to the same hardships of war and let's not forget the significant higher quality of economical life and industry in Transylvania in comparison with Romania.
My conclusion is that overall situation would help if it is good, but it is not mandatory if the spirits are high, dificulties can be surpased.
|Posted by: TYPHON February 17, 2010 05:38 am|
next you will tell me all the romanian vilages in curent ukraine which were found between Nistru and Nipru by the advancing romanian army during WW2 were also a myth
those romanian vilages still apper in some maps, for how long, I dont know, and probably in one century from now there will be other people telling us those too were just a myth.
|Posted by: dead-cat February 17, 2010 06:03 am|
i'm quite curious how a referendum there would have looked like, given that no component nation had a share higher than 40%.
also it's not like the romanian government would be in the position to decide wheter to give anything to YU or not. the entente decided this.
|Posted by: Imperialist February 17, 2010 05:16 pm|
I don't think our leaders are the problem in this issue, I think theirs are:
Mihai Ghimpu: Moldova will never unite with Romania
"Dragoste cu de-a sila nu se poate." We want to unite but their leaders want to keep playing Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister. What would they be in a united Romania? MPs at most or prefects/mayors.
|Posted by: guina February 17, 2010 06:06 pm|
|Lets face it.The majority of moldavian citisens do not want any union or NATO membership.Most of them are deeply brain washed and others remember 41-44.In the best case only 25-30 %,will vote for an union.,so it will take years of patient work to reverse this situation.Mr. Ghimpu is a ploitician,and as such,he is worried by the decline in opinion pools of his party and the ,probably,incoming elections.So ,lets not rush to conclusions !|
|Posted by: contras February 17, 2010 08:16 pm|
| It his just a political declaration. It is destined more to east, not west.
About pro-unionist percentage, the young generation is more pro-unionist like the old one. And Romania is now more atractive like it was 20 years ago. And the youths don't like to wait, they act. Lokk at 7 april 2009, when they changed their course of history.
|Posted by: guina February 17, 2010 08:42 pm|
| Some of the students,ye,s but this is not the majority.Have you seen,on "Jurnal TV",live,on the day of Mr.Basescu's visit in Chisinau ,how the police had to deal with hundreds of young people protesting our presidents visit ? I did.And yes ,its a political statement,but is not designed for west or east,its for internal consumption,and a wise one if R. Moldova is not to stay comunist for another 20 years.
Contras,go and spent a day or two in Baltzi,and you will return much wiser,and will understand that whishfull thinking is one thing and the reality is an other.
|Posted by: ANDREAS February 17, 2010 10:12 pm|
|I also agree that the interim moldovan President should not be condemned by us for his statements. Remember that he is there, with the transnistrean rebels and the new ukrainean (pro-russian) leadership on its coast, and we are here with a promised US missile shild and an american airbase at Mihail Kogalniceanu. Don't you think it matters?|
|Posted by: contras February 18, 2010 10:38 am|
You're right, maybe I should.
But I trust in the wiews of young generation, who is different, became easier educated, had acces at internet and alternative media vectors, travel aboard (especially in west), and many of them, working in west.
This is an important catalyst.
And I don't think at the next day, I forecast for nex 10 years.
Because in next 10 years, in east, we will see 3 important phenomenons (IMO):
1. Russia will try to regain his great power status, even in hard style
2. Ukraine will be disolved, hard way, or soft way
3. Moldova will be united with Romania, with or without Transnistria
All these will be close interconnected, and about the way to do it, it depends very much about Western reactions.
|Posted by: guina February 18, 2010 12:45 pm|
| Make it 25-30 years,under right conditions,and yes ,the yougsters are de future.
As for R. geting to be a regional power,Ukraine disolving, etc,forget about it,its again whishfull thinking.
|Posted by: contras February 18, 2010 02:15 pm|
guina, about whishfull thinking...
In December 1916, who dreamed that 2 years later, we'll have Greater Romania, including Bassarabia?
In 1988, who dreamed that one year later, Romania will not be under communist rule? And 15 years later, will be NATO member, and 3 more years later UE member?
You know, in present day, history rolls faster... For many people, too fast.
BTW, you know Alvin Toffler's book, Future shock? (Socul viitorului).
|Posted by: guina February 18, 2010 04:08 pm|
| Yeah,I read it some 30 years ago.
About 1916,lots of people dreamt of union ,AND worked for it.Read IG Duca memoirs.
Again,in 88 many competent analists predicted the fall of communism and some of them even earlier,after Reagan's " Star wars " bluff and the fall of petroleum prices.When you have time,go to american library in Bucharest and ask for 80-ties collection of "Eastern Europe" magazine.You"ll find it very revealing.
But I agree with you that history rolls fast and especialy that most of the people are unprepared for this.
|Posted by: contras February 19, 2010 10:40 am|
| Few interesting articles from press:
|Posted by: MMM February 19, 2010 11:32 am|
| However, the future seems to be more "federalized/regionalized" than "reunified". In what concerns Moldova, I guess we'd sooner see an "autonomous region" in Transylvania than a "Greater Romania" once again.
PS: we didn't know what to do with it (România Mare) the first time when we got it...
|Posted by: cnflyboy2000 February 19, 2010 03:12 pm|
And to think people were seriously talking about the End of History" in the 90's (Fukuyama thesis).
Agree anything possible, but I would not bet on Ukraine flying apart anytime soon.
Future Shock! wow! haven't heard THAT book mentioned lately. And when he (Toffler) was writing there was NO internet!! Wish he could see it now!
I think right now the most dangerous thing is the Greeks will blow the EU apart. I read that HALF the Greek workforce are government employees, and so expect generous pay and benefits in a country where it's considered OK not to pay your taxes.
Good luck to them, but doubt that is sustainable, even if the Germans bail them out.
If Greece goes, I doubt Romania could afford to bring in Moldova, right now.
|Posted by: contras February 20, 2010 03:30 pm|
| Maybe Francis Fukuyama was not entirely wrong.
It was the end of some kind of history...
But now, other books are more actual, like Zbigniew Brzezinnski, Marea tabla de sah (Great chaseboard), Ed Univers enciclopedic, 2000
John G. Mearsheimer, Tragedia politicii de forta, ed Antet, 2001
And, more specific for our region,
Janusz Bugajski, Pacea rece, ed. Casa Radio, 2005
Edward Lucas, The new cold war, Blomsburg Publishing, London, 2008
|Posted by: contras February 20, 2010 04:18 pm|
| About Ukraine after elections and Russia, look here:
|Posted by: contras February 26, 2010 11:00 pm|
I don't think you are right, because in UE are many rules about this kind of "options". The only problems we could have are about the others neighbours who are not UE members.
|Posted by: Radub February 27, 2010 07:58 am|
EU has no "rules" when it comes to "autonomy". In actual fact, the EU is heardquartered in Belgium where the Flemish and Waloons each wish for independence/autonomy. How about The Bascs and Catalunians who also wish to have their own autonomous states? How about the Northern Irish? How about... well, you take your pick, it appears that every EU nation has such an issue.
EU cold only wish that they had some sort of magic wand that they could vawe and sort these out.
Many Romanians simply do not understand what federalism and autonomy mean. A few years ago, a fellow Romanian told me: "Romania made a mistake when it became democratic. It would be better if Romania became federal. I went to the Democratic Republic of Germany and to the Federal Republic of Germany. The Federal Republic was much more mishto". When I tried to explain to this guy that it would mean autonomy for Transylvania, Wallachia, Banat, Maramures, Moldova etc, he nearly had a conniption. This man has the right to vote!
|Posted by: MMM February 27, 2010 09:26 am|
Actually, most of the voters are likewise!
|Posted by: dead-cat February 27, 2010 10:12 am|
|i do have the right to vote myself too and i'm still for banat autonomy.|
|Posted by: MMM February 27, 2010 06:10 pm|
| 1. That is your option, to which you are entitled as a citizen of a democracy (still are, I guess).
2. As you perceive the difference betweeen DDR and Federal Germany, you aren't in question.
3. It wasn't about Banat, but rather Har-Cov that rattled the authonomy issue.
4. I still believe that most people don't have the faintest idea who/what/why they're voting; I'm not sure whether this is the cause or the effect for the sheer outrageous behaviour of our politicians...
|Posted by: Victor February 27, 2010 06:52 pm|
|Actually many have an idea why they are voting: up to 100 RON, some flasks of tuica, some kilos of flour, sugar, sunflower oil etc... even pigs.|
|Posted by: contras February 27, 2010 07:06 pm|
True, but not necesary. We are still learning democracy. We are more democratic like in 1990, but we still have to learn. Learning democracy is not an easy task.
|Posted by: contras February 27, 2010 08:18 pm|
The Ukrainean ex-Foreign Ministry said a few years ago "Ukraine is condemned at regional hegemony". An interesting statement, for Ukraine who, I believe, is condemned to be Russia's vasal or to be disolved.
Except Ukraine, in this southern part of Europe, Romania is the biggest state, with biggest population, and have all the assets to be a regional power. In northern part of central Europe, Poland is in the same situation. (maybe is not an accident that we and Poland have a strategic treaty).
All we have to do is economic development, because military speaking, we are in better shape than all our neighbours or other countries in vicinity.
|Posted by: ANDREAS February 28, 2010 12:39 am|
Isn't that more a wish than the reality, Contras? Because if I am asked I would rather say that we stay worse than any other neighbour except Republic of Moldova. I am not referring here to our military training, which is good to excellent, but the poor quality old equipment and absence of concrete projects of endowment in the near future! We lack new tanks, we have no modern artillery, no modern helicopters or planes, not even a large number of modern antitank system for infantry units. Look to Hungary or Bulgaria, or, why not, Serbia, and you will agree...
Well, at least we are members of NATO, Thanks God!
|Posted by: Radub February 28, 2010 06:50 am|
I can hear Nicolaie Furdui Iancu singing "Noi suntem romani" in the background :-)
Romania's capability to be a "regional power" was never based on its size, population or resources. Two world wars taught us that Romania can be invaded, chopped apart and then plundered. This was never about size, it was about allies. Romania, and I am talking about the modern state bearing this name of Romania (since Carol I) was always allied with another world power that guaranteed its position. Even now, Romanian cock-a-hoopness is born out of NATO membership. Did you ever wonder why Moldova was taken by Russia only two days after the fall of France?
It would be interesting to see on what you base your assertion that the Romanian army is in a better shape than all its neighbours.
Furthermore, what difference does it make how powerful or far your "neighbour" is? "Halpro" and "Tidal Wave" put an end to that illusory "Fortress Romania".
|Posted by: Imperialist February 28, 2010 10:37 am|
Being a regional power doesn't mean you don't need great power allies. Especially if you have other great powers as enemies.
Personally I think Ukraine is the regional power. Poland comes second in terms of regional power and we're third.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 10:53 am|
Let's make a comparation:
Hungary: SAB Jas Grippen: 14 (2 bilocs), Mig-29: 5,
Attack helicopters: Mi-24, 17
Bulgaria: Mig 29: 20, Su-25: 12, few Mig21bis
Attack helicopters: 18 Mi-24
Serbia: Mig-29: 4, Mig-21: 27,
Attack helicopters: Soko Gazelle Gama: 32
Romania: Mig-21 Lancer: 48
Attack helicopters: IAR 330 Puma Socat: 23
It don't includes transport aviation (we stay better than anyone from these 3 countries). Our 48 Mig's will be changed with 48 fighters (after licitation we will know).
|Posted by: dead-cat February 28, 2010 11:04 am|
this is going to be like radio yerevan. it wasn't a volga, but a bicycle and it wasn't won, it was stolen.
if the glorious DoD is to be belived:
there won't be 48 new aircraft, but 24 and they won't be new. the licitation is comming since 2004, but 6 years later they haven't made any decision and conveniently are blaming "the crisis" right now.
everybody except serbia operates more modern aircraft, particulary hungary.
other than that, nowadys "excellent training" is closely tied to available equipment. in other words, no matter how well you wield a sabre and/or shoot a musket, in 2010 nobody would dream of calling that skill "excellent" in terms of military proeficience. because after taking the equipment away, there is little left and i have yet to see an army being praised for skillfully digging foxholes.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 11:54 am|
In ww2, all Europe was invaded, etc. (except Switzerland and Spain).
In modern times, majority of conflicts and wars were waged by alliances. In ww2, in June 1940, we were alone, all our allies were beaten or refused to give us asistance, except Turkey.
Today, there is just one global power, USA. All the rest, ex prime rate powers, are now "regional powers". To be a global power, you must have the assets to project your power and your will in any corner of the world. For that, you need assets in suficient number. (ICBM, nuclear subs, aircraft carriers, strategic bombers, etc).
For "regional power", besides other things, you must have the capabilities to exert your will in one region. In near future, Romania could do that.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 11:58 am|
| About Naval Forces.
Military experts said that in Black Sea region, Romanian Military fleet is the third, after Black Sea Russian fleet and Turkish one. Ukraine's naval capability decreased dramatically in last 15 years.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 12:08 pm|
Which are these modern aircraft's operated by Bulgarians?
We have Mig's 21 modernised, too.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 12:14 pm|
I don't know if Furdui Iancu plays to George Friedman, director of Stratfor, when he writes "Next 100 years".
He says that Romania allied with Hungary will be a regional power. Other regional powers who will became antagonist will be Poland and Turkey. Russia's status will decrease, confruntated with secesion of muslim republics and the Chinese presure in Siberia.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 12:21 pm|
| Interesting article about Russia's army situation
|Posted by: dead-cat February 28, 2010 12:26 pm|
yes the BVR capability is legendary.
it's modernised 50ies vs. modernized 80ies.
if someone wakes up and wants to be a regional power, he will have to take some things seriously.
like the army, which, in light of the not-so-recent circus about choosing a "new" airplane, they don't.
just like in many other brances, like judiciary, trasportation and so forth.
|Posted by: Dénes February 28, 2010 12:27 pm|
This is a well established and often repeated myth.
Rumania was never "alone" in the XXth Century, completely surrounded by enemies.
E.g., at the start of WW2, it is often said that Rumania was surrounded by enemies - except for the Black Sea, as some like to say. False. Out of six neighbours, three were friendly (Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia).
The example mentioned above by Contras is also incomplete. At that date, June 1940, Yugoslavia was still friendly towards Rumania. Turkey, on the other hand, was not Rumania's ally, but a neutral state, leaning toward the Axis powers.
|Posted by: Radub February 28, 2010 12:35 pm|
| OK, Romania has 48 Lancer jets. How about Ukraine and Russia?
How long can these 48 jets (assuming all work) last?
Most Romanians who keep talking about the "strategic location" of Romania are thinking in terms of "horizontal warfare": build higher walls, dig more trenches and put more signs with a crossed out camera in the train station (a "bellow" camera to be more precise - what a fitting illustration for that way of thinking! ). The enemy will not come on horseback across the border. As I said above, Halpro and Tidal Wave showed that Romania can be "hit" by bombers flying from Africa. And that was in 1943!
Nowadays, the "enemy" can launch a salvo of rockets and destroy the entire air force and whatever army bases they wish while having a cup of tea in their own barracks.
War fought "on land" no longer works. Most modern wars since WW2 showed that you do not need to border your enemy's country to bring war to them. Gulf War 1 was fought mostly from the air - they won in one month. Gulf War 2 was fought on land - it took them how many years? (is it over yet?).
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 12:37 pm|
In June 1940, Czechoslovakia and Poland ceased to exist.
Yugoslavia refused to fulfil it's obligations as an ally, to declare war to a third country who will try to attack Romania if Romania was in war with SU. Turkey mentioned that it will accomplish his obligations.
|Posted by: udar February 28, 2010 12:44 pm|
Hmm, Hungary doesnt have any tanks (i think i read a while ago on another site that they renounced to the only tank batalion they had), and even if their army is almost 3 time smaller then ours, its still worse equiped compared to us.
Bulgaria is a bit more better the Hungary, but still well behind in almost every term, and Serbia is too small now, and too poor and weak to have a very good equiped army.
We have some good pieces of artilery (as reactive artilery and new mobile 155 mm ones) who are produced here, as well we produce our own tanks, IFV and APC, our own helicopters and even missiles. Yes, we are far from being a big power in Europe, but for sure we dominate pur neighbours, with exception of Ukraine. But Ukraine (an artifical country who is very possible to not exist as is today in the future) is still in a bad shape, and even they inherithed some capacities from former USSR it began to become outdated.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 12:45 pm|
Gulf War 2 was ending after the fall of Baghdad. After that is not a really war, but an insurgence. And this insurgence has succes as long as Americans had no idea to deal with it.
After gen Patreus find a way to deal, insurgents were defeated. Americans were learning by their mistakes. How could you name the fact that, after you conquer the capital and entire country in six weeks, in place of bringing more occupation troops, you "send the boys home".
It was only Rumsfeld and Bush incapacity to deal with military problems.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 12:49 pm|
About Ukraine posibilities and manouver room (smaller day by day), the future after elections, read here:
|Posted by: Radub February 28, 2010 12:50 pm|
Contras, you are either wrong or misinformed.
Romania (and I am referring to the state called "Romania" since Carol I) never fought a war without being part of an alliance. Name a war that Romania was involved in and I will point out the alliance to you. But do not take my word for it, search for yourself (wikipedia is a good start).
Romania was neutral at the beginning of both world wars. This neutrality was guaranteed by foreign powers. Romania was invaded (or lost territories) in both wars after these foreign powers were unable to provide protection to Romania. When Romania entered and fought in both world wars, it did so as part of an alliance.
|Posted by: udar February 28, 2010 12:57 pm|
Ukraine's Mig 29 and Su 27 arent in their best shape either. They become older, and Russia isnt quite willing to retrofit them.
About wars, is a pretty common mistake to believe (especialy after some TV images from recent wars) that war isnt anymore fight on land. But if you dont have the infantry keeping the ground, is almost usseles. And to rely just on technology, UAV's and guided missiles it become more and more a dream. Peoples adapted, new ways mixed with old ones, and by-pass the technological superiority, especialy if you are very determinated and have some brain.
This is a book of an american officer who deal with the subject:
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 12:59 pm|
| [/QUOTE]Name a war that Romania was involved in and I will point out the alliance to you.[QUOTE]
I never said that Romania don't need to be part of an alliance, all world's states (with few exceptions) were part of alliances.
I don't understand what your point is. we were alone, as I said, in 1940, because all our allies were beaten or noncooperative, except Turkey. I said that all the wars in modern times (with few exceptions) were waged by states who were part in alliances, or backed by allies. That's not a point of divergence.
There are many regional powers who were in alliances. (France, UK, for example.)
About one war we waged against the will of our allies, is 1919 campaign, when our allies tried to stop us to conquer Hungary. All the military operations were without asistence or advise of one of our allies. Of course, we were part of Entente, but our allies had other plans and objectives.
|Posted by: udar February 28, 2010 01:00 pm|
How many wars in Europe, on that period, betwen european countries, wasnt fight in alliances?
|Posted by: Radub February 28, 2010 01:15 pm|
The point of divergence is that you claim that Romania can be a "regional power" on its own. History tells us otherwise.
Romania's integrity was always guaranteed by other more powerful nations.
When Romania lost these guarantees, Romania ended up losing large parts of its territories or was invaded.
When Romania went to war, it did so as part of an alliance.
It is immediately obvious that when Romania is on its own, it is "powerless", and when allied with someone else it gets some "power".
THAT is the flaw in this whole "regional power" fairy tale.
Before Romania was part of NATO, Romanians were terrified that they were on their own and could be invaded by Russia. Now that Romania is part of NATO, Romanians talk of wars with Russia. Croitorasul cel viteaz!
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 01:28 pm|
Tell me where I said that. I gave you other examples, like France or UK, who are regional powers and are part of alliances.
All central European states were afraid by Russia, not only Romania. Poles, Czekz, Slovakians, Hungarians, all of them were afraid by a resurgerent Russia, who flexed his muscles on Dniestr in 1992.
But as I said, Russia's power will decrease, because she will be confronted with big problems in muslim states (who will claim their independence, like Cecenia) and in siberian ones.
|Posted by: Vici February 28, 2010 01:40 pm|
Nice to see that someone is using his brain in this thread. Totally agree with the above.
Hungary has 12 T-72 in service and a few T-55 for training, more in reserve
We have absolutely no self propelled gun artillery, the ATROM 155 mm never went past prototype stage (one built)
We do have a large number of 122 mm MRLS, but only 24 launchers are upgraded to LAROM standard.
As for "we produce", it would be more accurate to use the past tense - we produced. And what we produced were licensed or copied technologies of the 1950's and 60's, some of which were slightly upgraded over the last 15 years.
So, if you guys like to indulge in (in my opinion useless) "what if" scenarios at least get the basic facts and principles straight.
As for the aerial capabilities, all our neighbors have BVR capable aircraft and missiles, our Lancers have only WWR AAMs. In a real combat situation, any Lancer which will survive BVR engagements will be totally outclassed in dogfights with much more maneuvrable Fulcrum, Flanker and Gripen. Our Puma SOCAT gunships, although equipped with excellent armament and avionics, lack any form of ballistic protection, they can be brought down with an AK
Land forces are irrelevant as long as you are unable to control the skies over them and support them with airpower. No air cover in a modern conventional battle means almost total anihilation or at least a severe defeat - see Falklands 1982, Khafji 1991, Iraq in April 2003, Sri Lanka 2009.
|Posted by: Radub February 28, 2010 01:42 pm|
You said a number of times that Romania was on its own. Then you said that Romania was part of an alliance. OK then! Let us play by your rules.
Look at what happened when Romania was on its own.
Then look at what happened when Romania was part of an alliance.
Let me sum it up for you:
- Romania on its own = powerless
- Romania as part of an alliance = power (but not powerful as such)
Romania was never able, and it may never be able, to be a "regional power" on its own. It will always need a cructh, be that the Entente, The Axis, Warsaw Pact or NATO. It may not be something that you are willing to acept, but it is the reality.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 01:56 pm|
You really don't understand. I said that Romania was alone in June 1940, because all his allies were beaten or uncapable to fulfil their obligations.
I never said that Romania should be a regional power on his own. I gave to you exemples of Frace and UK. Also, Turkey is a regional power in ascension, and it is part of an alliance.
All the regional powers are part of alliances, what is so hard to understand?
Because I'm tired to repeat again and again all I said and all I don't said.
|Posted by: Radub February 28, 2010 02:06 pm|
The reason why the guarantors were unable to provide the guarantee is irrelevant. Without these guarantees, Romania was powerless. THAT dependance of alliances is Romania's weakness.
So, if you agree with me that Romania needs to be part of an alliance to be powerful, then why are you arguing with me?
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 02:19 pm|
I'm not arguing with you.
Of course that Romania must be part of an alliance to be powerfull, I'm never said that Romania could be powerfull without it. Look at my statements and say if I'm wrong. I really don't know from where you deduced that I said otherwise.
|Posted by: Imperialist February 28, 2010 02:33 pm|
| Guys, I think you are confusing things.
A state is a regional power when it concentrates most of a region's power distribution. So a discussion about alliances is irrelevant in assessing whether a state is a regional power or not.
|Posted by: udar February 28, 2010 03:08 pm|
From what i read it on that other site, they put those dozen of old T 72 on reserve as well. Not that those tanks represented something anyway.
About our weapon system, at least we have the plans, prototypes (more new then 60's obviously) and factories where we can build them if need it, which we can't say about any of our neighbours (with exception of Ukraine).
Again (going somehow on this "what if" scenario), having a dozen of Mig 29 or Grippen will not give you any real air superiority. You need to avoid AA defense, and fight with more enemies, and Mig 21 Lancer in bigger numbers and with modern avionics (DASH helmet and new AA missiles) can be a bit hard to win against too easy.
Nobody will be able to have total air control, and your examples cant be used here.
-Falklands 1982 - an isolated island, with a poor defense plan
-Irak - a flat open desert, with an irakian army unable to understand what happen and heavy outdated in many parts compared with their enemies, and nor prepared for an attrition and guerilla war either
If you look at the book i posted, you will see some examples of wars betwen highly technologized forces (having obviously a total air supremacy), superior in numbers too sometimes vs. low equiped guerrila forces or armies, but the results was surprinsigly in the favour of the last ones due to determination and ingenuozity
|Posted by: Dénes February 28, 2010 04:18 pm|
C'mon, nothing would had happened in 1918/1919 without the tacit, and often open, approval of the French. They were the masters in the region and pulled the strings accoring to their own interest.
|Posted by: Vici February 28, 2010 04:20 pm|
Having plans, prototypes and factories means nothing in case of a conflict. It takes years to make a workable series production item from a prototype, to arrange the logistical chain to support it and train troops with it. Any conventional shooting conflict Romania vs. a neighbour will last days or weeks. We are NATO and EU members, diplomacy (theirs, not ours) will put a swift end to any war.
A dozen MiG-29 or Gripen with BVR AAMs and moderately trained pilots could win air superiority against RoAF in a few days.
Aboout our MiG-21s: only the Lancer C (20 in number) have a useful air intercept radar. The others have a ranging radar, useful only for measuring the distance to a target at close range (no search and track functions).
DASH is useful in dogfight only if coupled with a high off-boresight missile, such as Python 4,5, Mica IR, IRIS-T, AIM-9X, etc. What they use now are Magic II - largely an AIM-9L/M equivalent with a FOV of just 20 degrees; and Python III which is a bit better with a FOV of some 30 degrees. By comparison the regular R-73 has a FOV of 45 degrees. FOV = field of view of the seeker. Couple this with the Lancer's poor maneuvrability compared to the other types mentioned, appauling range and you get the picture.
Romanian AA defense: a few obsolete, fixed SA-2 sites around Bucharest and 3 SA-6 regimets at three location around the country with missiles nearing the end of their shelf life won't deterr anyone. HAWK isn't operational yet, they never fired a single round in training. Everything else we have is too short ranged for medium-high flying aircraft. Not to mention that our airbases rely on 57 mm guns for self defence.
The SAM defences of our country - especially the deployment pattern show just how obsolete is not only the equipment, but the defence doctrine and mentalities in the command structure. They are prepared for the Vietnam war, with a SAM ring around the capital, while all recent conflicts showed that the prime targets are early warning radar sites, airbases and command and control centers. Industrial and population centers are not prime targets any more - or at all.
|Posted by: Imperialist February 28, 2010 04:51 pm|
Gulf War 1 was a land war. A part of the coalition forces pinned the Iraqi forces that were in Kuwait while another part swinged through Iraq and pressed them from the flank. Air power was just another asset used to attrition the Iraqi forces and disrupt the Iraqi movements.
|Posted by: IAR80 February 28, 2010 05:48 pm|
| I agree with Vici's "cold shower" assessment.
We are right at the same spot that we were in some 60 years ago. The Romanian armed forces are no more ready to fight World War III today than they were ready to fight World War II back then.
Sure our training might be better,but our equipment is comparatively in worse shape.
Take the air force.Back then we had the IAR-80. Sure, not a Spitfire,P-51 or Fw-190, but it was a plane a pilot stood a fighting chance in. Today, our MiGs would be shot out of the sky by AMRAAM-class missiles like flies.
A war today would see us trounced like Georgia back in August '08.
And I wouldn't bet on the US or EU powers jumping in the fire to save us,either.
The alliance with the US is useful in the sense that having facilities like the ones used by JTF East, we have American "human shields" on home soil that no country would dare harm.
The moment the "geo-strategic wind" blows differently we are as much screwed as we were back in 1940 when France fell.
Having the US backing us up is good and all,but relying on them blindly to "bail us out" is just asking for trouble.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 05:59 pm|
I agree, because another Frenchman, former Ministry of defence, said one time:
"One country will come to help another country who is attacked only it has an interest and the firtst country will made all possible to defend herself".
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 06:04 pm|
Agree again, it is the moment when Russia decides to come back in bussines, to became a major power again. It is important how Russia will decide to do this, in hard way or soft way. August 2008 in Georgia made them overthrusting in themselfs.
And after that moment, if Russia is backed out, his power will decrease dramatically, because a failure will open old wounds and will increase the apetite for independence for many parts of the over 100 nations that have Russia in his componence.
|Posted by: dead-cat February 28, 2010 06:27 pm|
Why should the EU, or the US for that matter, go to war to implement the territorial ambitions of some strange countires?
Georgia had it comming. Whatever their president was smoking 2 years ago, it must have been really good stuff.
This would never have happened with Shevardnadse.
|Posted by: IAR80 February 28, 2010 06:32 pm|
Pretty sure he was smoking the good stuff,Saakhashvili's wife is Dutch
But yeah, Saakhasvili sure overplayed his hand. He actually believed all the US bull about "spreading democracy". Too bad it's always ordinary people that pay for the mistakes of politicians.
P.S. : Who are you calling strange? We invented baseball - oina ! That's as american as apple pie.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 06:39 pm|
When he was elected, Shaakashvili promised to give back Georgia's unity. He was reelected, and at a referendum that took place in late 2007, 75% voted for NATO membership.
He "overplayed his hand" and loose. Georgian lost 168 soldiers KIA. Russians? Why they never declare their losings? Because are too big.
In 2002, Russia lost 500 soldiers not in Battle, but killed by accidents or by "veterans", older soldiers with little conscription time remain. Other years, the figures are apropiate. (Anna Politovskaia)
|Posted by: dead-cat February 28, 2010 06:42 pm|
| what exactly would your point be?
that the georgian "army" actually won? or victoriously retreated before an enemy who advanced in utter confusion?
it was clear to everybody how this would end. i still don't understand how the current politician class there could produce politicians who actually thought they could get away with this.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 06:46 pm|
|The Georgians lost the war. But Russians don't win it.|
|Posted by: IAR80 February 28, 2010 06:49 pm|
| The Russians didn't win it? What do you call Georgian forces being routed from Tskhinvali? A cunning strategy of 'scorched earth'?
To say nothing of the fact that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are now firmly in the Russian sphere,recognized as part of the Russian Federation.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 06:59 pm|
What was Russia's aim? To recognise Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia as independent states? BTW, they're not part of Russian Federation, as you said. It not need a war for this. They could recognise them anytime, they were the only state who recognise them (an exception, Nicaragua). Even the Russia's closest allies don't recognise them.
Their aim was to overthrone Shaakashvili from power. It don't realise.
Another aim was to cripple Georgian military power. Don't realise, just a part of military hardware was destroyed, and will be replaced soon.
|Posted by: IAR80 February 28, 2010 07:05 pm|
| Russia's aim was to depose Saakhashvili? Where the heck do you get that from? Fox News?
Russia merely capitalized on Saakhashvili's stupidity to settle the Ossetian and Abkhazian conflicts,frozen since the '90s,in its favor. And it did.
I highly doubt it was the mighty Georgian army that intimidated the Russians away from Tibilisi. More like Russia having absolutely no interest in being dragged in (another) occupation, especially with the US hiccuping in Irak and Afghanistan.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 07:13 pm|
The answer you will find there:
|Posted by: IAR80 February 28, 2010 07:23 pm|
| Quote from the linked TimesOnline article :
"Mr Sarkozy’s team leaked their exchange to bolster their claim that the French President’s intervention saved Georgia — or at least its leader — from further torment. They want to counter charges that he ceded too much in Europe’s name by accepting the Russian annexation of the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. "
So basically this story is a playing card in their game of proving "the EU has saved the day", that EU,France can "play tough" too.
Am I supposed to take the word of the very people that benefit from the claim?
This article is pure bull droppings,nothing more than a publicity stunt meant to make Sarkozy look strong.
Again,it's absolutely naive to believe that Putin actually meant the whole "hanging by the balls" business. We aren't in the Middle Ages anymore.
|Posted by: MMM February 28, 2010 07:32 pm|
And Sweden and Portugal and Ireland...
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 07:34 pm|
| What Russia lost?
Credibility of their army.
In 5 days war, against a weak enemy, they lost 4 warplanes (6 from other sources). All the world could see the unprofesionalism of Russian troops, who herded one tank into each other APC, crowded in thin space, where even a blind man with an RPG could bring disaster. Not speaking about an artilery voley, or an helicopter. Fortunatelly for them, Georgians were not in that shape. However, their Special Forces ambushed some columns and in battle died a major and an colonel was severy wounded.
For all military analists, Russian move was preempted.
Two tank divisions were in Southern Ossetia the second day the war begin, and it was not possible if they do not waited on the other part of Roki Tunnel. Because you need about 3 weeks to carry one tank company over the Caucasus. But the 2 divisions were already there.
Russian fleet was near Georgian ports the same day. How could them be ready for war, armed and crowded with Marines ready to deploy in Poti. Only for voyage from Sevastopol to Poti it needed over 24 hours.
The question is why Georgians don't blast the Roki Tunnel. If this tunnel was destroyed, Russian army couldn't enter Southern Ossetia. The answer of Georgians was that the tunnel was full of Ossetian civil refugees, and that is the reason they didn't blew up.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 07:37 pm|
It is peiorative speaking.
Saddam Hussein was hanged too, not by the balls.
|Posted by: IAR80 February 28, 2010 07:41 pm|
| Well, the lack of Russian armed forces credibility won't bring those territories back to Georgia, will they?
Dogs bark,caravans pass by...
Also,I have absolutely no illusions about the Russian intentions. Tensions had been rising since the beginning of 2008 and the Russians had plenty of time to prepare, of course there were forces there already. You can't call foul on Putin for preparing to call Saakhashvili's bluff.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 07:59 pm|
Of course, but if the situation remains the same like the days before 8 August 2008, there will be not any change, too. Shaakashvili tried and failed. But he tried.
The biggest mistake made by him is that he don't understand some facts.
Georgian army was trained by Americans at Russia's claims, that Chechens passed the Pankisi Gorge free, to fight in Chechenia. To comfort the Russians, needed to be allies in Afghanistan, Americans trained Georgian army in counterterrorism actions and to bloke the Pankisi Gorge. That claim was resolved, Chechens still don't traveled in large numbers from Georgia to Chechenia.
Now, after the 2008 war, Americans will train Georgian army how to fight in this kind of war Russia imposed them. Next time, if will be next time, will be more difficult to Russian army.
|Posted by: IAR80 February 28, 2010 08:09 pm|
| I'd say leading your country in a suicidal charge against a much more powerful neighbour is not a "big mistake", it's grounds for being tried for treason.
Saakhashvili gambled away the lives of soldiers and lost, and he did so for his personal ambition. There was no urgency in the whole Abkhaz/Ossetian conflict, neither was there a clear Georgian claim on those lands. Abkhazians and Ossetians are not some Georgian off-shoots,they have a national identity and thus a right to self-determination. These people resisted being part of Georgia before.
|Posted by: udar February 28, 2010 09:01 pm|
| It is true that Georgia wasnt well prepared for this war, and go more on bluffing, maybe thinking that Russia will not intervene in full force. But georgians didnt prepared for worse case scenario, as its normal, nor studied valuable lessons as chechens vs russians in first chechen war or Hezbollah vs. Israel (a more technologized and even better prepared army then russian one) in southern Lebanon. They didnt prepared the teritory for defense (mine fields, barrages etc.) nor had troops in reserve (they keep the best troops in Tbilisi to defend the city in case of russian invasion, which never happened, and send mostly conscripts and volunteers to fight with russian army in north of Georgia, underequiped and with less training. I really dont understand what was in mind of georgian president, and what their army commanders thinked and done for a more realistic preparation of that war. If they decided to start it. Looks quite weird how they planned the things.
Russians themselves didnt do a magnificent campagne. They lost several jets, and the cooperation and comunication betwen troops was considered very bad. If a more serious and better prepared and equiped army face the russian then, the results might by a little diferent.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 09:03 pm|
You're wrong, IAR-80.
You must look deeply at Georgian history, especially after 1991.
In 1992, in Southern Ossetian war, Georgian lost 3000 people, and over 40000 were refugees, just in that year. Next years, the number of Georgian refugees increase, and that is the reason that this part can be claimed that ossetinan land.
In 1993, in Abkazian war, 30000 (thirty thousands) Georgians were killed, and over 300000 (three hundred thousands) were refugees. Few years later, wave after wave, another 100000 (one hundred thousand) Georgian refugees were rejected from Abkazia. That is the way which Abkhazians, who numbered 91000 (ninety one thousands) people at 1991 census, become majority. And both wars were waged with direct participatinon of Russians troops, the same like Transnistria. In Abkhazian war, Georgians shot down 2 Russians SU-25, and presented them to international media. Who cares?
There were many atrocities, ethnic cleansing, but the term was made public later, in Yugoslavian wars.
|Posted by: IAR80 February 28, 2010 09:35 pm|
| And the solution would be? To have the Georgians re-occupy the areas and forcibly re-settle Georgians? Because rest assured that the Georgians are no longer welcome in either Abkhazia or Ossetia.
The harm has been done, and another bad deed will make it worse.
Giving the Georgians a blank check to "repay" the ethnic atrocities in order to "rebalance" the demographics will not end the conflict.
What's been done is done, Abkhazia and Ossetia will never willingly return to Georgia because the people there don't want it.
|Posted by: contras February 28, 2010 09:48 pm|
This is the worst point of wiew. If someone kills and eject people, he could be the owner of the land.
In our history, were many cases about it. In Bassarabia, Bukovina, Transylvania, and many other parts.
But Russians were the masters of it. Until 1792, they were never owned the teritory on left bank of Dniestr. After that date, they claimed Bassarabia was part of Russian land. That it looks history for many people.
But what do you propose? To let this part of Georgia to Ossetians, Abkhazians or Russians, just because they killed or ejected all the inhabitans?
If you agree, you must agree that all the parts of Palestinian teritorries must be under Israelian rule, including the latest occupied by Israelian colonies. And you must shut up when the Israeli tanks come to crush Paslestinian resistance.
|Posted by: Radub March 01, 2010 09:48 am|
Name the nation that never did that!
Romania has its own history of it.
In fact, the entire written history of mankind revolves around conquest, displacement and assimilation. This is not new and not going to end soon.
The only solution is to get rid of borders and and possessions Imagine!
|Posted by: IAR80 March 01, 2010 06:23 pm|
| Contras,things are more complex than that. The Abkhaz people have inhabited the are since,well, the beginning, same for Ossetians. That's their homeland.
Ethnic cleansing is terrible,but "reversing" it by forced settlement the way Israelis for example try to set the clock back 2,000 years through expanding their settlements,that's not a solution.
Do you think that the Ossetians would welcome the Georgians back if they somehow managed to militarily gain it back and began to re-settle Georgians in Ossetia?
One cannot turn back the clock,that's all I'm saying. The entire point is valid simply because the Abkhazians/Ossetians have inhabited their lands since times immemorial, that's their land.
Georgia would do well to learn from Israelis which will never find peace as long as they try to ethnically/demographically "rub out" the Palestianians.
It's time for Georgia to move on.
Take Hungary, they never slipped back into revanchism and today their country is one that can truly be called "European". The worst thing for Hungary would be to try to go to war with its neighbours in search of some long-lost "Greater Hungary".
Same for "Greater Romania".
|Posted by: contras March 01, 2010 06:43 pm|
True, but is also the home of Georgians who were deposed by their right to live on their own land, because they were there from the beginning, too. Take into account the case of many refugees from Abkazia and Ossetia (over 400000 people) who live today in unproper conditions.
The same problem came into wiew in Transnistria. Tens of thousands (I don't have an exact figure) ethnic Moldovans were forced to leave their land under the presure made by Smirnov and his gang. They live in Chisinau and other areas in difficult conditions. Can anybody deny their right to leave at their homes, now occupied by Cossacs and other people who came from entire Russia to protect the Smirnov gang?
|Posted by: IAR80 March 01, 2010 06:58 pm|
| The issue is less about the people with guns and more about what civilians inhabit a given area.
It's one thing to kick out Smirnov's "government". It's quite another thing when the majority of the Transdniester population, which is Ukrainian and Russian, would not want to be part of Romania/Moldova. What then,shoot the protesters?
It's not right to grab an entire land merely for the sake of a minority. We as Romanians should know better. And Moldovans in Transnistria are a minority, no two ways about it.
What applies to us,applies to others. It's hypocrisy to weep about Romanian majorities being subjugated by a foreign ruling minority and then in the same breath claim that an entire land where Romanians are a minority be conquered so that we can "protect the Romanian minority".
Hitler chopped up Czechoslovakia using the German minorities as a pretext.
|Posted by: contras March 01, 2010 07:19 pm|
| We talk and we put it like a statement: Moldovans are in minority in Transnistria. Yes, true. But are the majority, in relative terms, in same Transnistria, because they are about 40%, Russian and Ukrains, about 30% each. This figures include the ones who will leave the same day Smirnov did, and do not include the Moldovans who will come back.
We are pretty sure that Ukrains will don't want to live under Moldovan rule. It is not really true. Look at the Ukraineans who live in northern part of the country. There are many villages where they are about 98% of population, and have many relatives who lived in Ukraine. I talked with many of them, and I asked them if they would like to live in Ukraine. They said (100%) that they would live here, because in Ukraine all is ruled by Mafia.
|Posted by: IAR80 March 01, 2010 09:34 pm|
|Well, Ukraine has its Mafia, we have Basescu. Same sh*t, different toilet. Those people would be very disappointed if they would come expecting less corruption in Romania. We have so much,we could export it easily.|
|Posted by: contras March 01, 2010 09:57 pm|
I'm sorry, but I think you don't understand what means Russian or Ukrainean Mafia. I don't wish you to live in a society dominated by Mafia, like in Russia or Ukraine.
Your comparation is out of every kind of reality. Sorry, but our discusion is over, because I cannot have a dialog with someone who cannot understand the difference between two opposite sistems, one ruled by democracy rules, other ruled by mafiot groups.
|Posted by: ANDREAS March 01, 2010 10:20 pm|
No, no way, IAR80, but surely send some special police squads to calm them! With specific methods! Because if you go on the idea that their vote would be worth as a law, so they could can separate themselfs after the reunification of Moldova with Romania, than you must agree that today or tomorrow the Hungarians from the Szekely Region had the right to separate themselfs from Romania too.
Most of the Russians and part of the Ukraineans came in Transnistria only after the 50's and in the 80's and can leave to Russia or Ukraine if they want! Transnistria is romanian soil, as it is ukrainean soil too! But surely not russian! It's not propaganda it's a historical fact!
|Posted by: Imperialist March 01, 2010 10:47 pm|
This is pointless talk since we're not going to get back Transnistria any time soon if ever. And that's good. The last thing we need would be a large non-Romanian population with secessionist goals ready to be aided by potentially hostile foreign powers.
The soil belongs to the people that actually control it.
|Posted by: IAR80 March 01, 2010 10:51 pm|
Weapons stolen from storage depots (Ciorogarla) and you're telling me Romania isn't dominated by Mafia groups? Couldn't care less if these groups are embedded deep in the military or intel services,they're still a bunch of tools.
We are easily as far away from a functional democracy as any two-bit South American autocracy. And every bit as corrupt.
Grab your keys and go for a drive around town before praising Romanian "democracy".
Transnistria is actually NOT Romanian land. Wasn't even part of Greater Romania and was under Ottoman,Russian even Polish-Luthuanian occupation before that.
Just because Romania was dragged through mud historically,it doesn't mean we are immune to expansionist impulses. Look at the Qadrilater, no way was that anything close to "ancient Romanian land", yet we grabbed it didn't we?
Oh and I wouldn't worry about the Szeklers. Declaring independence of a mountain enclave? Not exactly viable state material. What would they gain? A total blockade?
|Posted by: dead-cat March 01, 2010 11:00 pm|
non-romanian (to generalize) majority has become a fact. in transnistria, in the ucrainean bucovina and in the ukrainean area bordering the black sea.
there is absolutely no chance whatsoever, given the animosity between russians, ukraineans and other smaller populations and romanians/moldavians, that any referendum in favour of joining romania will have the slightest chance of success.
it's great that the future treatment of minorities, in places poorer than albania, is being discussed in great detail, with a rethoric worth of the 1930ies, when a majority for the union has failed to materialize across the prut river, in the last 20 years, despite the increase of difference between relative wealth of the countries in question.
so far, any serious discussion was about autonomy. which is something entirely different.
|Posted by: Imperialist March 01, 2010 11:38 pm|
The idea of a total blockade is out of the question since that would be against human rights and international law. Moreover, although the new "state" would not be recognized the people there would remain European citizens (became that in 2007) and Romania would not be able to restrict their movement.
|Posted by: Dénes March 02, 2010 06:23 am|
It's how Dead-Cat wrote, the Szeklers want autonomy, not an independent state, which certainly would not be viable.
|Posted by: Radub March 02, 2010 07:31 am|
Which brings us back to my earlier point that many Romanians do not understand the meaning of the word "federal" or "autonomy". Autonomy does not mean "split".
There are many federal unions of states that work perfectly, USA, UK, Australia, Germany. Let us take USA for example. Take any state, California for example: it is an independent republic, with its own laws, taxes, governor, borders, and two official languages. That does not make it less American. In other wors, it is autonomous, but still part of USA. It works.
Can federalism work in Romania? I doubt it, simply because the whole issue is driven by opinion, not by fact. The people who oppose autonomy for the Szekels do not even live anywhere near that land, never visited the place and do not have any interest of any kind there.
Incidentally, the same thing happens with every ethnic group in Europe who want authonomy.
|Posted by: Imperialist March 02, 2010 09:50 am|
A state comprising Harghita and Covasna counties would actually have a higher GDP than Kosovo and a slightly higher size! Not to mention that UDMR wants to include Mures alongside HarCov so that would make it even larger than Kosovo, both physically and financially.
|Posted by: dead-cat March 02, 2010 10:15 am|
|it's not like HG+CV+part of MS are brimming with wealth. Other than wood, there is not much industry to speak of either.|
|Posted by: MMM March 02, 2010 12:07 pm|
| Not so many roads, also... or in good shape...
I presume that IF they get autonomy, they ain't gonna get funding from the center, right? What then?
|Posted by: MMM March 02, 2010 12:16 pm|
Oh, I wish it were Mafia! They still had a ssense of honour and - especially - the death penalty for some of their own! We just have a "manelized" version of Mafia, a Balkan one (long live Kusturica!)
About South American banana-republics: we don't have bananas, nor the heat of down there - so, it's quite different (dunno if better, though).
To those who mock our pseudo-democracy, I ask "what was the alternative?" What else could we have chosen? (as if we really chose anything, but, then... who knows...)
About Transnistria and Cadrilater: true, they were as Romanian as Bucovina was Austrian or Ukrainean; except we're neither Austro-Hungaria, nor USSR!
About Szeklers and stuff on that line: IMO, they just "rattle" this issue, but wouldn't know what to do if they had it! Perhaps they know they won't ever get it, but still like to put gas on the fire, for the fun of it!
|Posted by: contras March 02, 2010 02:51 pm|
I see you haven't any ideea of what means democracy, or a democratic state. You confuse Mafia with some stollen weapons. BTW, in every democratic country were stealings, but the authors were grabed and condemned, accordingly the law. The ones who stollen the weapons were captured and will be condamned.
Are many levels of a democratic state. For exaple, Romania is more democratic like in 1990. But I must gave you the basics for democracy, to understand how we stay, compared with other states. Of course, we still have to learn.
Democracy, main basic rules:
1. Rule of law
2. Free elections (includes here freedom of word and association)
3. Protection of minorities (all of them, not just ethnic)
In spite of these, compare with other states, like Ukraine, Russia, Colombia, other banana-states in Southern America, like you did before.
|Posted by: contras March 02, 2010 03:02 pm|
Is not Romanian land, but is claimed by Russia. Which were the basis of its claims, when Russians occupied this territory only in 1792? Exactly 20 years after that, they took Bassarabia from us.
Historicaly, Romanians and Russians have the same rights at Transnistria.
|Posted by: dead-cat March 02, 2010 03:58 pm|
the funding from "the center" has been somwhat ... overlookable, pretty much everywhere in transsylvania, not to speak about banat. the whole "redistribution of funds from the center" is and has been a huge ripoff for most regions, except perhaps vaslui and likewise (apa nu-i, lumina nu-i...).
therefore, most likely they'd be better off administering their own taxes, as "the center" has shown an epic inability to properly do so.
|Posted by: contras March 02, 2010 04:28 pm|
|Yesterday were 18 years from starting the war in Transnistria, when transnistrian paramilitary forces attacked the police station in Dubasari.|
|Posted by: ANDREAS March 02, 2010 10:04 pm|
Contras, I hope you do not really believe it! If you think of Cossacks, Slavic origin, which later were called Ukrainians, I agree, but russians? Only if you see the Eastern Slavs (from Ukraine) as part of the historical Russian nation (Kievean Russia), we understand each other, but otherwise... Transnistria must belong to his ancient inhabitants, not the colonists brought by an occupying power (Russia)!
Please explain your statement!
|Posted by: MMM March 03, 2010 05:50 am|
|I really think (chhhred cu tarrrhhie) we should define exactly what we mean by Transnistria: the separatist region of today OR what was meant by it during WW2: the region betwen Dniestr and Dnieper. Which one are we talking about?|
|Posted by: Radub March 03, 2010 06:17 am|
How far do you want to go? One generation? Ten generations? One hundred generations? Neanderthals? Dinosaurs? Mononucleotic organisms?
Before "cold wars", paranoia, visas, passports and borders people were free to roam everywhere they wished/needed and many settled wherever they could. The concept of "nation" defined only by language and "nationality" made little sense in those days - in fact, these things are relatively new concepts, that arose only in the last couple hundreds of years. "Countries" could span across many nations speaking many languages. Such was the case with the Roman Empire, The Otoman Empire, and more recently United Kingdom, USSR, Yugoslavia etc. People moved freely and settled a lot easier than today. In places like Dobruja, over the last two thousand years there were many populations like Romanians, Greeks, Turks, Tatars, Bulgars, Russians. Believe me, if you want to use the "my grandpapa lived there" argument, Romanians may not emerge as the winners pretty much anywhere.
|Posted by: MMM March 03, 2010 06:52 am|
| There is a "slight" difference between a country ans an empire; not so slight to the trained eye, however...
About Grand-papa's and stuff: I'm not so sure! Given the rapid urbanisation process of the communist era, most of our grandparents were born in the countryside and "migrated" to the city in their tender ages So, you might want to get back a couple/a dozen of generations...
About the good old days - it isn't so! Yes, maybe they could "move"around freely, but the "settling" business wasn't as easy as you'd like us to believe! Ask the American pioneers - also, let's remember the "servitude" stuff: some people weren't allowed to go wherever they wanted, because they were born on a certain domain and had to live, work, procreate and eventually die there!
|Posted by: Radub March 03, 2010 08:16 am|
Try not to look at the past with today's eyes. "Impenetrable borders" and visas are relatively recent concepts that occured only in the last four or five generations.
Before that, people were allowed to move relatively freely. That accounts for the richness of European culture and the many shared languages and traditions. That explains the presence of Macedonians in Dobruja and Protoromanians in Macedonia. It is also the simplest explanation for names like Topraisar, Medgidia, Cernavoda, Craiova, Targoviste, Ghiurtelec, Ciuc, Braila. That explains the Romanian plural "le/lor" that is closely related to the Turkish plural "ler" and the ubuquitous Romanian "escu" that is closely related to the Polish "eski". Shall we mention the multitude of dishes and foodstuffs that we share with so many of our neighbours?
All of this points to shared knowledge/culture born out of migration and borderless movement. It happened and it happened a lot easier than many are willing to accept.
|Posted by: contras March 03, 2010 07:05 pm|
I was a little unclear. I refer, first, at the fact that Transnistria, the eastern part of Moldova, is recognised by ONU and all world states like part of Moldovan Republic. In spite of this, Russia claims that land, indirectlly, of course, sustainig military and materialy the leaders from Tiraspol. And, from time to time, starts debates in mass-media and elsewhere, about Transnistrian independence or unification with Ukraine or Russia.
I think also at larger Transnistria, between Nistru and Bug.
Here were living Romanians, Anton Golopentia found many villages with Romanian inhabitans inclusive in eastern part of Bug river. They're living Romanians there, as Tatars, Cossacs, Poles, and many others.
Russia anexed this part of land, between Bug and Nistru, in 1792. After that, it become isconno ruskie zemli (it means very old Russian lands), as every piece of land where one Russian soldier put his foot. Look at Kalinigrad. His older name was Konigsberg, here Kant was born. First time was occupied by Russians during 7 Years War (1756-1763), but they were retreated. Was German land until 1945, when become isconno ruskie zemli .
About larger Transnistria, Romanians were here before 1792, whe Russian army comes at Nistru's shores. So we can claim that land, as Russians did, when they threaten Ukraine with disolving, if it try to became NATO member. (not on actuality, after elections).
|Posted by: dead-cat March 03, 2010 08:07 pm|
that is, because the war ended for Austria,Prussia and Russia with status quo ante bellum. and because Peter III took a fancy in Frederick. nothing in that procedure is unique.
other than that, it's not like the land between the dnyester and bug was annexed from a romanian(moldavian) state. during that era russia expanded considerably, swallowing up all kind of khanats and whatnot.
the base, that at some certain point in time the region harboured some romanian (moldavian?) settlements, to claim the territory will not be taken seriously by anyone.
and rightfully so, as it does not reflect any present day demographic reality.
|Posted by: ANDREAS March 03, 2010 10:54 pm|
After what you said -yes, we have the same opinion! The explanation was necessary and useful, I think!
It's not about to claim Transnistria (the Ukrainian part!), but to not allow the separation of Transnistria (the Moldovan part) from the mother country Moldova, under the argument that Transnistria has never been part of historical Moldova! I heard many romanians said that, and it's wrong! I think we all have to fight for it (not by military means!) -as long as Moldovans are still living there- and never give up! (remember Churchill!). We have all the rights to do so!
|Posted by: dead-cat March 03, 2010 11:37 pm|
|the others are in majority. i guess that was the argument for the union with transsylvania, wasn't it?|
|Posted by: contras March 04, 2010 07:11 am|
The others, all toghether, are in majority, but Moldovans (Romanians) have 40% population in Transnistria (eastern part of Moldova). All the others, individually speaking, are in minority (under 30%, Ukraineans and Russians).
This way to see the things is characteristic to Russians points of wiew. look at the claim made recently, to give Russian language oficial status in Moldova. Why Russian, when Ukrains are the second important population group, after Moldovans and before Russians?
Dead-cat, Russia expanded and asimilated all the inhabitants, by force, or dislocating hundreds of thousands of them. This status quo is problematic until today. Look at the Tatars from Crimeea, who were send in Khazastan during ww2 by Stalin, their offsprings wanted during 90 to came back home. They were not allowed, as I know.
Present day, in Transnistria, all the Moldovans refugees houses are occupied by Russians and Cossaks, arrived here after the Transnistrean war in 1992.
|Posted by: Radub March 04, 2010 07:13 am|
Going by the same rule, we should go to war with Canada and bring Boian ( http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boian,_Alberta ) back to the motherland.
|Posted by: contras March 04, 2010 07:13 am|
I agree your point, ANDREAS. that is what I'm speaking for.
|Posted by: Radub March 04, 2010 08:00 am|
| Lots of people agree with you two. That does not mean you are right.
|Posted by: dead-cat March 04, 2010 10:01 am|
| actually it's 31%.
as i said, the others are in majority. how do you plan to convince them to "rejoin" moldavia when that's exactly something they don't want?
i'm not saying anything about "russia by all means". actually i couldn't care less. i'm all for having them decide it by themselves. be it ukraine, moldavia, russia, the only thing i'm slightly intrested in seeing is to see yet another bandit state gone.
yet, as this thread is about reunification, i'd be curious to see how others (minorities, local majorities) are to be convinced to agree and what is the backup plan if they don't.
|Posted by: ANDREAS March 04, 2010 09:18 pm|
Dead-cat, of your statement you start from the premise that the population of Transnistria has chosen the path of separation from Moldova in 1991-1992. You probably read or heard only the Russian and Transnistrian version of the conflict, since the separation had nothing to do with the will of the russian-ukrainean-bulgarian (or so) population from Transnistria. Your assumption (the will of the russian-ukrainean-bulgarian population from Transnistria) is probably correct today, but in the context of an ongoing propaganda of the terrorist regime in Tiraspol since 1992, sending the Transnistrian population to vote is unacceptable! And a free vote in the given context (the existence of this terrorist regime in Tiraspol) is inconceivable! The idea you transmitted represents the official line of Moscow from 1992 until today, and is fraudulent in essence, for reasons mentioned above! It justifies the actions taken by the terrorist regime from 1992 onwards, namely the separation from Moldova!
I apologize if I was unpolite (I don't intend to be so!), but in such issues I can't be otherwise! Hope you understand the idea!
|Posted by: contras March 04, 2010 10:00 pm|
Who says if the Transnistraians can or could be talk otherwise. ONU said they are part of Moldova. They are part of Moldova, recognised by all the world autorities.
How could they said no if Moldovan autorities would decide to unite with Romania?
This how the minority would decide about the trend of majority. It is nonsense.
How it sound if, the Turkish minority in Germany (5 million people, in a population about 50 million in RFG, 10%) would protest against union of Germans, in 1990?
|Posted by: dead-cat March 04, 2010 10:28 pm|
| kosovo used to be part of serbia,
croatia, slovenia, bosnia, macedonia and montenegro used to be part of yugoslavia.
all separated by referendum (i'm not sure about macedonia and i'm too lazy to check). federal yugoslavian authorities of course tried not to recognize that referendum, but lost control of the territory in question, which is, what happened in transnistria as well.
for one, there are no 5 million turks in germany. the number now is 1.6 million. and those are foreigners who may not vote in federal elections, thus are excluded from participation in federal politics until they are granted citizenship. a more valid comparision would be, what if saxons objected the unification. i have no idea what would have happened, as i'm not nostradamus.
then in 1990 the population of the FRG was 63 million, berlin included.
do you imply that all the russian and ukrainean population wants is to be under moldavian control again? while it is obvious that the results of the last referendum there are falsified, i'm quite far from beliving that.
it is quite obvious, that just like kosovo, transnistria is a bandit state, which shouldn't be left on its own. but that's not the issue we're talking about. right now, any posibility of regaining control would be by military means and while russia is interested in that region, this will not happen. the moldavian military is to weak, the romanian also and nato will not go to war over that and rightfully so.
as nobody can go back in time to fix things, it does not matter what was 50 years ago, only the status quo matters.
|Posted by: contras March 04, 2010 10:37 pm|
| In transnistria was some referendum or elections one year ago. Who cares, or who takes to account this? Nobody, because all the world knows it means nothing.
If tomorow, somebody in Chisinau will decide to take care and to impose the law in Transnistria, how the world would react? That is the question, Shakespeare said.
|Posted by: dead-cat March 04, 2010 10:41 pm|
most probably they'd try to look up both moldavia and transnistria on a map. then thy'd be curious how that somebody in chisinau will implement that and have a georgia deja-vu.
|Posted by: contras March 04, 2010 11:01 pm|
No, dead-cat, is it not just simple.
If tomorow, when you and me were asleep, somebody who had the power to do so, will decide to react, he will send the police troops to take care about this region. Of course, the transnistrians will react, But, conform the Constitution of Republic of Moldova, if the transnistrians do not comply, the Chisinau autorities could the military forces.
That could be the cassus beli , of couse. But it is constitutionaly correct for Moldovan autorities. It is their right to impose the autority of Chisinau gouvernment over the Transnistria, an entity never recognised by no one.
|Posted by: dead-cat March 04, 2010 11:04 pm|
| nothing new, all of it happened before. how it turned out it also well known.
which is why nobody will do anything like that in chisinau or elsewhere.
it is quite simple, it's how the term "Realpolitik" works, which i'm trying to explain.
|Posted by: ANDREAS March 04, 2010 11:09 pm|
Dead-cat I have serious doubts that Transnistria was ever or is now an true independent state. Transnistrian regime is a puppet in Moscow hands, so it's fate should be discussed with Moscow and not elsewhere! And I have serious doubts that the leadership from Chisinau has the authority to call into question such a problem now or in the near future... not to speak of being able to assert his authority in Transnistria, which is out of the question! The only solution I see possible is a more serious involvement of Romania in Moldova.
|Posted by: contras March 04, 2010 11:11 pm|
There is nothing new, everything is changed. As the war in 1992, the revolt in April 2009, all is changed. Maybe you don't see this, but everything is changed.
|Posted by: dead-cat March 04, 2010 11:25 pm|
did i say indepenedent anywhere?
everybody knows it's backed by moscow.
the only thing that would work would be to have the moldavian population emigrate. but given the economic realities of moldavia, that'd be "din lac in put".
actually, if the GDP/capita in moldova would be more than a cup of coffee, with other words, the country would be economically attractive offering citizens a real perspective, other than a rachetz career, there is a good chance that even the russians there wouldn't be very keen of the smirnov regime and things would collapse quickly.
|Posted by: contras March 04, 2010 11:35 pm|
Actually, Transnistria and Moldova is a real safe-heaven for all the retreats from Red Army who decided to spend their retirement in moldova, or better in Transnistria, where are not some bearded cut throaten men with knives waiting from them, like in other Muslim republics like Checenia, Ingushetia or others. That is the main reason what the retirements from Red Army come to Transnistria.
|Posted by: contras March 04, 2010 11:42 pm|
|Another important thingh, if tomorow Moldovans and Ukrainans would block the smugling routes from Transnistria, in a few days the Smironov regime will colapse. It cannot resist without the smoggling highway to Odeesa.|
|Posted by: ANDREAS March 04, 2010 11:43 pm|
If we imagine that there is the will of the moldovan leadership to reunite the country and Romania is capable to sustain Moldova economically, a Georgian scenario is not possible! Why? How do you send (as Russian) an army corps, even an airborne brigade or so over Ukraine, where it is an air defence system with guns and missile systems, and maybe even some MiG-s left (moldovan ones) and the only available airport at Tiraspol can be occupied in hours. Without help the transnistrian army can be defeated in couple of days by a well disciplined and properly equipped fighting force. Of course just a blitzkrieg type scenario could work, if you remember the croatian 1995 Operation Storm in Krajna and Bosnia. But with the poor status of the moldovan army today, such a scenario is not credible...
|Posted by: contras March 04, 2010 11:52 pm|
It is not credible, Andreas, because Romanian army, in case of airborne sustainements in Transnistria, I'm sure will intervene with aids in ammo and military stuff. Even now, it is a mistery about implication of Romanians in war in 1992.
|Posted by: dead-cat March 04, 2010 11:57 pm|
a reason more to reflect upon why smirnov is still in charge. and from there, the implication of ukrainean interest there and so forth.
Realpolitik with other words.
|Posted by: contras March 05, 2010 12:12 am|
Of course, I told it in this topic, until now, and maybe in the future, Ukraine had the level to blackmail Moldova with transnistrian stuff.. And even Romania. But it has no interest to stop the smuggling on his teritory, because some important people here gains some real money, from this smuggling trade...
|Posted by: Imperialist March 05, 2010 06:54 am|
But what you and Contras miss out of this picture is that you're talking about Transnistria being part of Moldova based on Moldova's UN-recognized sovereignty and in a bid to "de facto" strengthen that sovereignty. However that runs against the very idea of unification with Romania because that unification means Moldova would cease to be a sovereign state.
So Romania should support only its unification with Moldova, not Moldova's reunification with Transnistria. Not only is that none of our business but it is also what Moldovan "sovereignists" have used to derail talks about unification with Romania by instilling Moldovan nationalism and a sovereignity project.
If the Moldovans fail to see the benefits of uniting with Romania and instead badly want to obtain control back over Transnistria then we're wasting our time.
As for the logistics of a Russian move, the fact that Ukraine would oppose Romania's projects in the region and that Yanukovych is now in power in Ukraine would make them far easier.
|Posted by: contras March 05, 2010 05:45 pm|
The two projects are not exclusive each other, because Moldova will unite with Romania before Transnistrian problem is resolved, in fact would just put this problem (Transnistria) on Romania's shoulders.
|Posted by: MMM March 05, 2010 05:54 pm|
| Oh, yes - and all that while Russia is... what?! Day-dreaming or what?
PS: not Ukraine, Russia!!!!
|Posted by: Imperialist March 05, 2010 07:42 pm|
I doubt Moldova will unite with Romania as long as it continues to hang on to Transnistria. Moldova cannot invoke its sovereignty over that strip while seeking to dissolve that sovereignty at the same time. It has to make a choice.
On the other hand, Romania would have to assure the Western powers that it would leave Transnistria be and avoid any military flare-up at the border of NATO. Basically "successor state" Greater Romania would have to drop Moldova's claims on that strip.
|Posted by: contras March 05, 2010 08:50 pm|
Imperialist, there are many scenarios that could be made about it.
Imagine one, when western powers say that Transnistrian regime must to come to his end. Maybe they think is to dangeroos for them to accept this paria state near the EU borders. Of corse, this means that something big would happen.
|Posted by: Radub March 06, 2010 06:13 am|
What "Western powers"? What century are you in? This is 2010 not 1910!
|Posted by: Imperialist March 06, 2010 10:01 am|
So you think there are no Western powers just because we're in 2010? That's a strange point to make.
US, UK, France and Germany are generally seen as being (the) Western powers.
Here's an example:
Western Powers Urge New Sanctions Against Iran
|Posted by: Radub March 06, 2010 12:37 pm|
I did not state anything, I only asked a question. Surely you know the difference. Who is "putting words in someone else's mouth" now?
Here are a few more qustions to check for yourself:
Take any of these nations you listed. How large/powerful were they in 1910 and how large/powerful are they in 2010?
How able were these powers to deliver the promised guarantees to Romania when they were worldwide empires? Will they perform better in 2010?
And here is a statement: Face it, times have changed.
|Posted by: Imperialist March 06, 2010 04:02 pm|
I only asked a question too.
I'm not talking about guarantees, I'm talking about diplomatic backing and recognition for a certain move. And yes I think the Western powers can give us that if they want to. You'd have to ask Contras what he meant with what you quoted from his post.
|Posted by: Radub March 06, 2010 08:01 pm|
And I am talking about the actual "value" of such "backing". Giving such guarantees is easy for them. Acting on these guarantees is where they fall flat on their faces. Romania was raped and pillaged in two world wars, despite "diplomatic backing" and "recognition" from "Western powers".
THAT is the elephant in the room.
|Posted by: ANDREAS March 06, 2010 09:08 pm|
| This time I must admit that Radu is right!
The Western Powers will support us only if they have interest in the area, and right now they are more interested in economic relations with Russia (Germany, France f.i.) or limit U.S. power and influence, than the situation of Transdniestria... Yet hope comes from Ukraine where the new pro-Russian leadership could lead, in time, to a position change of the Western Powers?! This is only an assumption not a certainty...
|Posted by: contras March 06, 2010 09:34 pm|
I means that something big would hapen, in one kind of scenario. Remember, after the 9/11 Americans come and seize Afghanistan, just because this atack come from Al Queda.
But, in one scenario I put there, will be another terorist attack against US, or other western power, like UK, and if the westerner specialist will conclude that the explosive device come from Transnistria, whou could western poweres would react? They think about eliminate the danger in Transnistria.
|Posted by: ANDREAS March 06, 2010 10:28 pm|
| Contras, I do not understand what did you mean by that!
You talk of creating a pretext for solving the problem of Transnistria or...?
Because the secessionist transdnestrian leaders have no interest to quarrel with the West or the US! That's why I'm asking...
|Posted by: contras March 06, 2010 10:35 pm|
| I do not talking about solve one problem. I put a question about what if.
If tomorow would be another 9/11 case, and if US specialists would say that the explosive device come from Transnistria, how the US leadership would react? They will put a question to Moscow or will try to put the Transnistrain leadership to end? That is the question.
|Posted by: ANDREAS March 06, 2010 10:48 pm|
| Ok Contras, I get it!
It's really a question to ask! And my answer would be : Are there U.S. strategic interests in the Transnistria area or vicinity ? Because if the answer is yes, we can hope...
|Posted by: contras March 07, 2010 11:37 am|
Look at the arms smuggling from Transnistria to every hot spot worldwide. This trade is made via Odessa, with Ukraine's complicity. Interseting, Transnistria sell arms to Checenia, too, and Russians don't do anything to stop this, even if with those arms, their own soldiers are killed. It is like in Soviet-Afghan war, when soldiers sold their arms to Mujahedins, and later were killed by their own arms.
About this arm smuggling, look here:
|Posted by: ANDREAS March 07, 2010 07:34 pm|
| Yes, an interesting approach, Contras!
But I still think that the U.S. are more interested, at least for the moment, in that subject (Transnistria) than the E.U. or any other european power. Maybe in the future the european powers will see with open eyes this problem...
For now the Germans, French, Italians are more interested in economic relations with Russia than in this hidden danger... (the sell of french arms to Russia for exemple!)
Do you not think so?
|Posted by: contras March 07, 2010 08:56 pm|
| Yes, I agree.
But maybe another Madrid or London blasting, this time with explosive devices who could be tracked to Tiraspol, would make Europeans more sensilble at this problem. Or, maybe, a nuclear or radiologic device.
About the arms sales to Russia, remember what said Lenin:
The capitalists will sell us the rope which we will use to hang them.
|Posted by: contras March 10, 2010 08:34 pm|
| A little video about Russia's next move, after Ukraine, in the competition for more influence:
|Posted by: contras March 16, 2010 08:45 pm|
| About Black Sea region and regional tensions, from Russian press.
|Posted by: ANDREAS March 16, 2010 09:28 pm|
very interesting but somehow worrying lecture...
and about UE interests, read http://www.romanialibera.ro/mapamond/a176902-ashton-ue-este-pregatita-sa-colaboreze-cu-noul-presedinte-ucrainean.html
For them everybody is a good partner if it buys their goods...
|Posted by: contras March 16, 2010 09:48 pm|
| Thank you, ANDREAS. Look for other stunning article here:
|Posted by: contras March 16, 2010 09:53 pm|
| One good news, about Romanian soldiers profesionalism, recognised by NATO:
|Posted by: contras March 16, 2010 09:57 pm|
| Same tone, about Romanian Military Inteligenge:
|Posted by: Imperialist March 18, 2010 08:56 am|
| After Moldova's interim president poured cold water over dreams of unification, now we have this:
Interview with Foreign Affairs Minister Teodor Baconschi
|Posted by: contras March 19, 2010 11:52 pm|
|True, Imperialist, but it is a diplomatic statement. Other politicians and reporters, including Russian ones (some of them) accepted the fact that Moldova would try to unite with Romania. And some of them, a little part, had no problem with that.|
|Posted by: Imperialist March 20, 2010 01:24 am|
Statements made by Presidents and Foreign Ministers carry a lot of weight and can't be shrugged off. Basescu never talked (not that I know of) about unification with Moldova, he only focused on Moldova's EU accession and easing cross-border traffic. Moldova's interim President first mentioned unification but then retracted and later used strong language to clearly rule out that possibility. Obama was utterly silent during the Moldovan events last year and this year Hillary made a strange statement saying she is worried about the border disagreements between the 2 countries. The signals are clear and for the time being they're miles away from favoring the unification.
|Posted by: contras March 24, 2010 08:22 pm|
Obama, IMO, is very away about the problems in Black Sea region. And his advisors, too. This not a point of their interest. They had more problems to focus. And the Obama administration is not too eager to disscus problems that could oppose Russia's interests. For them, it is just coin to exchange.
But this is the time to show the will of Moldovans. In short time, will be elections again, and before that, a referendum. This one could change the course of history for the Republic of Moldova.
|Posted by: Radub March 25, 2010 10:04 am|
Actually, Transdnestra is not "a point of anyone's interest". They are an old and rheumatic dog with an asthmatic bark and no teeth to bite. And even if they mustered some energy to bark, the camel train will just move on.
|Posted by: contras March 27, 2010 11:09 pm|
|I don't think so. Tomorrow, or some day after tomorrow, the interest about Transnistria region will grow. And will grow hard. Very hard.|
|Posted by: MMM March 28, 2010 12:30 pm|
| Why are you so sure? The "focus" in the last decade shifted towards the Muslim zone, slightly Southern than that...
If the Russians (let's not pretend that in Trans-Dnestra the thieves and bootleggers there really have the power of decision) don't do something really odd, nobody will notice them. IMO, at least...
|Posted by: contras April 03, 2010 08:59 am|
| But if they'll do some really odd?
The "focus" to Muslim world begun after they (the Fundamentalists) had done something odd.
And nobody will guarantee that that focus will remain. After Talibans and AQ will not had the power to became a threat, the focus will change, because Americans will let the Muslims to kill each other, like they do from centuries.
|Posted by: MMM April 03, 2010 04:57 pm|
WHY would they do anything? And WITH WHAT? They're happy for now, self-sufficient etc. They already got their Kosovo and I guess they don't want anything more. We'll see what happens, anyway: let's re-open this discussion in 2013, after the "end of the world"!
|Posted by: contras April 03, 2010 07:55 pm|
| They DO, because is their modus vivendi. They sell arms to everyone who want's to buy, including in Checenia. Russians soldiers are killed by arms who came from Transnistria. Is the same story happened in Afghanistan during Soviet invasion, when soviet soldiers sell arms to Mujahedins who killed their comarades with them.
They sell arms to Muslim fundamentalists. American soldiers are killed by those arms. Soon, somebody will take some atitude about it.
|Posted by: contras April 05, 2010 10:59 am|
Look better here:
|Posted by: cnflyboy2000 April 06, 2010 03:09 pm|
Interesting analysis, but how is it connected to Transnistria???
|Posted by: ANDREAS April 06, 2010 06:48 pm|
|The article is probably linked to U.S. strategic concerns, their interests, not about the problem of Transnistria who is (or should be) our concern...|
|Posted by: contras April 07, 2010 07:49 pm|
|True, ANDREAS, is about US strategig concerns. US is focused now to Iran, after that problem will be solved (one way or another), and the Jihadists will be put in a position where they can't do major problems, US will focus to other problems of concern. One of them could be the regime in Transnistria, part of a new strategic containment of new Rusia's ambitions.|
|Posted by: MMM April 07, 2010 08:05 pm|
| Aren't we optimistic?!
What if the Iran-Gate will NOT be solved so easily? What then? Don't forget that Obama is more concerned wit other stuff, such as internal policy, Medicare etc.
And then, there's North Korea to be dealt with.
Trans-Dnestra is waaaay down on the American "Most Wanted" list (or the "to-do list" if you prefer it like that!
|Posted by: contras April 13, 2010 07:55 pm|
| I don't want to say something about some "conspiracy theory", but, from all NATO states, we have a startegic partnership only with US, France and Poland.
Romania and Poland are the powerfull states of "New Europe", most important allies of US in NATO.
I'm sure, until now, that the Smolensk tragedy is just a pure coincidence, but is really a blow for a NATO future containment of Russia's strategic ambitions. I believe is just a coincidence, because, if not, it can be the trigger for ww3.
|Posted by: Imperialist April 14, 2010 07:17 am|
We also have a SP with Italy and starting this year with Spain. Also I believe New Europe is now an obstacle in the path of improved US/German/French ties with Russia; and I doubt we are the most important allies of US in NATO.
|Posted by: cnflyboy2000 April 16, 2010 02:52 pm|
maybe. But do we really think Russia is in expansionist mode? I think they are mostly reacting, in traditional Russian mode, rather than engaged in some neoimperialism.
It seems to me they have enough problems what with their demographic crisis, endemic alcoholism, soaring heroin addiction, monoeconomy, pissed off "ethnic" areas, hostile former republics, underployment....the list goes on.
One hopeful sign: the nuke agreement just signed by U.S and Russia.
|Posted by: contras April 18, 2010 09:04 pm|
Very true what you said, but Russians do not think like us. They want revenge, and they do not see their own problems, they just act, like they did in all their history. The truth is they will lose, but they must try, it is their last chance. To be a powerfull nation or to be nothing.
|Posted by: Hadrian April 18, 2010 10:11 pm|
|They could be a prosper democratic nation, equal with others, if they just accept this. But no, they must be Superpower, equal with the americans and NATO.|
|Posted by: Victor April 19, 2010 08:43 am|
|How can you be so sure what Russians think? Do you personally know each and everyone of the 140 million of them?|
|Posted by: Hadrian April 19, 2010 07:40 pm|
|When we say russians, of course we mean their leadership, rhe guys that we see on tv... I bet the "average Ivan" doesn't have this kind of ambition, except the old nostalgics. The normal poeple thinks mostly about how to pay the next mortgage, and when he could have the money to buy himself that nice Renault Logan or Lada Samara, whitout options.|
|Posted by: cnflyboy2000 April 20, 2010 03:51 pm|
So, you don't think there's such a thing as popular opinion? Polling is now a science, and majority/minority beliefs, while changeable as the wind, can be determined with some precision in most places.
Historically, the Russian "people" have had very strong sentiments on their government's actions/policies, for better and worse. (cf: revolutions and wars, Europe).
|Posted by: Radub April 20, 2010 04:15 pm|
I actually had the chance to meet a few Russians across the years. They are not all that stereotypical. Funny thing is that all of them said that to them, I did not come across as what they expected the stereotypical Romanian to be.
You don't want to know what they thought about the "stereotypical Romanian".
|Posted by: ANDREAS April 20, 2010 09:57 pm|
Contras, I disagree ...with the following statement:
Not all of them -probably the most hateful towards us are most likely those from Transnistria, Moldova and Ukraine -others maybe not! Even if I wasn't travelling in Russia itself -I met and talked with Russians, especially the middle class as tourists in Europe -and many of them, perhaps for courtesy reasons, did not have bad opinions about the Romanians, on the contrary, they know us even better than normal Westerners (French, British, Germans, Danish ...). Of course they say nothing about Bessarabia and always avoided that subject with enough elegance I say... Remember, I spoke always with cultured people, middle class, so I can't say about others...
|Posted by: contras April 22, 2010 08:03 pm|
Not only their leadership, but their "intelighentsia", too. Lokk at all the writtings, novels, of all the Russian authors, philosophers, from XIX siecle until today. Classics or contemoranists, all their writtings are full of "mesianic nationalism" about Russian people.
|Posted by: Radub April 23, 2010 08:37 am|
There is nothing wrong with that. You may be describing the literature of any nation, including Romania.
It is a fertile ground and a hungry market, the perfect combination.
The Russian culture is rich and extremely beautiful, if you go beyond the "popular" stuff. Just like Romanian culture is superb if you manage (or obother) to go past "manele" and "Traznitii in Nato".
|Posted by: contras April 24, 2010 07:06 pm|
| Again, about Moldova:
|Posted by: Imperialist April 25, 2010 07:54 pm|
Maybe he is afraid of flying there.
|Posted by: Hadrian April 26, 2010 05:32 pm|
|He came in Romania. By car.|
|Posted by: contras April 27, 2010 10:29 am|
| Not a joke, but Moldovan president had all the reasons to be careful. His brother, a great patriot and a fanatic unionist, Gheorghe Ghimpu, was killed in 2000 in one car accident, in misterious conditions.
|Posted by: contras April 30, 2010 09:19 pm|
| About Ukraine's egg battle in parlament, and the meanings of this, an intersting article here:
|Posted by: Imperialist May 09, 2010 08:15 pm|
| Allies Join Russians in Victory Day
There, in the shadow of the Kremlin, on ground that has long symbolized Russian might, marched a young soldier from New York City, Spc. Tyler Smith, and his fellow Americans, along with troops from other NATO countries — proud Poles, British guards in distinctive bearskin hats, French airmen, and soldiers decked out in the elaborate dress uniforms of former Soviet republics from Ukraine to Turkmenistan.
|Posted by: contras May 10, 2010 08:41 pm|
| About Ukraine's future, see this:
|Posted by: cnflyboy2000 May 11, 2010 04:54 pm|
and your point is?
|Posted by: Imperialist May 18, 2010 08:16 am|
|Posted by: mabadesc May 19, 2010 03:07 am|
|Posted by: contras May 25, 2010 09:52 pm|
| A new Romanian techno-thriller, about some future wars Romania could be part of, by the author of "Cand armele vorbesc" you could find here:
|Posted by: contras June 06, 2010 11:16 am|
|New developements in our vicinity, Ukraine looks like it surrenders to Russia. So, whe can say that Russia is again at Romanian frontiers. Again, we are a front line country. But Moldavia?|
|Posted by: Imperialist June 06, 2010 06:46 pm|
What developments are you talking about?
|Posted by: contras June 07, 2010 04:48 am|
|Russia rented Sevastopol base until 2042, Ukraine renounce at NATO integration as objective, Russian FSB agents are free to come to protect Russian Navy, and many more.|
|Posted by: contras June 16, 2010 09:54 pm|
| See last two articles, about Russia's nex move:
|Posted by: contras June 21, 2010 05:54 pm|
| Again, about Russia's next offensive, up to 5 years, like the author said:
|Posted by: Imperialist June 22, 2010 11:38 am|
|Posted by: Radub June 23, 2010 07:50 am|
| Could this thread get any weirder? Yup!
|Posted by: contras June 23, 2010 03:58 pm|
| About Russian Naval base at Sevastopol:
|Posted by: contras June 25, 2010 09:51 am|
| About Black Sea gambit:
|Posted by: contras June 25, 2010 11:54 am|
|Posted by: contras July 01, 2010 08:48 pm|
| About the new National Strategy for Country's Defence (SNAT), aproved by CNSAT and sent to Parliament, see here:
|Posted by: Imperialist July 01, 2010 09:55 pm|
That sounds good but sadly it's untrue. Here's what we have:
Add to that the declining production capabilities (2010 vs 1980s), the outdated infrastructure, the trade (im)balance, the debt, the demographic decline, the massive emigration. And to top it all off, the utter demoralization.
Regional pawn, not regional power.
|Posted by: Radub July 02, 2010 08:25 am|
| The Academy report is correct. The economic problems that Romania faces stem from the old Romanian mentalilty that "foreign is better". Even Romanian-made products are deemed "better" if they are intended for "export". Romanians are obsessed with purchasing "foreign" objects, clothes, food, etc. It makes no sense that Romanians would spend more on Parmalat milk instead of their local milk. It makes no sense that Romaniains would spend more on Turkish tomatoes instead of the local tomatoes. It makes no sense that Romanians spend more on Stella Artois beer than on Ciucas beer. As a result, money leaves the country and Romania is slowly squandering away all of its wealth. Romanians should start to appreciate Romanian products over foreign products and thus keep the money in the country. Furthermore, Romania must strive to export more in order to bring in capital. I know that some may say that Romanian products are of poor quality. However, quality depends on investment in infrasctucture (tooling, materials, staff) and when the profits are low, investment is reduced, and in turn this leads to a self-feeding vicious circle. With an increase in sales will come an increase in funds that then can be invested in infrastructure - quality will automatically follow.
There should be an aggressive and pervasive "Buy Romanian" campaign to encourage Romanians to accept, value and purchase Romanian products.
|Posted by: Victor July 05, 2010 08:49 am|
| Just an example out of the ones you mentioned, Stella Artois is brewed in Romania, as is Tuborg, Carlsberg and the other "foreign brands". Ciuc as the other major premium "local" brands is also owned by one of the major international brewers, so there really is no difference between the two in terms of ownership and taxes paid. The situation is similar for most of the producers in Romania: foreign ownership, local manufacturing plant. This means: local employees (income taxes+social contributions) and local taxes. Only the final profit will be sent back to the parent company. It's a pretty good deal, given the current state of the Romanian capital.
The "Buy Romanian" campaign was already tried once, without any tangible results, and could only work for a limited number of products, because there are many things that one does not have a local alternative to choose over a foreign-made product. The market should be the one who decides, not the national feelings.
I can only imagine how money will be wasted on another "study", "publicity campaign" and the likes. It is one of the easiest way to make money for the people who know other people. At least the people that know other people and win contracts for road rehabilitation do actually have to perform something, employ some people. To make "campaign" you need only few resources.
The solution, IMO, is another. Lower taxes for producers, ease up the bureaucratic process of creating a business, build infrastructure. This way it will be easier for investors (foreign or local) to start production locally.
|Posted by: ovichelu July 05, 2010 03:40 pm|
| Victor is somehow right . But for example , I work for a company that is in dairies branch . My question for you is : do you know origin of the milk for example ?
Or the raw material that butter is produced ?
I`l let you guess !
|Posted by: guina July 05, 2010 05:55 pm|
|Posted by: ovichelu July 05, 2010 06:00 pm|
No, it`s much closer. Try Hungary and Poland !
And for the butter you were close - New Zeeland !
|Posted by: contras July 06, 2010 05:38 pm|
| I agree with you, we need more agressive programs for population to buy local products or products who are made in our country, like Americans said "Buy American".
these are many consumers who prefere indigenous products, but those products are very hard to find. Look at vegetables, in supermarkets you find only foreigner, and even on local markets, many of them are the same. You know, we find onion from Holland and gaerlic from Canada!
|Posted by: Dénes July 06, 2010 07:26 pm|
Strange, garlic is imported to Canada from... China.
|Posted by: Radub July 07, 2010 09:18 am|
Yes, that works too.
Let me clarify something. I did not say any of the above from a "nationalist" standpoint. The report said that "Romania is poorer now than 20 years ago" and I was only pointing out where the erstwhile wealth was squandered. Wealth continues to be squandered. Yesterday there was a news report about Romanians flocking across the border into Bulgaria to do their shopping. THAT is money leaving Romania.
I have no "silver bullet" solution. I also do not think that "Buy Romanian" is the solution as long as Romanians do not appreciate "Romanian" products. What Romanians need to do is to regain trust in Romanian products. How you do that? I have no idea. For generations we were told that Bulgarian cigarettes, Albanian brandy, Chinese underwear were the best even though the rest of the world thought they were really bad. It will take a seismic shift in mentality to make Romanians apreciate local products. I mean anything that makes Romanians keep the money in the country as well as make more.
|Posted by: ovichelu July 07, 2010 05:59 pm|
Do you want to know someting else that`s interesting ?
I have a friend that`s a truck driver and one day he had to load some iron pipes from Galati for Italy . He went to Italy unloaded the pipes and after 4-5 hours he loaded the same pipes again ! The only diference was that now they were stamped with some numbers and underneath the numbers was written "MADE IN ITALY "
So what can we say more ?!?
Radu you are right that if you lower taxes production and consumption wil grow but you need capable people for than , also tax evasion will decrease ! And we lack such people in right places because in romania thigs go by the colour of the rulling party , why should we put an wise man as a mayor when we can put an "goagal' or "almanahe " that serves the interests of our party/our group of interests ?
And again contras is right how can we buy romanian tomatoes when in the market or at the hypermarket you can find only foreign products, also romanian tomatoes when came on market they were 20-30% more expensive and this is from my experience !
|Posted by: Victor July 08, 2010 01:52 pm|
That was because products are cheaper in Bulgaria, due to a lower VAT, not because people thought Bulgarian products are better. Like I already said. It's about the tax level.
|Posted by: Radub July 09, 2010 08:33 am|
Like I already said, I agreed with you! I agree again.
Money is haemorrhaging out of the country. Romania imports more than it exports = more money is leaving than is coming in. Only when that reverses, things will change.
|Posted by: MMM July 13, 2010 01:12 pm|
Well, the same can be said about Moldavian products; yet, a strange thing happened: when a guy went to a petrol station in Moldavia, just "round the border" to fill up his tank, he asked where were the products from; he was answered that the diesel fuel is from Rafo Onesti! And it was at about half the price from Romania! Why is that? Or, to rephrase, didn't they (Moldavians) still have a profit?
|Posted by: contras July 28, 2010 11:21 pm|
|Posted by: contras August 04, 2010 11:33 am|
|Posted by: contras August 05, 2010 10:07 am|
|Posted by: Imperialist August 05, 2010 06:09 pm|
Are you the author of that blog?
|Posted by: ANDREAS August 05, 2010 06:42 pm|
|My apreciation for the author -Cristian Negrea! His analysis is very good in any case, and we must think about it... Our chance that we are a member of NATO and enjoy US protection, for now! In any case although bigger, our Army were less equipped than the Georgian one... at least in the modern ground troops equipment... don't you think?|
|Posted by: contras August 08, 2010 09:27 pm|
No. I read his books, "Cand armele vorbesc" and "sange pe Nistru" and I like them very much. I follow author's blog, because I think his analysis are OK. And his analysis are about problems that can be about our own interest.
|Posted by: contras August 11, 2010 10:54 pm|
|Posted by: contras August 26, 2010 06:02 pm|
|Posted by: Imperialist August 27, 2010 12:11 pm|
Romania launching preventive attacks.... with what? And against whom? US security guarantees have strings attached, Romania can't go out doing things like that on its own.
The Shimon Peres visit was actually part of a larger tour of Eastern Europe. Israelis have also trained in Greece, Hungary and Bulgaria. As for the Russians being worried, the Georgian soldiers trained with Israelis too. So what?
Population alone is not relevant for a country's power. Also the author mentions Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary, as if our foreign policy vectors are turned towards the west and south-southwest, not east! He should have talked about Ukraine instead.
|Posted by: MMM August 27, 2010 04:28 pm|
|Whoaaa, Nelly! Where's the perspective of Bessarabia united with us?!?!?!?!?!?!|
|Posted by: Radub August 27, 2010 06:16 pm|
Israel and Turkey are at odds right now because of the incindent in May when a number of Israeli commandos stormed a Turkish ship headed for Gaza in which a number of commandos were injured and 10 Turkish citizens were killed.
Just in case anyone has been living under a rock on the moon for the last few months and never heard of this, here is a link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8714000/8714171.stm
Wars have started for less. The fact that Turkey and Israel are not talking is actually a good thing. Chances are that they will patch up their differences. Turkey is too big a market for Israel to ignore for too long.
To say that Israel cut-off ties with Turkey and chose Romania instead because Turkey has become a "force" overnight is just plain silly.
|Posted by: contras September 02, 2010 01:12 pm|
|Posted by: contras September 28, 2010 04:32 pm|
|Posted by: contras September 29, 2010 07:28 pm|
|Posted by: MMM September 30, 2010 10:04 am|
|Nice studies... I wonder (OoT) how do the studies made by our "Services" (Serviciili) look?|
|Posted by: contras October 02, 2010 10:48 am|
I have no idea, M, but I'm sure the're a lot of interesting things...
Anyway, they read the press, too, I supose...
|Posted by: Iamandi October 02, 2010 05:40 pm|
|"Surse deschise". They read even internet blogs.|
|Posted by: Imperialist October 02, 2010 09:22 pm|
What about forums?
|Posted by: MMM October 03, 2010 08:01 am|
|Well, if "they" (serviciili) didn't knock at our private doors until now, I guess they don't regard us as potential dangers or something like that. Or, maybe, they knocked already...|
|Posted by: contras October 06, 2010 06:01 pm|
Maybe "they" actually look at you from behind the curtain...
|Posted by: MMM October 07, 2010 05:02 pm|
| Nah... I live in a house and I have a "trained" dog... not "j.... ordina..", though...
|Posted by: contras October 07, 2010 07:03 pm|
Maybe the dog is an agent for "they". Could you be sure it isn't?
|Posted by: MMM October 08, 2010 10:58 am|
| No way! I have a smart dog!
Back on track, now: I wonder what will be the first (and only, if any... ) oil and / or gas pipe through the Black Sea...
|Posted by: contras October 08, 2010 02:18 pm|
Today, Gazprom announced that Romania will be part of South Stream. Romania is part of Nabucco, too. And Romania signed few days ago AGRI project. It means that we will be "nodal point" in all the gas pipe in Black Sea?
|Posted by: MMM October 08, 2010 03:28 pm|
| Yeah, and then the flying pig will signal "Eagle has landed"!
WHY would Romania be the nodal point?
BTW, let's hope that at least 1(one) of these projects will actually come true!
|Posted by: contras October 09, 2010 03:18 pm|
|Posted by: MMM October 09, 2010 03:36 pm|
|Both plausible and interesting. What then? We just continue with the same policy and expect USSR to escalate the conflict, to raise the stakes? Or expect our new NATO allies to do the trick...|
|Posted by: contras October 09, 2010 07:34 pm|
You are so pesimistic, M!
And what do you expect? We have interests in region, Rusia has interests, too. We must stand stil and resist at Russian presure, because is in out own interest. Look at the Poles, they do the same.
|Posted by: contras October 09, 2010 07:52 pm|