Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
WorldWar2.ro Forum > The post-WW2 and recent military > Russian-Romanian conflict


Posted by: Imperialist September 22, 2011 08:44 am
http://www.nineoclock.ro/wikileaks-basescu-was-worried-about-possible-russian-romanian-conflict/


Posted by: MMM September 22, 2011 10:03 am
So what? The situation is 20 years old and might change only after Smirnov's - let's say... - "demise", one way or the other! Trans-Dnestra is a precious Russian pawn in a game involving also Ukraine, Romania, maybe even NATO...
The Wikileaks are what they are - LEAKS! (Romanian also "scursuri") biggrin.gif
Later Edit: here's a good one: "I just wanted to test their position"...
http://www.gandul.info/politica/basescu-despre-telegrama-wikileaks-prezentata-de-gandul-nu-neg-continutul-interesul-meu-a-fost-sa-testez-sua-si-ue-8781397

Posted by: Ferdinand September 22, 2011 02:22 pm
Don't worry about a conflict. In case of invasion Romania will send tanks, hellicopters, airplanes, and troops.
But after they call to the scrap yards in Constanta to see if they melted everything.

Also you guys forget that we have some secret weapons left:

1. The 12 Chicken Division(easelly can be fitted with grenades to explode near russian tank)
2. 23 Dive Bombing Stork division stationed everywhere in Baragan(they also can be fitted with something explosive)
3. Some division of infantry....but Russian have to pospone the attack untill the romanian infantry returns form Afganistan, Irak...and other places where we lose money dailly.

And our super secret weapon.....

-a special division formed of scrap iron collectors. I mean a divission formed in a hurry of people with trolleys and horse carriage. The tactics is simple...we station them near russian lines....and in one night they'll do the job.

smile.gif


Posted by: MMM September 22, 2011 03:21 pm
Lulz, man! Good one! On the same level, I've got one more secret weapon: the famous three-legged chicken from Cernavodă - so secret that nobody saw it, yet so fast that nobody caught it...
On topic, now, it's really hard to believe in a "hot" conflict in that area, conflict in which the once-mighty ex-Red Army will intervene! After all, there are a couple of differences, military and geographically: we are NATO-member and they don't have the direct border required in order to fetch troops, ammo, vodka etc... tongue.gif
Come, now, I think this entire story is just some sort of bubble of some sort! But then, again, this is just IMHO ("părerea mea")...

Posted by: Ferdinand September 22, 2011 04:25 pm
pana la urna...hac....noi cu cine luptam?

sorry for romanian language!

smile.gif

Posted by: Florin September 22, 2011 04:47 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ September 22, 2011 03:44 am)
http://www.nineoclock.ro/wikileaks-basescu-was-worried-about-possible-russian-romanian-conflict/

By August 27, 2008 Romania was already in NATO.
I am considering this matter in a cynical and cold way - which hurts, but may be closer to reality. In case Russia would make a bold move in regard to Transnistria or even toward the Republic of Moldavia, the Romanian leadership will look toward NATO for blessing and support. NATO not only will back away, with the argument that Romania was not directly attacked and the Romanian border was not trespassed, but will pressure Romania to don't do anything that could force NATO into action.

I am assuming that in Moskow the decision makers are cool headed practical guys.
It is not in their interest to do anything stupid in Transnistria. The present status quo works just fine. To save their face and their meaning of prestige, they could be forced into action if the status quo of Transnistria is changed in a way they don't like.

Posted by: Imperialist September 22, 2011 06:11 pm
Everyone here and on TV (the famous "analysts" there) seems to think in terms of a symmetric conflict in which Romania sends its tanks, fighters, and infrantry units in a head-on crash against the Russian forces.

What happened to asymmetric involvement? In my view this is the kind of military involvement the President had in mind.

Posted by: ANDREAS September 22, 2011 06:54 pm
Probably you read in the past this:
http://forum.moldweb.eu/topic/6119-razboi-simulat-pe-calculator-transnistria-zdrobeste-republica-moldova-in-cateva-ore/
Maybe this scenario was in mind of our president (or military leadership) when they ask US about this issue... Can't say for sure but our chances to help Moldova than or today (if something like that happen) are low...

Posted by: Radub September 23, 2011 09:48 am
But the obvious question is "why is Transdnestra of any importance to anyone?"

Who gives a hoot about some Ruritanian backwater? blink.gif

Radu

Posted by: MMM September 23, 2011 10:25 am
QUOTE (Radub @ September 23, 2011 12:48 pm)
But the obvious question is "why is Transdnestra of any importance to anyone?"

Who gives a hoot about some Ruritanian backwater? blink.gif

Radu

Well, it's an European (or almost) Ruritania, unlike other Cold War places of conflict, such as Korea or Vietnam or Africa etc...

Posted by: Radub September 23, 2011 11:06 am
QUOTE (MMM @ September 23, 2011 10:25 am)

Well, it's an European (or almost) Ruritania, unlike other Cold War places of conflict, such as Korea or Vietnam or Africa etc...

The question still stands. What is there to gain for anyone from this?
Why would Romania want to send its young sons to die for it?
Radu

Posted by: Imperialist September 23, 2011 11:24 am
QUOTE (Radub @ September 23, 2011 11:06 am)
The question still stands. What is there to gain for anyone from this?
Why would Romania want to send its young sons to die for it?
Radu

Romania's young sons are already sent in Afghanistan on a wild goose chase. Sending them to help Moldova if hypothetically attacked by a foreign power or its proxies would make much more sense than sending them to die in Tralalabad.

Posted by: Radub September 23, 2011 12:05 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ September 23, 2011 11:24 am)
QUOTE (Radub @ September 23, 2011 11:06 am)
The question still stands. What is there to gain for anyone from this?
Why would Romania want to send its young sons to die for it?
Radu

Romania's young sons are already sent in Afghanistan on a wild goose chase. Sending them to help Moldova if hypothetically attacked by a foreign power or its proxies would make much more sense than sending them to die in Tralalabad.

"Whataboutism" still does not answer the question.
Why should Romania care about Transdnestra? So far no one seems to have a clue.
Radu

Posted by: Florin September 23, 2011 02:53 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ September 23, 2011 07:05 am)
...........Why should Romania care about Transdnestra? So far no one seems to have a clue.
Radu

I think we should reasonably care about Republic of Moldova. Transnistria can be considered a problem to Romania if it will become a very big problem for the Republic of Moldova.
But it is a long road before going into military action. There are many ways to solve a problem. For example, if Transnistria would block some roads to cut some commercial routes, Romania and Ukraine could offer alternative roads, highways and harbors for those commercial routes.

By the way, Ukraine used to not be pleased at all with Transnistria. The problem is that after the last elections they drifted closer to Russia. Ukraine is a very important factor there, for better or for worse.

Posted by: ANDREAS September 23, 2011 08:51 pm
QUOTE
...Why should Romania care about Transdnestra? So far no one seems to have a clue. Radu

Transnistria was always (since 1991) the key to control Moldova from Moskow! The breakaway region include 700,000 people or about 16% of the population, comprising one sixth of the Republic of Moldova. Urbanization in Transnistria is about 65%, while in Moldova as a whole, this index remains at 47%. This region of Moldavia in the late eighties gave one third of industrial production and about 90% of electricity supply. The leadership of Moldova couldn't gave Transnistria away and so got cought like a fly... in Russian hands...
I quoted from a study made around 2000 about Transnistria in "Observatorul militar".

Posted by: Radub September 24, 2011 08:06 am
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ September 23, 2011 08:51 pm)
QUOTE
...Why should Romania care about Transdnestra? So far no one seems to have a clue. Radu

Transnistria was always (since 1991) the key to control Moldova from Moskow! The breakaway region include 700,000 people or about 16% of the population, comprising one sixth of the Republic of Moldova. Urbanization in Transnistria is about 65%, while in Moldova as a whole, this index remains at 47%. This region of Moldavia in the late eighties gave one third of industrial production and about 90% of electricity supply. The leadership of Moldova couldn't gave Transnistria away and so got cought like a fly... in Russian hands...
I quoted from a study made around 2000 about Transnistria in "Observatorul militar".

I can see why Moscow cares about Transdnestra. After all, it was part of Tsarist and Soviet Russia for a very long time.
The question still remans: why should Romania go to war over it?
Let them be whoever they want to be and pledge allegiance to whatever boot they want to lick. Moscow does not need some sliver of land to "control" Moldova. As others pointed above and elsewhere the era of the "enemy coming over the hill on horseback" ended when Polish cavalry charged Wehrmacht tanks during the Blitzkrieg. Nowadays, Moscow can criple Moldova without deploying a single soldier by simply pressing a key on a keyboard. Some of these "armchair generals", "comentators" and incontinent bloggers who keep babbling about "strategic locations" need to join the twentieth century! biggrin.gif
Radu

Posted by: ANDREAS September 24, 2011 09:35 am
Some would argue that it would be a way to attract the moldovan leadership to the west as long as Transnistria keep them connected to the east (they can't just let Transnistria go independent)... Others hope that if Moldova (with Transnistria) would one day be reunited to Romania, Transnistria could be a exchange coin to Ukraine (for south Bassarabia or North Bukovina)... For me Transnistria mean 40% moldavian population who must be somehow defended as a minority by Romania (even if they hate as (if we suppose that) we still have that duty) and Tighina (a town on the moldavian side of the Dnestr still occupied by the secessionst even if it is no Transnistrian soil -it is not on the east of the Dnestr but on moldavian side). My reasons to be interested in the problem but not for going in war....

Posted by: Imperialist September 24, 2011 10:13 am
QUOTE (Radub @ September 24, 2011 08:06 am)
I can see why Moscow cares about Transdnestra. After all, it was part of Tsarist and Soviet Russia for a very long time.
The question still remans: why should Romania go to war over it?
Let them be whoever they want to be and pledge allegiance to whatever boot they want to lick. Moscow does not need some sliver of land to "control" Moldova. As others pointed above and elsewhere the era of the "enemy coming over the hill on horseback" ended when Polish cavalry charged Wehrmacht tanks during the Blitzkrieg. Nowadays, Moscow can criple Moldova without deploying a single soldier by simply pressing a key on a keyboard. Some of these "armchair generals", "comentators" and incontinent bloggers who keep babbling about "strategic locations" need to join the twentieth century! biggrin.gif
Radu

I agree with your view on Transdniester, but I believe you misunderstood.

From what I understood Romania would be involved if an incident in Transdniester is used by the Transdniestrians and/or Russia to attack Moldova. That's what happened in Georgia. Whatever took place in South Ossetia the result was Russia attacking the whole of Georgia.

So the question is would you agree with Romania offering Moldova assistance in such a case, or not?

Posted by: Radub September 24, 2011 12:00 pm
The answer is already contained in your preamble. the Gorgian incident already played the scenario and the showed the likely outcome.
Radu

Posted by: Imperialist September 24, 2011 01:28 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ September 24, 2011 12:00 pm)
The answer is already contained in your preamble. the Gorgian incident already played the scenario and the showed the likely outcome.
Radu

So your answer is that if Transdniester/Russia attacks Moldova then Romania should do nothing militarily? Did I understand right?

Posted by: Radub September 24, 2011 03:00 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ September 24, 2011 01:28 pm)
QUOTE (Radub @ September 24, 2011 12:00 pm)
The answer is already contained in your preamble. the Gorgian incident already played the scenario and the showed the likely outcome. Radu

So your answer is that if Transdniester/Russia attacks Moldova then Romania should do nothing militarily? Did I understand right?

So your question is that if Russsia bombs Chisinau, Romania should make it so that Bucharest gets bombed as well? huh.gif
Radu

Posted by: Florin September 24, 2011 04:11 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ September 24, 2011 07:00 am)
The answer is already contained in your preamble. the Gorgian incident already played the scenario and the showed the likely outcome.
Radu

Georgia prepared that attack for a long time. Meanwhile, Russia was aware of what will happen for a long time. So much aware that they built an additional railroad close to the Georgian border, in case they will need to send supplies for a long term conflict. The Georgian army was quite well equipped, and still could not turn the tide when needed.
That is something to think about, for whoever is heating too fast toward military glory.

Posted by: MMM September 24, 2011 04:55 pm
Yet the answer is so simple: we belong to NATO and this will either discourage Russia to military measures (when the economic ones still work) or will discourage us to further pursue... what? Forum discussions, in so far... ohmy.gif

Posted by: Imperialist September 24, 2011 05:03 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ September 24, 2011 03:00 pm)
So your question is that if Russsia bombs Chisinau, Romania should make it so that Bucharest gets bombed as well? huh.gif
Radu

If Moldova is attacked we can offer it assistance short of sending in tanks, planes and large infantry units. Considering the common border, the common language and the number of Moldovans living in Romania, I think we can do so easily, the only limiting factor being what we have in our army stocks.

But, as usual, the tin-can "military analysts" on TV started cracking jokes about how the President insanely thought we will bomb Russia or cross into Transdniester on our tanks. dry.gif

Then there are different types of escalation, as I'm sure you know. Why would you think Russia would bomb a NATO member?


Posted by: Radub September 24, 2011 08:30 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ September 24, 2011 05:03 pm)
Why would you think Russia would bomb a NATO member?

I am still trying to figure out why Romania should care about Transdnestra.
You, on the other hand, are the one who keeps talking about Romanian military involvement, sending troops, etc. In these circumstances, I cannot understand why you ask me questions about military operations.
I have no idea what Rusia would do, if anything, if Romania sent in troops as you demand. But you are the one who invoked the Georgian incident as a precedent. So, you should know what Russia is likely to do in such circumstances. Georgia has very close ties with NATO.
Radu

Posted by: Florin September 24, 2011 08:35 pm
QUOTE (MMM @ September 24, 2011 11:55 am)
Yet the answer is so simple: we belong to NATO and this will either discourage Russia to military measures (when the economic ones still work) or will discourage us to further pursue... what? Forum discussions, in so far...  ohmy.gif

Russia is the biggest producer of petroleum, and number two exporter. This is good leverage, considering that the other big source of oil is the Middle East.
Russia will have less influence when in about 10 years from now the new oil deposits from Atlantic, off shore of Brazil, Angola and Nigeria will start to be tapped. smile.gif

Posted by: Imperialist September 24, 2011 09:56 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ September 24, 2011 08:30 pm)
I am still trying to figure out why Romania should care about Transdnestra.
You, on the other hand, are the one who keeps talking about Romanian military involvement, sending troops, etc. In these circumstances, I cannot understand why you ask me questions about military operations.
I have no idea what Rusia would do, if anything, if Romania sent in troops as you demand. But you are the one who invoked the Georgian incident as a precedent. So, you should know what Russia is likely to do in such circumstances. Georgia has very close ties with NATO.
Radu

It's about Moldova, not Transdnester.

I don't think you understand the comparison with the Georgian conflict. If we were to superimpose the actors of that conflict on our region, then Transdniester would be South Ossetia, Moldova would be Georgia and Romania would be Turkey. Something happens in Transdniester and the Russian "peacekeepers" and other Russian forces use it as a pretext to attack Moldova.

Do we extend some military assistance to Moldova or not?

"Close ties" with NATO and full membership are not the same thing. I'm sure Russia wouldn't bomb a NATO member.

By the way, here's the full cable:

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2008/08/08BUCHAREST687.html


Posted by: Radub September 25, 2011 07:38 am
Oh no, you do not understand. IT IS ABOUT TRANSDNESTRA. You keep mentioning it. If it is not related, why mention it. Transdnestra is to Russia what Moldova is to Romania, so it is an essential component here. And the question still remains: is it worth it?

Look what happened the last time Romanian tanks rode across the Prut. And this Romanian Army is a pale shadow of that Romanian Army. And this Russian Army has far more powerful equipment than that Russian army.

Let me see if I got this right: are you saying that the Georgian incident only ended when the Russian troops withdrew while pushed away by Turkish tanks? Fascinating! blink.gif

Radu

Posted by: MMM September 25, 2011 01:57 pm
QUOTE (Florin @ September 24, 2011 11:35 pm)
Russia is the biggest producer of petroleum, and number two exporter. This is good leverage, considering that the other big source of oil is the Middle East.
Russia will have less influence when in about 10 years from now the new oil deposits from Atlantic, off shore of Brazil, Angola and Nigeria will start to be tapped. smile.gif

This doesn't change the sheer immensity of Russia and / or the fact that, as a re-emerged superpower (or something like that), they pursue a quite aggressive policy towards the smaller, weaker neighbours.

Posted by: Florin September 25, 2011 01:58 pm
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ September 22, 2011 01:54 pm)
Probably you read in the past this:
http://forum.moldweb.eu/topic/6119-razboi-simulat-pe-calculator-transnistria-zdrobeste-republica-moldova-in-cateva-ore/
Maybe this scenario was in mind of our president (or military leadership) when they ask US about this issue... Can't say for sure but our chances to help Moldova than or today (if something like that happen) are low...

Reminder: on June 26, 1940 the portion between Prut and Dniester/Nistru was occupied in just one night. I am assuming that technically the Red Army could push beyond Prut at the end of that night, but stopped for political reasons. It can be argued that it was Red Army, and not the military units of today's Transnistria. I think numbers are not so important here, because the Republic of Moldova is weak.

The only meaningful way to do some real help in such a situation will be some immediate air strikes while the aggressors are on the move in columns. A recent example this year was when the French planes hit Gaddafi's forces when they already entered in Benghazi. That was crucial help, at the right moment. If it would depend only on the Americans and the British, they were hesitating and the opportunity would be lost. With Gaddafi's loyalists "pacifying" Benghazi by dawn, next morning could become: "Rebel problem? What problem?"

In the unfortunate possibility of a Transnistrian attack, I am assuming that the Romanian leadership will also hesitate, will lose time exchanging messages with NATO, and the opportunity of doing the right thing at the right moment will be lost.
Air strikes do not involve ground troops, but of course the planes can be lost, and the pilots can be killed, or humiliated as prisoners in front of TV cameras.

Posted by: Imperialist September 25, 2011 04:32 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ September 25, 2011 07:38 am)
Oh no, you do not understand. IT IS ABOUT TRANSDNESTRA. You keep mentioning it. If it is not related, why mention it. Transdnestra is to Russia what Moldova is to Romania, so it is an essential component here. And the question still remains: is it worth it?

Look what happened the last time Romanian tanks rode across the Prut. And this Romanian Army is a pale shadow of that Romanian Army. And this Russian Army has far more powerful equipment than that Russian army.

Let me see if I got this right: are you saying that the Georgian incident only ended when the Russian troops withdrew while pushed away by Turkish tanks? Fascinating! blink.gif

Radu

Here we go with the tanks again. rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
Basescu recalled that during the 1991-92 conflict
in Moldova, Romania had sent extensive supplies and munitions
to the Moldovan side


Arms, ammunition, specialists, special forces, small units.... there are ways of offering military assistance short of bringing out the tanks, jets and large infantry units.

Posted by: ANDREAS September 25, 2011 05:49 pm
QUOTE
Look what happened the last time Romanian tanks rode across the Prut. And this Romanian Army is a pale shadow of that Romanian Army. And this Russian Army has far more powerful equipment than that Russian army.

Radu, I understand the ideea and agree with it but to be honest with ourselves (and the history too) we had never cross the Pruth alone (our army I mean) without the germans, back in 1941... And the ideea of such a involvement (ground forces) of Romanian military back in 2008 or today is hard to believe (maybe special forces, paratroopers and this kind of troops)....
Florin, agree with all what you say and let's not forget that even today (like in 2008) we have no aviation who could be capable of executing such missions... Let's agree that the MiG-21 Lancer couldn't been used for such missions....

Posted by: Florin September 26, 2011 12:53 am
An interesting chapter in the history of NATO was when Greece and Turkey were overheating over Cyprus, in 1974. If they wouldn't be members of NATO, they would eat each other alive. I like the name the Turks gave to the invasion of Cyprus: "Operation Atilla". laugh.gif
Additional information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus

Posted by: Radub September 26, 2011 07:54 am
QUOTE (Imperialist @ September 25, 2011 04:32 pm)

Here we go with the tanks again.

"Tanks" in this context are a metaphor. Romania does not actually have the tanks, or planes/ships/troops/weapons or anything else for that matter to have a go at Russia. NATO may not be willing to be drawn by proxy into a conflict with Russia - in fact they probably already told Basescu that! There are bigger battles to fight elsewhere.

You refuse to answer the obvious question, which was asked many times already: is it worth it?
A simple "cost vs benefit" analysis shows that Romania has everything to lose and nothing to gain from such an adventure. No need to ask the "nationalists", we already know the answer: "mananci calule ovaz?"

Radu

Posted by: Imperialist September 26, 2011 08:54 am
QUOTE (Radub @ September 26, 2011 07:54 am)
"Tanks" in this context are a metaphor. Romania does not actually have the tanks, or planes/ships/troops/weapons or anything else for that matter to have a go at Russia. NATO may not be willing to be drawn by proxy into a conflict with Russia - in fact they probably already told Basescu that! There are bigger battles to fight elsewhere.

You refuse to answer the obvious question, which was asked many times already: is it worth it?
A simple "cost vs benefit" analysis shows that Romania has everything to lose and nothing to gain from such an adventure. No need to ask the "nationalists", we already know the answer: "mananci calule ovaz?"

Radu

You're thinking inside the box.

And yes, it would be worth helping out Moldova if she is attacked by Transdniester/Russia. Like that cable shows, we did it in 1991-1992. We weren't even part of NATO then and Russia's influence in the region was far greater than it is now.

There would be bigger battles to fight elsewhere? Where, 3,000 km away in Tralalabad? laugh.gif

Posted by: Radub September 26, 2011 10:02 am
I have no idea where "the box" is (or if there is a "box" at all), so never mind thinking inside or outside it. blink.gif

Note how you continue to ignore the very simple question: is it worth it? Will it make a difference? qui prodest, quibus potest

I have no idea where Tralalabad is. Whatever/wherever that is, Romania went there as requested/advised/blackmailed by NATO. So, since NATO seems to decide Romania's military actions these days, the issue is no longer whether Romania wants to go to war with Russia over some stupid/pointless/hostile/economically worthless sliver of land, but rather whether NATO gives a hoot.

If your idea of "military support" is to email them some "cheats" and parachute some "chibitzi", then that is fine by me. It will be like a sticky-plaster on an amputation. We seem to have plenty of "opinion leaders" and "armchair generals" who think that the Russians will simply retreat flailing their arms in the air and screaming like little girls when faced with such might. laugh.gif



Radu

Posted by: Imperialist September 26, 2011 05:12 pm
Thinking inside the box is thinking along the lines of a WWII-style conventional involvement.

Note how I answered your question in the message above yours: And yes, it would be worth helping out Moldova if she is attacked by Transdniester/Russia.

They call it Af/Pak, I call it Tralalabad. The tralala-land where many towns end with the suffix "bad" and where NATO is chasing wild gooses.

Posted by: Radub September 26, 2011 05:34 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ September 26, 2011 05:12 pm)

Note how I answered your question in the message above yours: And yes, it would be worth helping out Moldova if she is attacked by Transdniester/Russia.


Actually you did not answer at all, you only reiterated what we already know, respectively that you favour a military intervention. Fine! Got it!
This would be like me asking you: "can you tell me what time it is?" and you answer "yes". Technically you answered with the truth but you still did not tell what time it is. biggrin.gif
The question is still: is a conflict with Russia worth it? Why?
Radu

Posted by: udar September 26, 2011 06:38 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ September 26, 2011 05:34 pm)

Actually you did not answer at all, you only reiterated what we already know, respectively that you favour a military intervention. Fine! Got it!
This would be like me asking you: "can you tell me what time it is?" and you answer "yes". Technically you answered with the truth but you still did not tell what time it is. biggrin.gif
The question is still: is a conflict with Russia worth it? Why?
Radu

First of all, because those peoples there are Romanians too. And second, but at least as important, is because if we close the eyes, they (Russians) will take that as a sign of weakness, and probably will try for more.

However, Russia has few hundred soldiers there, i think, and Transnistria military few thousands. I am prety sure Moldavian troops, reinforced with Romanian "volunteers" and more modern weapons can deal with such an (un-probable) invasion.
I dont think Russia have such thing in mind, and i dont think Ukraine will let Russian troops pass over her teritory either, that will be the end of Ukraine most probably

Posted by: contras September 26, 2011 08:03 pm
In 1992 battle, Moldovanians fought with policemen and volunteers, they donţt have any army either. Against them were XIVth Army (Red Army), 3000 troops at that time, with tanks and artilery. Were many volunteers on that side, like Cossaks or other ones. They lost many tanks (one distroyed at Cocieri), six at Tighina, and many others, with a force that had not heavy weapons or equipment. They haven't guns at all, the heaviest weapon on Moldova's side was ZSU-23, AA machine gun. And they inflicted many losses to their enemy.
Do you think today Russian army is more motivated? Look at Georgia, in 2008, Georgias entire army was about 21000 troops, and Russians bring there a few divisions (2 armored), without those troops of their allies, Abkhazians, Ossetians, Cossaks and many others. 5 days of conflict and Russia lost 4 fighters, against an army who has no aviation force.
Russia now has bigger voice, but not bigger military power, has no a dedicated and motivated army. Look at their losses in Cechenia, about 10000 in first Cechen war (1994-1996), and about 4500 in second one (1999-2000). Even today, Cechen revolt withspread in nothern Caucasus, in Daghestan and Ingushetia, and there are killed Russian soldiers and their allies day by day.

Posted by: Radub September 26, 2011 08:32 pm
QUOTE (udar @ September 26, 2011 06:38 pm)
And second, but at least as important, is because if we close the eyes, they (Russians) will take that as a sign of weakness, and probably will try for more.

Russia will try for more of what? You mean invade Romania? How about this NATO thing that was mentioned above? rolleyes.gif
Radu

Posted by: udar September 27, 2011 01:00 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ September 26, 2011 08:32 pm)
QUOTE (udar @ September 26, 2011 06:38 pm)
And second, but at least as important, is because if we close the eyes, they (Russians) will take that as a sign of weakness, and probably will try for more.

Russia will try for more of what? You mean invade Romania? How about this NATO thing that was mentioned above? rolleyes.gif
Radu

Not necessary to invade Romania, but to try to impose her political and economical views here, try to gain much more influence in our decision, including on military level, or social, cultural etc.

Anyway, i do think Russia have other things to do now, but we can't simple abandon Romanians in Basarabia, not even on imagologic level

Posted by: Radub September 27, 2011 01:53 pm
QUOTE (udar @ September 27, 2011 01:00 pm)

Not necessary to invade Romania, but to try to impose her political and economical views here, try to gain much more influence in our decision, including on military level, or social, cultural etc.

Whoa there!
Until now, NATO was "fundita roshie care ne apara de deochi". Suddenly NATO leave us "de carutza" and we are left like innocent babes at the whim of the evil beast Russia? biggrin.gif Looks like you already decided that Romania lost the "war", Russia just erased the bottom line of the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty and asked Romania to sign in the blank spot. rolleyes.gif

The truth is that if Romania went to war with Russia, the most likely outcome would be exactly what you described. And here comes that question again: "Is it worth it?"

Radu


Posted by: Imperialist September 27, 2011 04:27 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ September 27, 2011 01:53 pm)
The truth is that if Romania went to war with Russia, the most likely outcome would be exactly what you described. And here comes that question again: "Is it worth it?"

Romania has the advantage of being in NATO, having a common border with Moldova, extensive influence among Moldova's main ethnic component and a previously shown willingness to aid Moldova (as shown in 1991-1992). What would be the excuse for not doing anything?

Posted by: udar September 27, 2011 04:36 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ September 27, 2011 01:53 pm)
Whoa there!
Until now, NATO was "fundita roshie care ne apara de deochi". Suddenly NATO leave us "de carutza" and we are left like innocent babes at the whim of the evil beast Russia?  biggrin.gif  Looks like you already decided that Romania lost the "war", Russia just erased the bottom line of the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty and asked Romania to sign in the blank spot.  rolleyes.gif

The truth is that if Romania went to war with Russia, the most likely outcome would be exactly what you described. And here comes that question again: "Is it worth it?"

Radu

Whoa there, to use your expresion

First, dont put in my mouth words or ideas that i didnt expres, and dont twist my sayings. The only NATO stuff who count for now, is US and her nuclear weapons. Since we was dumb enough to not make our own.

I said Russia in that quite not probable event that want to invade Moldova (and somehow by pass Ukraine or go thru Ukraine) will be able to exert enough pressure on us, politcaly, socialy, economicaly, culturaly etc.
Not to invade us, but start having a bigger influence in this domains, if we'll be too weak and passive.
And ofcourse if we'll simple abandon our fellow Romanians there.

Anyway, this supposed conflict, if will ever become hot again, will be fight by proxies, Moldavians with Romanian help and Transistrians with Russian help

So yes, is definately worth, is about take a stand for our fellow peoples there, and our former teritory conquered by Russia, and to preserve our position and development in the direction we want (sure, is not like that, we are already ruled somehow from other higher levels, but still have some degree of autonomy).

And ofcourse, this is about Transnistria and Russia trying to attack Moldova, not us attacking Russia or something

Posted by: Radub September 27, 2011 05:16 pm
Udar, calm down... Smileys mean that It was a "funny".

Imperialist, you say that Romania helped Moldova during the conflict with Transdnestra... Look how well that worked out. biggrin.gif

I think that the thread is being pushed askew here. The topic was about a "conflict with Russia". The leaked cable quotes Basescu talking about a "conflict with Russia". Moldova, however emotional the subject, is not the main conflict but rather the "opening salvo" of such a conflict. This is like talking incessantly about Poland when discussing WW2. We can get sidettacked into nationalist bravura and Moldova, but that ignores the nub of the issue here: "conflict with Rusia".

So, what do you think Romania can do in the case of a conflict with Russia? And what if they lose the conflict with Russia? Whatever form that "loss" takes...Is that worth it?

Radu

Posted by: ANDREAS September 27, 2011 07:47 pm
QUOTE
Imperialist, you say that Romania helped Moldova during the conflict with Transdnestra... Look how well that worked out. biggrin.gif

I read a lot about this conflict, had he chance to talk to Ilie Ilascu himself and one other less known fighter in this conflict, read newspapers and wach TV shows about this conflict... and the answer is -we didn't help them enough because we couldn't technically help them more, the war was lost because they were betrayed by their own men (high command from Chisinau) and their "army" was not prepared to face the professional 14th Army (I mean here not without weapons because actually Moldova had f.i. heavy artillery pieces and MRLS). Please don't laugh about this last statement thinking about the untrained kossaks and transnistrian militiamen that you saw on TV, they were only the troops send for dying, behind them were the professional soldiers and officers of the 14th Army who drive the tanks and personnel carriers, firing the guns, howitzer and mortars and lead the operational plans made by the rebels.


QUOTE
So, what do you think Romania can do in the case of a conflict with Russia? And what if they lose the conflict with Russia? Whatever form that "loss" takes...Is that worth it?

Actually prevent it. I think that an eventual conflict prepared by Russia need at least a free corridor through Ukraine or a military build-up in Transnistria himself (don't be fooled by the stores of ammunition from de 14th Army depots stored to Colbasna, that ammo is mostly old and outdated!). The Russian troops stationed in Transnistria are now too weak to really take part into a offensive action and the Transn. Army alone won't dare to attack (my personal belief!)...

Posted by: Radub September 27, 2011 07:52 pm
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ September 27, 2011 07:47 pm)

Actually prevent it.

Bingo! wink.gif

Posted by: MMM September 28, 2011 02:49 pm
I have a question (hope it will prove rhetorical in the long term): will Russia risk a conflict over Trans-Dnestra? dry.gif
PS: let's make a poll, as the self-entitled analysts we are (care suntem noi)... maybe we'll get invited at Antena 6... laugh.gif

Posted by: contras October 04, 2011 05:01 pm
All Wiki cables are about reports of US ambassadors to Washington. There are no any about what Washington responds. In this case, we know what the US ambassador in Romania reports to Washington, but the point is what Washington responded to US ambassador about Basescus question about this kind of conflict.

Posted by: MMM October 04, 2011 05:54 pm
Perhaps he didn't respond anything... huh.gif

Posted by: Radub October 04, 2011 06:15 pm
Basescu did not actually ask any questions. He just "expresed concern". wink.gif
Radu

Posted by: MMM October 05, 2011 10:12 am
Well, I meant "perhaps the American decidents thought irrelevant the Romanian concerns, thus not worthy of an answer".
Isn't that closer to the truth? ph34r.gif

Posted by: Radub October 05, 2011 01:17 pm
Which once more brings back the questions I already asked many times before. Why should ANYONE care about Transdnestra? Is THAT worth a conflict?
Radu

Posted by: MMM October 05, 2011 01:46 pm
Well, I don't care much about it and I wouldn't risk a conflict over a region which was "added" to Bessarabia for unknown reasons by Stalin (actually, my guess is that it was either seen as a compensation for giving away the Southern Bessarabia to Ukraine, or as a means to augment the non-Romanian population, a source of potential conflicts; both worked just fine).
But then, again, I am just a forumist, holding just one vote... wink.gif

Posted by: ionionescu October 05, 2011 02:05 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ October 05, 2011 02:17 pm)
Why should ANYONE care about Transdnestra? Is THAT worth a conflict?
Radu

Personally I am concerned about Transnistria, I have no doubt in my mind: I would volunteer in a hart beat in case of a conflict.
http://www.ziuaveche.ro/international/basarabia/strigat-de-ajutor-romanii-din-transnistria-si-limba-materna-43716.html

Listen to D-na Raisa Pădureanu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9A3XpT9BBg&feature=related , director adjunct al Liceului "Lucian Blaga" din Tiraspol.
Song text:
”Mereu sunt vinovat că's moldovean
Dar și mai vinovat că sunt român creștin
Și mă'n rudesc cu'n Împărat Traian
Și vreau cu frații mei la Domnul să mă'nchin

Și moșii noștrii și strămoșii
Din timpuri toți au suferit
Au fost bătuți (pierdut războaie) trimiși în țară (deportați)
Dar Neamul nu l-au părăsit”




Posted by: ANDREAS October 05, 2011 06:24 pm
[/QUOTE]Personally I am concerned about Transnistria, I have no doubt in my mind: I would volunteer in a hart beat in case of a conflict.[QUOTE]
Hallo ionionescu,
If you really would do what you say here, then you are a notable exception to the rule of Romanian uninvolvement (or apathy if you like)... and you have my sincere respect... I don't want to be understood as encouraging such bellicose initiatives but I am sure as I breath that without such patriotic feelings and actions we would not have existed today as a nation... For those skeptical of such claims I only tell them to watch carefully the smaller neighboring nations : the bulgarians or the hungarians ... what would they do if their fellow people would be subject to persecution as ours in Transnistria... Would they be afraid of a war and do nothing? I don't think so! They are a nation (bulgarian and hungarian) and they will act as one...

Posted by: Radub October 05, 2011 06:28 pm
The question is not whether there are enough peopople to get into a fight. I am sure there are plenty. The question is and always was "why?".
Nationalism and songs are just excuses. A war must make political/economic/military sense and Transdenstra simply has nothing going for it. It is the poorest corner of Europe, with no economic advantages and a hostile population. Why would Romania want that?
Raduy

Posted by: Imperialist October 05, 2011 06:43 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ October 05, 2011 06:28 pm)
The question is not whether there are enough peopople to get into a fight. I am sure there are plenty. The question is and always was "why?".
Nationalism and songs are just excuses. A war must make political/economic/military sense and Transdenstra simply has nothing going for it. It is the poorest corner of Europe, with no economic advantages and a hostile population. Why would Romania want that?
Raduy

Why do you talk about war? We were talking about offering military aid to one side involved in a conflict. That doesn't mean war. Not necessarily.

And you keep asking the wrong question, over and over again. Yes, Transnistria per se is not worth it, but the issue was whether Romania would/should help Moldova if she is attacked by Transnistrian and/or Russian forces. If you oppose such help for Moldova then say it plainly.

Why should anyone in Romania care about Afghanistan? It makes no sense being there. And yet we're there. So if we thought it's worth being there, how could we stand idle if Moldova needs assistance?

Posted by: Radub October 05, 2011 07:44 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 05, 2011 06:43 pm)

Why do you talk about war? We were talking about offering military aid to one side involved in a conflict. That doesn't mean war. Not necessarily.

Imperialist, you are the only one who keeps talking about conflict and providing Moldova with weapons and specialists. But everyone else is talking about war. I on the other hand, I keep asking "is it worth it?", so actually that implies that I do not particularly want a "war with Russia" - I am merely trying to figure out why others want war by asking why. Surely, you can make a distinction between a question and a statement...

I told you before (on September 26) that I have no problem with the kind of "support" you are proposing. So, you have a supporter in me. Why do you keep challenging me? I am just addressing those people who want bloody war. How about you address those people who demand war too?

But even if "is a conflict with Russia over Moldova/Transdnestra worth it?" is the wrong question as you say, why don't you answer anyway? blink.gif
Please do not be shy with the details and explain what has Romania got to win in such a conflict? And what are the chances, in your expert opinion, that Romania will emerge the victor in the case of a conflict with Russia?

Radu


Posted by: ANDREAS October 05, 2011 08:29 pm
QUOTE
Imperialist, you are the only one who keeps talking about conflict and providing Moldova with weapons and specialists. But everyone else is talking about war. I on the other hand, I keep asking "is it worth it?", so actually that implies that I do not particularly want a "war with Russia" - I am merely trying to figure out why others want war by asking why. Surely, you can make a distinction between a question and a statement...

Radu, after reading all posts, I found none that could be interpreted as somebody desire to have a war with Russia. Which message you understood being in this direction? I think that anyone who would like something like this would be sure crazy. On the other hand in case of an transnistrian&russian attack like the one I quoted above (mentioned by a forum of R. Moldova) I don't think we (as a country) could have a different variant than that of an involvement (at least at the level of 1992 transnistrian war) in case of a moldovan request. We like it or not it is our duty!

Posted by: Radub October 05, 2011 09:31 pm
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ October 05, 2011 08:29 pm)

Radu, after reading all posts, I found none that could be interpreted as somebody desire to have a war with Russia. Which message you understood being in this direction? I think that anyone who would like something like this would be sure crazy. On the other hand in case of an transnistrian&russian attack like the one I quoted above (mentioned by a forum of R. Moldova) I don't think we (as a country) could have a different variant than that of an involvement (at least at the level of 1992 transnistrian war) in case of a moldovan request. We like it or not it is our duty!

And I already said that if you want to send some support for Moldova, it is OK with me.
BUT, the wikileaks mention that Basescu is concerned about a "conflict with Russia", which is a totally different thing. I am glad you agree that "conflict with Russia" is crazy.
Radu

Posted by: ANDREAS October 05, 2011 09:53 pm
Ok Radu I understand your point of view! I thought you mean one of those who have posted on this topic as "partisans" of a war with Russia (which I don't believe exist, at least so I understood so far!). I misunderstood you, I was convinced from your posts that you oppose to any Romanian involvement in case of a transnistrian&russian attack.

Posted by: Imperialist October 06, 2011 07:13 am
QUOTE (Radub @ October 05, 2011 07:44 pm)
QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 05, 2011 06:43 pm)

Why do you talk about war? We were talking about offering military aid to one side involved in a conflict. That doesn't mean war. Not necessarily. 

Imperialist, you are the only one who keeps talking about conflict and providing Moldova with weapons and specialists. But everyone else is talking about war. I on the other hand, I keep asking "is it worth it?", so actually that implies that I do not particularly want a "war with Russia" - I am merely trying to figure out why others want war by asking why. Surely, you can make a distinction between a question and a statement...

I told you before (on September 26) that I have no problem with the kind of "support" you are proposing. So, you have a supporter in me. Why do you keep challenging me? I am just addressing those people who want bloody war. How about you address those people who demand war too?

But even if "is a conflict with Russia over Moldova/Transdnestra worth it?" is the wrong question as you say, why don't you answer anyway? blink.gif
Please do not be shy with the details and explain what has Romania got to win in such a conflict? And what are the chances, in your expert opinion, that Romania will emerge the victor in the case of a conflict with Russia?

Radu

Sorry but on September 26 you said you agree with sending Moldova "cheats by email" and to parachute "chibitzi". I didn't take that seriously as endorsement of the idea to give them aid, on the contrary.

I don't know who else was talking about war, but I know you were talking about it (too). Remember the planes, tanks, the bombing of Bucharest?

Posted by: Radub October 06, 2011 08:09 am
Imperialist, yes, I asked questions about war, tanks and planes. Yes, I asked questions about sending troops. Yes I asked questions about a conflict with Russia. Yes I asked whether such a thing is worth it. These are questions. Not statements. See the difference? Questions are asked when one is unsure and wants answers. I need some answers. If you cannot give these answers just say so, do not attack me for asking them.

In the Wikileaks document, Basescu is talking about "conflict with Russia". He seems to think that Russia may use Transdnestra to stage an attack on Moldova. In his opinion that would be the equivalent of a "Gulf of Tonkin incident" which will the draw Romania in to help Moldova and then lead to a "conflict with Russia". THAT is his "concern".
From that I understand that he is not worried about Moldova. He is worried about Russia. Furthermore, even the title of this thread is "conflict with Russia". I have no doubt that many Romanians want to help Moldova by any means, and let me make it clear to everyone that I have no problem with "help for Moldova". BUT, that is not the subject of this thread and was never the subject of the leaks. The issue is "conflict with Russia". And now, Imperialist, I ask you directly: is conflict with Russia worth it? Stop obfuscating and lecturing me. Give a straight answer for once! I am tired of your prevarication. How many times did I ask you these questions? What does "conflict with Rusia" mean to you and what can Romania do to its advantage in the case of a "conflict with Russia?".

Radu

PS Just in case you did not understand it yet, I think that "conflict with Russia" is crazy.

Posted by: Imperialist October 06, 2011 04:40 pm
I answered your question several times, last time on September 26:

And yes, it would be worth helping out Moldova if she is attacked by Transdniester/Russia.


Posted by: Radub October 06, 2011 05:41 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 06, 2011 04:40 pm)
I answered your question several times, last time on September 26:

And yes, it would be worth helping out Moldova if she is attacked by Transdniester/Russia.

And I keep telling you that "Moldova/Transdnestra" is nothing but a "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man".

I am asking you whether "conflict with Russia" is worth it. If you want to discuss "helping Moldova" please open a separate thread. This thread is about "conflict with Russia".

You either did not read the Wikileaks telegram or you are doing your usual "abureala" stuff. In the Wikileaks telegram, Basescu is concerned about what Russia will do AFTER Romania helps Moldova. So, let us make it understood that we agree that Romania wants to help Moldova. FINE! OK! HARASHO! But what if Russia is not pleased with Romania's help/interference and a "conflict with Russia" ensues? What then? Is that worth it?

Radu


Posted by: ANDREAS October 06, 2011 06:58 pm
To discuss this topic more clear because an answer to the question if for the sake of Moldova (Bassarabia) deserve to go to war with Russia, I think of a scenario of an alleged war. If Russia wanted to draw us into a conflict one scenario could be the one used in Chisinau protests (started on 6 April 2009 as a series of demonstrations contesting parliamentary elections held in Moldova on 5 April). If you remember the accusations of the former communist president Vladimir Voronin that Romania would be behind the violent protests in Chisinau, than you can have a picture of how easy would Russia find a pretext for a war. The question is if Russia wanted to draw us (Romania) into a war or not. I believe the answer is no! But this scenario or other may raise another question than whether or not worth a war with Russia : How could we resist the temptation to help Moldova in case of a russian/transnistrian aggression if NATO would ask us to abstain?

Posted by: Radub October 07, 2011 08:05 am
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ October 06, 2011 06:58 pm)
The question is if Russia wanted to draw us (Romania) into a war or not. I believe the answer is no! But this scenario or other may raise another question than whether or not worth a war with Russia : How could we resist the temptation to help Moldova in case of a russian/transnistrian aggression if NATO would ask us to abstain?

I cannot see a single reason why Russia would want to single out Romania for an attack. There are other much wealthier and resource-rich places to their East, Weat, North, and South. So, the idea that Russia would cunningly stage a fake Transdnestran attack on Moldova with the single intention to draw Romania in is preposterous. Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

As for how would Romania resist the temptation to help Moldova? I thought that Imperialist already ran that scenario: Romania will send help in the form of "soft" support (logistics and intelligence, no troops, no Romanian-operated heavy hardware) and Moldova will emerge victorious. So, there is nothing to worry about. BUT, if we already fear that Transdnestra may do such a thing with Russian help in order to draw Romania into a ruinous conflict with Russia, knowing that this may be a ruse, maybe Romania should do nothing other than use all diplomatic instruments at its disposal first, such as using the Security Council of the United Nations, economic sanctions, etc. Even if it is not violent, it is still "help for Moldova".

Radu


Posted by: Imperialist October 07, 2011 08:31 am
QUOTE (Radub @ October 06, 2011 05:41 pm)
QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 06, 2011 04:40 pm)
I answered your question several times, last time on September 26:

And yes, it would be worth helping out Moldova if she is attacked by Transdniester/Russia.

And I keep telling you that "Moldova/Transdnestra" is nothing but a "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man".

I am asking you whether "conflict with Russia" is worth it. If you want to discuss "helping Moldova" please open a separate thread. This thread is about "conflict with Russia".

You either did not read the Wikileaks telegram or you are doing your usual "abureala" stuff. In the Wikileaks telegram, Basescu is concerned about what Russia will do AFTER Romania helps Moldova. So, let us make it understood that we agree that Romania wants to help Moldova. FINE! OK! HARASHO! But what if Russia is not pleased with Romania's help/interference and a "conflict with Russia" ensues? What then? Is that worth it?

Radu

Come on man, why are we so lost in translation? When I say it would be worth helping Moldova if she is attacked by Transdniester and/or Russia, who would Romania help it against? Obviously Transdniester and/or Russia. So obviously the answer to your question is yes.

The difference is that I think we would do it for Moldova's sake, not because we care about Transdniester. My view is that Moldova should give up Transdniester altogether because Russia could use it to derail Moldova from its path towards the EU and NATO. But if Russia does that "ruse" then we should help Moldova, especially if the Transdniestrian separatists are as well armed and trained (compared to Moldovan forces) as rumored to be, no question about it.

Posted by: Radub October 07, 2011 08:42 am
QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 07, 2011 08:31 am)
QUOTE (Radub @ October 06, 2011 05:41 pm)
QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 06, 2011 04:40 pm)
I answered your question several times, last time on September 26:

And yes, it would be worth helping out Moldova if she is attacked by Transdniester/Russia.

And I keep telling you that "Moldova/Transdnestra" is nothing but a "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man".

I am asking you whether "conflict with Russia" is worth it. If you want to discuss "helping Moldova" please open a separate thread. This thread is about "conflict with Russia".

You either did not read the Wikileaks telegram or you are doing your usual "abureala" stuff. In the Wikileaks telegram, Basescu is concerned about what Russia will do AFTER Romania helps Moldova. So, let us make it understood that we agree that Romania wants to help Moldova. FINE! OK! HARASHO! But what if Russia is not pleased with Romania's help/interference and a "conflict with Russia" ensues? What then? Is that worth it?

Radu

Come on man, why are we so lost in translation? When I say it would be worth helping Moldova if she is attacked by Transdniester and/or Russia, who would Romania help it against? Obviously Transdniester and/or Russia. So obviously the answer to your question is yes.

The difference is that I think we would do it for Moldova's sake, not because we care about Transdniester. My view is that Moldova should give up Transdniester altogether because Russia could use it to derail Moldova from its path towards the EU and NATO. But if Russia does that "ruse" then we should help Moldova, especially if the Transdniestrian separatists are as well armed and trained (compared to Moldovan forces) as rumored to be, no question about it.

OK, so, you think that a "conflict with Russia because of Moldova" is worthwhile. I can tell you that I figured that out a long time ago. As I said, I got it. That is the "straw man". It may work for the unitiated. But I had many such "discussions" with you and I am aware when you are using "straw men", "red herrings", "blind alleys", and so on. Note that you still did not answer the question!
Let me spell it out for you: What if Transdnstra/Russia takes its conflict with Romania beyond Moldova? What if Transdnestra/Russia defeats Moldova and its Romanian "support"? What if Transdnestra/ Russia enters Romania? What if Russia does what they did in Georgia and start shelling Romanian positions within Romania? Is that worth it? Simple question.

Please do not tell me that Romania is protected by NATO. NATO is the Gruffalo. And the mouse can use the Gruffalo only for a while. wink.gif

Radu

Posted by: udar October 07, 2011 09:05 am
QUOTE (Radub @ October 07, 2011 08:42 am)
QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 07, 2011 08:31 am)
QUOTE (Radub @ October 06, 2011 05:41 pm)
QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 06, 2011 04:40 pm)
I answered your question several times, last time on September 26:

And yes, it would be worth helping out Moldova if she is attacked by Transdniester/Russia.

And I keep telling you that "Moldova/Transdnestra" is nothing but a "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man".

I am asking you whether "conflict with Russia" is worth it. If you want to discuss "helping Moldova" please open a separate thread. This thread is about "conflict with Russia".

You either did not read the Wikileaks telegram or you are doing your usual "abureala" stuff. In the Wikileaks telegram, Basescu is concerned about what Russia will do AFTER Romania helps Moldova. So, let us make it understood that we agree that Romania wants to help Moldova. FINE! OK! HARASHO! But what if Russia is not pleased with Romania's help/interference and a "conflict with Russia" ensues? What then? Is that worth it?

Radu

Come on man, why are we so lost in translation? When I say it would be worth helping Moldova if she is attacked by Transdniester and/or Russia, who would Romania help it against? Obviously Transdniester and/or Russia. So obviously the answer to your question is yes.

The difference is that I think we would do it for Moldova's sake, not because we care about Transdniester. My view is that Moldova should give up Transdniester altogether because Russia could use it to derail Moldova from its path towards the EU and NATO. But if Russia does that "ruse" then we should help Moldova, especially if the Transdniestrian separatists are as well armed and trained (compared to Moldovan forces) as rumored to be, no question about it.

OK, so, you think that a "conflict with Russia because of Moldova" is worthwhile. I can tell you that I figured that out a long time ago. As I said, I got it. That is the "straw man". It may work for the unitiated. But I had many such "discussions" with you and I am aware when you are using "straw men", "red herrings", "blind alleys", and so on. Note that you still did not answer the question!
Let me spell it out for you: What if Transdnstra/Russia takes its conflict with Romania beyond Moldova? What if Transdnestra/Russia defeats Moldova and its Romanian "support"? What if Transdnestra/ Russia enters Romania? What if Russia does what they did in Georgia and start shelling Romanian positions within Romania? Is that worth it? Simple question.

Please do not tell me that Romania is protected by NATO. NATO is the Gruffalo. And the mouse can use the Gruffalo only for a while. wink.gif

Radu

Well, Romania is protected by NATO, ofcourse. If NATO fail to help its own members it means is doomed, and the entire world geopolitics will plunge in chaos. Next step will be for Russia to ocupy Poland and Baltic states, Iran and Syria will act much more agresive toward Israel (like bombing the shit out of it), North Koreea will invade South Koreea, and so on. Even EU will fall, and western Europe will enter in another phase, of a lot more uncertain future.
Not to mention (if we lost again Moldova and we are even attacked on our soil without NATO help) a possible arise to power of a more nationalist leader here who will build some nuclear weapons for protection of the country. This example will be soon followed by others as well, since they can't rely on other protection means against bigger or more equiped conventional armies. And not even Russia want this, with its falling population and having China in the back, closing more and more the gap on military level and looking for Siberia

Its all about how NATO present itself and manage to keep a balance in the world and in Europe.

And yes, its obviously normal and worth to help Moldova (everybody answer you to this, dont get why you keep asking?), but no, i dont think Russia will invade Moldova, nor attack us in full force if we help the Moldovians.

*** edited by admin - see forum guidelines ***

Posted by: Imperialist October 07, 2011 09:47 am
QUOTE (Radub @ October 07, 2011 08:42 am)
OK, so, you think that a "conflict with Russia because of Moldova" is worthwhile. I can tell you that I figured that out a long time ago. As I said, I got it. That is the "straw man". It may work for the unitiated. But I had many such "discussions" with you and I am aware when you are using "straw men", "red herrings", "blind alleys", and so on. Note that you still did not answer the question!
Let me spell it out for you: What if Transdnstra/Russia takes its conflict with Romania beyond Moldova? What if Transdnestra/Russia defeats Moldova and its Romanian "support"? What if Transdnestra/ Russia enters Romania? What if Russia does what they did in Georgia and start shelling Romanian positions within Romania? Is that worth it? Simple question.

Please do not tell me that Romania is protected by NATO. NATO is the Gruffalo. And the mouse can use the Gruffalo only for a while. wink.gif

Radu

I answered your question so I don't understand why you wave it off, calling it a red herring while asking me more questions. It's kind of impolite.

Like Udar said, your questions are far fetched. But to answer them, yes, it would be worth it. It's like your little brother is bullied in the street and asks for your help. Do you go to help him even if you know you'll risk a blackened eye, or do you ask yourself if it's worth it "contabiliceste"? We're in NATO now, why behave like in 1940 when we were all alone?

Posted by: Radub October 07, 2011 09:57 am
QUOTE (udar @ October 07, 2011 09:05 am)

And yes, its obviously normal and worth to help Moldova (everybody answer you to this, dont get why you keep asking?),

Udar,
I never questioned "help for Moldova".
I already pointed out that "help for Moldova" was a "straw man" thrown into discussion by Imperialist. He does that... There is no discussion on this forum without a "straw man" from Imperialist. It is his little game - sometimes it makes for interesting discussion. What is a "Straw man"? Look it up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The issue of help for Moldova was never in discussion. In the Wikileaks telegram, "help for Moldova" was not the "outcome of a conflict with Russia" but rather the "cause of the conflict with Russia". In the Wikileaks telegram, everyone took it as understood that Romania will give help to Moldova. In fact, "conflict with Russia" was seen as inevitable because Romania was duty-bound to help Moldova.

This discussion should be about "conflict with Russia" as the title implies. Let us not get bogged into the sideshow of "help for Moldova". So, get over that, we already agreed that Romania is willing to help Moldova. Try to get past it for a second. Imagine this is a game of chess: "help for Moldova" is the first couple of moves (just push the pawn a couple of squares, maybe move a bishop). Stop talking about the first moves and start thinking about how you can move your knights, bishops, king and queen in such a way as to get a check, checkmate or a stalemate. No point in obsessive chats about the first moves. Strategy is about choosing your battles wisely. wink.gif

What will happen AFTER "help for Moldova"? What if "help for Moldova" fails?What if "help for Moldova" leads to a conflict between Romanian and Russia? What will happen then? It is obvious by this stage that no one wants to discuss the "elephant in the room".

I doubt that NATO will protect Romania in such a case. As I said, NATO is nothing more than a Gruffalo! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruffalo
And Russia knows that!

Radu

Posted by: Radub October 07, 2011 10:18 am
QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 07, 2011 09:47 am)

I answered your question so I don't understand why you wave it off, calling it a red herring while asking me more questions. It's kind of impolite.

No, you did not answer. You just said that you agree with "help for Moldova".
I do not wave it off. I accept that. Furthermore, let it be on record that I acknowledge your "support for Moldova". So, let this be the end of the discussion about "help for Moldova".

But my question was not whether we should help Moldova or not. My question was whether what will happen AFTER THAT is worth it.
So, please explain what do you think will happen AFTER Romania gives its support to Moldova.
Do you think that Romania can provide Moldova with such mighty arsenal and advice as to defeat Russia? What if they lose? What then?
Do you think that Russia will simply take that lying down? What of they don't like that and lob a couple of rockets into downtown Bucharest? They did it in Tbilisi. They can blame "rogue elements in the Army" or "miscommunication" or simply say "Rockets? What rockets? That was a gas explosion!"
What if NATO says "this is so stupid! I am out of here!". Your example about "helping your bullied brother is kind of silly. What if your brother is bullied by a giant with no morals and you are just a little less puny than your brother? What good? That giant will just squish you like a bug. Yes, you may claim that you did your brotherly duty, but you will still be squished like a bug. A proud squished bug. No point in going to your neighbour Nea Natu who is a war veteran and ask him to give a good trashing to that nasty giant. Most likely Nea Natu will tell you that you kids should stop picking fights with giants with no morals, tap you on your head and hope you learned your lesson.

So, let us talk about "conflict with Russia".

Radu

Posted by: udar October 07, 2011 10:19 am
QUOTE (Radub @ October 07, 2011 09:57 am)
QUOTE (udar @ October 07, 2011 09:05 am)

And yes, its obviously normal and worth to help Moldova (everybody answer you to this, dont get why you keep asking?),

Udar,
I never questioned "help for Moldova".
I already pointed out that "help for Moldova" was a "straw man" thrown into discussion by Imperialist. He does that... There is no discussion on this forum without a "straw man" from Imperialist. It is his little game - sometimes it makes for interesting discussion. What is a "Straw man"? Look it up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The issue of help for Moldova was never in discussion. In the Wikileaks telegram, "help for Moldova" was not the "outcome of a conflict with Russia" but rather the "cause of the conflict with Russia". In the Wikileaks telegram, everyone took it as understood that Romania will give help to Moldova. In fact, "conflict with Russia" was seen as inevitable because Romania was duty-bound to help Moldova.

This discussion should be about "conflict with Russia" as the title implies. Let us not get bogged into the sideshow of "help for Moldova". So, get over that, we already agreed that Romania is willing to help Moldova. Try to get past it for a second. Imagine this is a game of chess: "help for Moldova" is the first couple of moves (just push the pawn a couple of squares, maybe move a bishop). Stop talking about the first moves and start thinking about how you can move your knights, bishops, king and queen in such a way as to get a check, checkmate or a stalemate. No point in obsessive chats about the first moves. Strategy is about choosing your battles wisely. wink.gif

What will happen AFTER "help for Moldova"? What if "help for Moldova" fails?What if "help for Moldova" leads to a conflict between Romanian and Russia? What will happen then? It is obvious by this stage that no one wants to discuss the "elephant in the room".

I doubt that NATO will protect Romania in such a case. As I said, NATO is nothing more than a Gruffalo! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruffalo
And Russia knows that!

Radu

Well, i find your comparations not quite close to reality, and i pointed out why, in my previous post. If NATO will not help Romania in such conflict this will start the end of NATO and of world geopolitical establishment as it is today. And both Russia and NATO know that, and even if at first sight Russia might like such situation, things can turn against her in the near future. USA, actualy the only one or by far the most important one (for sure there will be others on her side) who count in NATO in such scenario, will definately not agree and step in.
Thats why is good to take with a grain of salt what Basescu said, and what the old ambasador understand from that.

Let's build a scenario, Moldova come close to reunite with Romania, or enter in EU. Transnistria (as russian puppet) attack Moldova to prevent this. We send "volunteers" and armament to Moldova, and some transnistrians are drived back over the Nistru, followed by moldavian troops, other transnistrian "pockets" still exist near Chisinau etc., but the outcome start to balance and become favourable to Moldavian troops and Romanian "volunteers", in greater numbers and armed at same levels as transnistrian troops and those few russian troops there.

What will happen next, what Russia will do?

P.S.- i really dont think that in reality Russia will make such move anyway, as using Transnistria to military atack Moldova

Posted by: Radub October 07, 2011 10:59 am
The whole scenario is far-fetched and daft anyway.
I also doubt that Russia may have any kind of interest in such a misadventure.
But I find it extremely funny that some people here think that in the unlikely event of a "conflict with Russia", Romania can do whatever they want because of NATO and Russia will simply throw their arms in the air and take it. laugh.gif
Radu

Posted by: Imperialist October 07, 2011 03:17 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ October 07, 2011 10:18 am)
But my question was not whether we should help Moldova or not. My question was whether what will happen AFTER THAT is worth it.
So, please explain what do you think will happen AFTER Romania gives its support to Moldova.
Do you think that Romania can provide Moldova with such mighty arsenal and advice as to defeat Russia? What if they lose? What then?
Do you think that Russia will simply take that lying down? What of they don't like that and lob a couple of rockets into downtown Bucharest? They did it in Tbilisi. They can blame "rogue elements in the Army" or "miscommunication" or simply say "Rockets? What rockets? That was a gas explosion!"
What if NATO says "this is so stupid! I am out of here!". Your example about "helping your bullied brother is kind of silly. What if your brother is bullied by a giant with no morals and you are just a little less puny than your brother? What good? That giant will just squish you like a bug. Yes, you may claim that you did your brotherly duty, but you will still be squished like a bug. A proud squished bug. No point in going to your neighbour Nea Natu who is a war veteran and ask him to give a good trashing to that nasty giant. Most likely Nea Natu will tell you that you kids should stop picking fights with giants with no morals, tap you on your head and hope you learned your lesson.

So, let us talk about "conflict with Russia".

Radu

And for the 100th time, the answer is YES. Since I believe that helping Moldova is worth it, it implicitly means that I think whatever that action entails is worth the risk. Why is this so hard to understand. Can you get over this question already?

You talk about the "defeat of Russia" as being our daunting goal. How come you picked such a lofty goal? What would be Russia's involvement and goal in your opinion? You seem to think Russia will throw everything at it, you even fear Russia attacking us. What gave you these ideas?

We don't have to go ask NATO for anything. Just being members of NATO would deter Russia from launching anything into Bucharest. Which would make the conflict strictly a Romania-Russian proxy conflict in Moldova, us helping the Moldovans and the Russians helping the Transdniestrians.





Posted by: ANDREAS October 07, 2011 09:07 pm
QUOTE
The whole scenario is far-fetched and daft anyway.
I also doubt that Russia may have any kind of interest in such a misadventure.
But I find it extremely funny that some people here think that in the unlikely event of a "conflict with Russia", Romania can do whatever they want because of NATO and Russia will simply throw their arms in the air and take it. laugh.gif

The scenario presented by Udar seems quite plausible to me, in not a case incredible. The whole point of existence of Transnistria is exactly keeping Moldova in Russia's sphere of influence. So a scenario like this is extremely plausible to me. What I don't believe is exactly the surprise effect, I mean the execution of such a scenario depend entirely on Russia's capacity of rapid displacement in Transnistria of strong mechanized (could be airborne) units backed by strong artillery who could be transported by air in Transnistria in short time. Surely a plan like this exists but can it be put into practice in short time or not? That plan implementation also depends heavily on Kiev approval, and this could be (or not) a problem. If we look back (in history) the most successfull soviet actions (Czechoslovakia 1968, Afganistan 1979) implied successfull airborne assault actions, so we can imagine that this risk is high even today. Russia still have several operative airborne & air assault divisions (brigade sized) who can do such a job.

Posted by: MMM October 08, 2011 09:16 am
Airborne or not, there still isn't a terrestrial fronteer between Russia and Trans-Dnestra; IIRC, the relations between Smirnov and Kiev are quite cold, so I doubt Ukraine will be very eager to allow transit of the Red Army tongue.gif to the conflict area.
We're talking "high stories" in here, at least for now. Let's wait until Smirnov's demise - whatever and however it'll hapen, but my guess is that's going to be sooner than he thinks! tongue.gif

Posted by: Hadrian October 09, 2011 11:34 pm
Well, destroing the Transnistria-s airport landing strips with LAROM`s and giving several tens of MANPADS to moldavians can prevent any airborne reinforcements. And of course you tell to Ukraina that reinforcements will be atacked before they reach the front line ph34r.gif

Posted by: MMM October 10, 2011 07:09 am
The problem is that Russia might (I'm joining your rather sick scenario, for the sake of the game...) shout "wolf" (aka Fascist Rumanian intervention) without us even involving in the conflict. If we really do that, we might expect what was earlier called "a gas explosion" in Bucharest, don't you think?

Posted by: Radub October 10, 2011 07:57 am
QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 07, 2011 03:17 pm)
QUOTE (Radub @ October 07, 2011 10:18 am)
 

So, let us talk about "conflict with Russia".

Radu

And for the 100th time, the answer is YES. Since I believe that helping Moldova is worth it, it implicitly means that I think whatever that action entails is worth the risk. Why is this so hard to understand. Can you get over this question already?

You talk about the "defeat of Russia" as being our daunting goal. How come you picked such a lofty goal? What would be Russia's involvement and goal in your opinion? You seem to think Russia will throw everything at it, you even fear Russia attacking us. What gave you these ideas?

We don't have to go ask NATO for anything. Just being members of NATO would deter Russia from launching anything into Bucharest. Which would make the conflict strictly a Romania-Russian proxy conflict in Moldova, us helping the Moldovans and the Russians helping the Transdniestrians.

And for the 100th time, please stop patronising me.

What do you think Russia will do in the case of "conflict between Romania and Russia"?

What form do you think a "conflict between Romania and Russia" will take?

Radu

Posted by: Imperialist October 10, 2011 08:46 am
QUOTE (Radub @ October 10, 2011 07:57 am)
And for the 100th time, please stop patronising me.

What do you think Russia will do in the case of "conflict between Romania and Russia"?

What form do you think a "conflict between Romania and Russia" will take?

Radu

Why don't you answer some of our questions for a change.

Posted by: Radub October 10, 2011 09:18 am
QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 10, 2011 08:46 am)
QUOTE (Radub @ October 10, 2011 07:57 am)
And for the 100th time, please stop patronising me.

What do you think Russia will do in the case of "conflict between Romania and Russia"?

What form do you think a "conflict between Romania and Russia" will take?

Radu

Why don't you answer some of our questions for a change.

Imperialist, you keep getting locked into the "Romani va ordon treceti Prutul" moment. I appreciate your patriotic zeal. But my question is about what happens AFTER that, i.e. the "Kishinev-Iassy" stage of the conflict.
In a "conflict between Romania and Russia" we assume that each side is "in it to win it" because if neither side is interested in winning, then what is the point? So, whatever form this conflict takes, what happens when one "side" starts "winning"? Will the other "side" escalate or simply throw their arms in the air and take it. Retrun to the current stalemate? So if that is the most likely outcome, why bother? Transdnestra wins? What will Romania do? Moldova wins? What will Russia do? These are essential questions. It is like crossing the street. You look left. You look right. You cross if it is safe. Why? Because if you get hit by a car, you get hurt or killed. That is a simple precaution, (the "pre" bit in "PREcaution" concerns itself with "planning ahead"). If you simply close your eyes and walk into the middle of the street because your little brother is crying on the other side, you may get hit by a car and your brother may cry even harder.

You used the example of "Romania needs to help when the little brother is bullied". Fine! But there is an old saying: "sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander". So, what in the world makes you think that Russia will not do the same for what you seem to think is their "little brother" Transdnestra? It is evident (and I am sure that by this stage everyone has noticed too) that you simply refuse to discuss the "elephant in the room": RUSSIA. THAT should be the FIRST thing to discuss.

So, I fully understand your desire to get into a fight with Russia. My question is who do you expect to "win" the fight and how?

Radu

Posted by: ANDREAS October 10, 2011 09:05 pm
QUOTE
In a "conflict between Romania and Russia" we assume that each side is "in it to win it" because if neither side is interested in winning, then what is the point? So, whatever form this conflict takes, what happens when one "side" starts "winning"? Will the other "side" escalate or simply throw their arms in the air and take it. Retrun to the current stalemate? So if that is the most likely outcome, why bother? Transdnestra wins? What will Romania do? Moldova wins? What will Russia do? These are essential questions. It is like crossing the street. You look left. You look right. You cross if it is safe. Why? Because if you get hit by a car, you get hurt or killed. That is a simple precaution, (the "pre" bit in "PREcaution" concerns itself with "planning ahead"). If you simply close your eyes and walk into the middle of the street because your little brother is crying on the other side, you may get hit by a car and your brother may cry even harder.

You used the example of "Romania needs to help when the little brother is bullied". Fine! But there is an old saying: "sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander". So, what in the world makes you think that Russia will not do the same for what you seem to think is their "little brother" Transdnestra? It is evident (and I am sure that by this stage everyone has noticed too) that you simply refuse to discuss the "elephant in the room": RUSSIA. THAT should be the FIRST thing to discuss.

So, I fully understand your desire to get into a fight with Russia. My question is who do you expect to "win" the fight and how?

If we want to talk about a an alleged war situation between Russia and Romania we need to discuss possible scenarios because theorizing it, it's impossible to reach a viable and logical conclusion. Who starts the war it's in theory better prepared for it so there's a big chance he will win it! But not always! If I'll be a russian planner I'll make sure make sure that there are enough troops available in the area (Transnistria) to get a quick and decisive success. No need to speak about the troops who must be high quality, excellent training, good morale, modern weapons and appropriate logistic support (most likely-airborne division). If I can't I wouldn't start it! I also make sure that I can reinforce my forces with fresh troops, weapons, ammo and materials, so it's vital Kiev's tacit support! The challenge would be how to hide such a concentration long enough until your operation is ready to start. I mean if a airborne operation is launched (let's look back at the beginning of july 1992 when several units from the 103rd Guards Airborne Division (stationed in Belorussia) were sent at Tiraspol), there is a great opportunity to surprise the enemy (moldovan military) and to get a quick success (f.i. occupation of the capital Chisinau). Even in these conditions Romania's military response can be effective if done in a short time, and the advantage of a prolonged war will be ours...

Posted by: ANDREAS October 10, 2011 09:34 pm
...only in case Russia can't transit through Ukraine regular ground troops (armoured and mechanized divisions or brigades). In case Russia could do that we're in trouble because our army could not cope (in my opinion) a strong well-equipped army as the russian and more important engage in a conventional war. I hope we could handle the situation better than the Georgians did in 2008 but with the army we have today we simply can't face the russians! Not in a conventional -type of war and not with a large ennemy force! But with the airborne mechanized russian troops, even professional, I am sure we can deal better than with large armoured & mechanized forces. Why? Because it's possible to succeed in blocking the Tiraspol airport preventing the supplement of the forces already landed, and the conquest of air dominance over Transnistria would favor actions of our troops on the ground!

Posted by: Imperialist October 10, 2011 10:48 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ October 10, 2011 09:18 am)
Imperialist, you keep getting locked into the "Romani va ordon treceti Prutul" moment. I appreciate your patriotic zeal. But my question is about what happens AFTER that, i.e. the "Kishinev-Iassy" stage of the conflict.
In a "conflict between Romania and Russia" we assume that each side is "in it to win it" because if neither side is interested in winning, then what is the point? So, whatever form this conflict takes, what happens when one "side" starts "winning"? Will the other "side" escalate or simply throw their arms in the air and take it. Retrun to the current stalemate? So if that is the most likely outcome, why bother? Transdnestra wins? What will Romania do? Moldova wins? What will Russia do? These are essential questions. It is like crossing the street. You look left. You look right. You cross if it is safe. Why? Because if you get hit by a car, you get hurt or killed. That is a simple precaution, (the "pre" bit in "PREcaution" concerns itself with "planning ahead"). If you simply close your eyes and walk into the middle of the street because your little brother is crying on the other side, you may get hit by a car and your brother may cry even harder.

You used the example of "Romania needs to help when the little brother is bullied". Fine! But there is an old saying: "sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander". So, what in the world makes you think that Russia will not do the same for what you seem to think is their "little brother" Transdnestra? It is evident (and I am sure that by this stage everyone has noticed too) that you simply refuse to discuss the "elephant in the room": RUSSIA. THAT should be the FIRST thing to discuss.

So, I fully understand your desire to get into a fight with Russia. My question is who do you expect to "win" the fight and how?

Radu

Define winning in this scenario.

And what's this obsession with winning anyway? If Russia does this and Moldova needs help, we extend help within our possibilities and without starting a conventional war. Whether that help will turn out to be sufficient to "win" or not, that's a different matter that should have little to do with the decision. Just because you have only a bucket of water at hand doesn't mean you shouldn't bother helping your neighbor whose house is on fire because you figure out it isn't enough. What will you tell him later? "Oh, yes, sorry neighbor, I figured out we couldn't win. So I just watched TV while you were running around screaming. You want to play some checkers?"

I'm not in a desire to fight Russia out of the blue. I'm trying to understand why you think we shouldn't do anything to assist Moldova.

Posted by: Radub October 11, 2011 08:17 am
You see! You are doing your little "trick" again! I said again and again and again that I understand your desire to help Moldova, yet you keep accusing me of "not wanting to help Moldova". Let me repeat and make it clear to you once and for all that I have no problem with helping Moldova. Get over it mate! That is a given!

For help to matter, it needs to make a difference. If Moldova is under attack, the help from Romania needs to be more than your silly "bucket of water on a housefire" idea. If Moldova is under attack, it needs ENOUGH help to ward-off that attack. What will happen if that help is NOT ENOUGH and it does not ward it off? Escalate the help? What if the other side escalates their help? What then? When will this end? That is where "who wins?" comes into question.

You keep pretending you have some "help strategy" but you cannot explain anything about it, how it will work and what it will achieve. And every time I ask you to explain, you act as if I am the one who cannot understand what in fact you are unable to explain. This entire discussion (read the title if you do not believe it) is about a "conflict with Russia" caused by Romania getting involved in Moldova. Since we already agreed that Romania will help Moldova, it seems that "conflict with Russia" may be inevitable. What will happen then? What is your strategy BEYOND "help for Moldova"? And if "winning" is not the "goal", then what is your "goal"?

Radu

Radu

Posted by: ANDREAS October 11, 2011 04:54 pm
Although the heated dialogue between you two (Radub and Imperialist) do not directly address me, the desire to be more on topic and to imagine the improbable situation of a war between Romania and Russia led me to intervene in your dialog...
Although I don't truly believe in our chances to win in a confrontation with Russia in the Moldovan-Transnistrian region, I think the only way to win a war (still believe the best we'll be to avoid it!) is that we took the initiative, to attack first... but then we are talking about another scenario that we speak here! What we lack most (speaking again about the scenario of a russian + transnistrian attack) is the existence of well-equipped mechanized units that can respond quickly and decisively in case of an invasion of Moldova Republic led by transnistrian mechanized troops backed by Russian airborne (mechanized) forces. I see no possibility of success of a light infantry force (romanian), even excellent trained (special forces, paratroopers, mountain infantry, a.o.), against a strong mechanized force in offensive...
Obviously a scenario of guerrilla war against the invader forces may be a variant (probably only) for a romanian success, but even in this there are many unknown ... like the popular support for such a war... the invaders response... and other. Frankly speaking the Romanian army has not changed dramatically his weaponry since 1989 : same tanks (few modernized), same IFV (modernized but still not modern) and APC, no SP Artillery, some modern MRLS and no modern aircraft and hellicopters...
How can we think (honestly) to win a war? I think again at a conventional (old style if you like) war, like the one we have seen in 2008 in Georgia?

Posted by: Radub October 11, 2011 06:04 pm
Andreas, Imperialist and I never got to have a "debate" because he still cannot see that the topic of this thread is "conflict with Russia". biggrin.gif I want to talk about "conflict with Russia" and he wants to talk about splashing a bucket of water over Moldova or something like that. wink.gif

It is good that you are bringing this back on topic - that is what I was trying to do as well.

I also share your views. wink.gif

But... NATO will never allow Romania to do any of those things. And I seriously doubt NATO will want to get involved. Romanians may care a lot about Moldova (well, we know at least one who does laugh.gif ) but NATO does not.

Radu

Posted by: Imperialist October 11, 2011 06:18 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ October 11, 2011 08:17 am)
You see! You are doing your little "trick" again! I said again and again and again that I understand your desire to help Moldova, yet you keep accusing me of "not wanting to help Moldova". Let me repeat and make it clear to you once and for all that I have no problem with helping Moldova. Get over it mate! That is a given!

For help to matter, it needs to make a difference. If Moldova is under attack, the help from Romania needs to be more than your silly "bucket of water on a housefire" idea. If Moldova is under attack, it needs ENOUGH help to ward-off that attack. What will happen if that help is NOT ENOUGH and it does not ward it off? Escalate the help? What if the other side escalates their help? What then? When will this end? That is where "who wins?" comes into question.

You keep pretending you have some "help strategy" but you cannot explain anything about it, how it will work and what it will achieve. And every time I ask you to explain, you act as if I am the one who cannot understand what in fact you are unable to explain. This entire discussion (read the title if you do not believe it) is about a "conflict with Russia" caused by Romania getting involved in Moldova. Since we already agreed that Romania will help Moldova, it seems that "conflict with Russia" may be inevitable. What will happen then? What is your strategy BEYOND "help for Moldova"? And if "winning" is not the "goal", then what is your "goal"?

Radu

Radu

You say you agree in principle with helping Moldova, but you've constantly brought up a range of obstacles to the idea - from "is it worth it" (wait, that means you have doubts about the said principle), to unlikely scenarios (missiles launched into Bucharest) and unrealistic goals (defeating Russia).

Bucket of water on a house in fire may be silly to you, but is the right thing to do. You have a bucket of water and your neighbor (who happens to be your little brother too) needs help, do you sit and ask an accountant "is it worth it"?

My "help strategy" was pretty clear cut. You shouldn't ask me to explain more since you haven't explained a thing about what the Russian involvement and the Russian goals may be in your opinion.

As for what the help strategy plans to achieve, it's rather simple. To extend help to Moldova. The rest would be seen and adressed as events progress.

Posted by: Radub October 11, 2011 06:48 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 11, 2011 06:18 pm)
As for what the help strategy plans to achieve, it's rather simple. To extend help to Moldova. The rest would be seen and adressed as events progress.

OK, here we go again... welcome to the carousel. blink.gif Round and round it goes...

Going back to the Wikileaks... the fear is that "extending help to Moldova" will cause a "conflict with Russia".

So, let us go ahead... Romania "extended help to Moldova", the "events progressed" and now there is a "conflict with Russia". What next? blink.gif

Radu

Posted by: Imperialist October 11, 2011 07:38 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ October 11, 2011 06:48 pm)
QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 11, 2011 06:18 pm)
As for what the help strategy plans to achieve, it's rather simple. To extend help to Moldova. The rest would be seen and adressed as events progress.

OK, here we go again... welcome to the carousel. blink.gif Round and round it goes...

Going back to the Wikileaks... the fear is that "extending help to Moldova" will cause a "conflict with Russia".

So, let us go ahead... Romania "extended help to Moldova", the "events progressed" and now there is a "conflict with Russia". What next? blink.gif

Radu

What carousel. I said early in the thread we should offer Moldova whatever weapons, ammunition and special forces we may spare and Moldova may need. What part of that wasn't clear enough? What would be the goal of doing that? Beefing up the Moldovan forces in any way we can. Is that clear enough now?

I've asked you what do you think Russia's goals and involvement would be.

Posted by: Radub October 11, 2011 07:57 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 11, 2011 07:38 pm)
QUOTE (Radub @ October 11, 2011 06:48 pm)
QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 11, 2011 06:18 pm)
As for what the help strategy plans to achieve, it's rather simple. To extend help to Moldova. The rest would be seen and adressed as events progress.

OK, here we go again... welcome to the carousel. blink.gif Round and round it goes...

Going back to the Wikileaks... the fear is that "extending help to Moldova" will cause a "conflict with Russia".

So, let us go ahead... Romania "extended help to Moldova", the "events progressed" and now there is a "conflict with Russia". What next? blink.gif

Radu

What carousel. I said early in the thread we should offer Moldova whatever weapons, ammunition and special forces we may spare and Moldova may need. What part of that wasn't clear enough? What would be the goal of doing that? Beefing up the Moldovan forces in any way we can. Is that clear enough now?

I've asked you what do you think Russia's goals and involvement would be.

The "carousel" is that in every post you mention that you want Romania to help Moldova. I am sure that everyone got it by now. In fact, the entire premise of the eponymous "conflict with Russia" in this thread is based on "help for Moldova." But, bizarrely, you insist. I am willing to bet that in your next response you will mention "help for Moldova." Nici o masa fara peshte, nici postare de-a lui Imperialist fara "ajutor pentru Moldova". I am sure you will eventually get tired of repeating what everyone knows... I know I am tired...

Russia's goals? I have no idea but, well, the common belief seems to be that Russia wants to "extend help to Transdnestra" in the same way that Romania wants to "extend help to Moldova".
Now, let us imagine that Moldova/Romania manages to push the Transdnestran/Russian troops out of Transdnestra and Moldovan/Romanian troops liberate the entire Transndestran territory and take Tiraspol. What do you think Russia will do? Will the Russians go home? Will they counter-attack? What if they push their way into Moldova all the way to Prut. What will Romania do? What if the Russians do not want to stop on Prut?

Radu

Posted by: Imperialist October 12, 2011 06:43 am
QUOTE
The "carousel" is that in every post you mention that you want Romania to help Moldova. I am sure that everyone got it by now. In fact, the entire premise of the eponymous "conflict with Russia" in this thread is based on "help for Moldova." But, bizarrely, you insist. I am willing to bet that in your next response you will mention "help for Moldova." Nici o masa fara peshte, nici postare de-a lui Imperialist fara "ajutor pentru Moldova". I am sure you will eventually get tired of repeating what everyone knows... I know I am tired...


So you complained I haven't satisfactorily outlined my help strategy for Moldova in the thread until now, I answer pointing out again what I already said earlier in the thread about sending ammo, ammunition etc., and you now complain that I'm talking too much about help for Moldova? That's brilliant. smile.gif

And I'm not so sure you got it either, since instead of my eagerness to help out Moldova, all you understood by now is:

I fully understand your desire to get into a fight with Russia.

QUOTE
Russia's goals? I have no idea but, well, the common belief seems to be that Russia wants to "extend help to Transdnestra" in the same way that Romania wants to "extend help to Moldova".


So you have no idea.... but you grilled me and others in this thread like there was no tomorrow and you were the head of CSAT demanding detailed strategies and long-term planning... That's rich. If you have no idea, then how and why do you expect us to say "what happens afterwards/next"? You're asking us how to "defeat" Russia but have no idea what Russia's goals or level of involvement could be. Then your question is moot.

QUOTE
Now, let us imagine that Moldova/Romania manages to push the Transdnestran/Russian troops out of Transdnestra and Moldovan/Romanian troops liberate the entire Transndestran territory and take Tiraspol. What do you think Russia will do? Will the Russians go home? Will they counter-attack? What if they push their way into Moldova all the way to Prut. What will Romania do? What if the Russians do not want to stop on Prut?


Instead of spending so much energy asking more and more questions, why don't you present your scenario? Asking questions is by now your way of avoiding any heat for making erroneous statements/scenarios and putting yourself in a "headmaster" position where you judge and dismiss our answers.

Posted by: Radub October 12, 2011 07:55 am
QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 12, 2011 06:43 am)

So you complained I haven't satisfactorily outlined my help strategy for Moldova in the thread until now, I answer pointing out again what I already said earlier in the thread about sending ammo, ammunition etc., and you now complain that I'm talking too much about help for Moldova?

Wahey! I just won the bet!
Wanna bet again that in your next post you will mention "help for Moldova"? blink.gif round and round it goes.

Look, I repeat, I fully understand your and anyone else's desire to help Moldova. Not an issue. Help for Moldova was never in question. In fact, considering that help for Moldova is the cause of this "conflict with Russia" that this whole thread is about, we should not even need to discuss it. It is intrinsicly understood that Romania is compelled to help Moldova.

I have no strategy in the case of a "conflict with Russia". I am not the one demanding a "conflict with Russia". You are! Since I am the who does not want "conflict" and you want "conflict", it is bizarre that you ask me to explain my strategy. I am entitled to be worried about "what will happen to me and my family in the case of a conflict with Russia". A conflict will affect me whethr I want that conflict or not. That is why I am asking these questions. It is frightening that you and other fools of your ilk are so eager to get into a "conflict with Russia" without the ability to even consider the repercussions.

What will happen AFTER Romania gives help to Moldova? What is the next stage? No idea? God help Romania with such "strategists".

But you know what? I could not care any less. To call this whole debacle "moronic" would be an insult to morons.

Radu


Posted by: Imperialist October 12, 2011 12:09 pm
QUOTE
Wahey! I just won the bet!
Wanna bet again that in your next post you will mention "help for Moldova"? blink.gif round and round it goes.


Great for you, you want a cookie?

QUOTE
Look, I repeat, I fully understand your and anyone else's desire to help Moldova. Not an issue. Help for Moldova was never in question.


You either forgot or you're lying through your teeth. Here, let me remind you how this was an issue and how it was put in question by none other than you:

QUOTE
A simple "cost vs benefit" analysis shows that Romania has everything to lose and nothing to gain from such an adventure. No need to ask the "nationalists", we already know the answer


http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=6271&view=findpost&p=82463

QUOTE
It is intrinsicly understood that Romania is compelled to help Moldova.


Glad we could make you change your mind. Or is this only one of your "tactical" concessions?

QUOTE
I have no strategy in the case of a "conflict with Russia". I am not the one demanding a "conflict with Russia". You are! Since I am the who does not want "conflict" and you want "conflict", it is bizarre that you ask me to explain my strategy.


First of all, I was asking you what the Russian goals and involvement would be. You keep asking us what Romania could do against Russia in such a conflict but you have no idea what "Russia" would mean in such a conflict, in terms of forces and goals.

Secondly, where do I "demand" and "want" a conflict with Russia?

QUOTE
A conflict will affect me whethr I want that conflict or not. That is why I am asking these questions.


Yes, I see you keep asking questions, and when someone points out they are wrong you say "those were questions, not statements, know the difference?" When asked for something more substantial than questions you reply "I have no idea". It's a great way of staying out of the kitchen but putting the heat on others. The game stops here.

QUOTE
What will happen AFTER Romania gives help to Moldova? What is the next stage? No idea? God help Romania with such "strategists".


I have no idea unless you say something about the Transdniestrian/Russian side of this conflict. You said you have no idea about that, so why do you ask me?

QUOTE
It is frightening that you and other fools of your ilk are so eager to get into a "conflict with Russia" without the ability to even consider the repercussions.


Fools of my ilk. Oh well, I know you always have contempt for your interlocutors, or at least for me. Maybe you should work on that attitude.

Posted by: Radub October 12, 2011 01:42 pm
Apologies Imperialist... there is no "ilk"... you are unique. biggrin.gif

You managed to turn the whole thread into a discussion about "why does Radu hate Moldova?" and now you are attmpting to make it "why does Radu have contempt for everyone on the forum?". Bravo! More manipulation...
No Imperialist, my contempt for you is nothing more than a reflection of your contempt for me.

I told you before... "discussions" with you are like "competitie municitoreasca pe ceapeu". You win, but you still remain a "ceapist". So, here is another medal for you. You won! In the future I will ignore you.

Radu

Posted by: Imperialist October 12, 2011 02:11 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ October 12, 2011 01:42 pm)
Apologies Imperialist... there is no "ilk"... you are unique. biggrin.gif

You managed to turn the whole thread into a discussion about "why does Radu hate Moldova?" and now you are attmpting to make it "why does Radu have contempt for everyone on the forum?". Bravo! More manipulation...
No Imperialist, my contempt for you is nothing more than a reflection of your contempt for me.

I told you before... "discussions" with you are like "competitie municitoreasca pe ceapeu". You win, but you still remain a "ceapist". So, here is another medal for you. You won! In the future I will ignore you.

Radu

I remind you that you came on this thread and started asking questions.

I and others answered the best we could but you brushed off the answers.

But when we asked questions, you either answered with more questions or with "I have no idea but...":

Q: So your answer is that if Transdniester/Russia attacks Moldova then Romania should do nothing militarily? Did I understand right?

Your answer:

QUOTE
So your question is that if Russsia bombs Chisinau, Romania should make it so that Bucharest gets bombed as well? 


http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?

Q: What would be Russia's involvement and goal in your opinion?

Your answer:

QUOTE
What do you think Russia will do in the case of "conflict between Romania and Russia"?

What form do you think a "conflict between Romania and Russia" will take?


http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=6271&view=findpost&p=82689

Eventually, after I pressed you again, you admitted "I have no idea".

So, before complaining of contempt from others, try to have a normal dialogue. This isn't the first thread in which you try this with me.

Now you call me a fool and a "ceapist". Very nice.

Posted by: dragos October 12, 2011 04:43 pm
Topic temporary locked for cooling off the spirits.

Posted by: MMM December 15, 2011 05:56 pm
... and Smirnov's OUT!!!
http://www.adevarul.ro/international/Dictatorul_Smirnov_a_fost_trimis_la_plimbare_0_608939613.html
Nice headline! tongue.gif

Posted by: ANDREAS July 04, 2012 09:14 pm
What about that scenario?
http://www.ziuanews.ro/dezvaluiri-investigatii/nimiciti-in-patru-ore-16535

Posted by: Hadrian July 04, 2012 10:19 pm
Right..

During the south ossetian war, it took to russians and their south ossetian allies one week to advance some 60 km, with the georgian army beeing at 18.000 men.
They were transporting forces in the area weeks before, using existing railways.

It takes a 3 attackers to 1 defender ratio to have chances to win an atack. So, if we consider the romanian grond forces at 40.000 men, they need to transport by surprise 120.000 men and weapons, using landing crafts, cargo planes and helicopters.

Well, don`t think they are able. tongue.gif

And attacking an UE and NATO country would be a quite stupid thing to do, even for russians. laugh.gif

That journalist is uninformed and panicard. Or maybe paid? blink.gif

Posted by: ANDREAS July 05, 2012 05:02 pm
I'm not too sure you're right, Hadrian! Which does not mean that I believe the scenario as viable! But I believe that with a mixed group of forces (mechanized marine infantry, airborne troops supported by strong aviation and marine forces) and acting in force in a surprise moment, Russia may achieve a really good military result against countries like Romania or Bulgaria f.i. I do not speak here about the political issues Romania being a NATO member, I was analyzing only a possibility, with minimal chances of happening!

Posted by: Hadrian July 05, 2012 10:41 pm
Let me give you a counterexample:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War

80.000 russians aganist 22.000 chechens, so almost 4 to 1 ratio.
Air attacks started late august 1999, ground attack started beginning of october 1999, lasted until april 2000. Again, fought against an adversary without air force and significant antiaircraft missile forces. And direct land border, allowing to move their forces at will.

Russians ground forces are at 395.000 personel (2006 estimate). So, they will have to move one quarter to one third of their army from all over the russian teritory at the border of Romania (which has no direct border with Russia), including tanks, APC, fuel etc. without being detected, and then hapily fighting for weeks/months without caring about what NATO and UE have to say.

Russians didn`t atack Romania even in 1968, when they were provoked in worst mode posible. In theory, it could be done, IF you have land acces (that is if the ukrainians agree), but it is just too costly, both military and political. And beside external damage, there are some muslim separatist movements in the asian side of Russia who would hapily resume their atacks if the troups in their area are left (Daghestan, Chechenia etc.).

Posted by: Radub July 06, 2012 07:58 am
This thread should have stayed closed forever. biggrin.gif What a waste of bandwidth and storage!
Radu

Posted by: Agarici July 08, 2012 11:43 am
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ July 04, 2012 09:14 pm)
What about that scenario?
http://www.ziuanews.ro/dezvaluiri-investigatii/nimiciti-in-patru-ore-16535


I think the author of the article (Eduard Ovidiu Ohanesian) is one of the three journalists abducted in Iraq, in that controversial episode, several years ago.

Posted by: ANDREAS July 08, 2012 01:11 pm
You're right Agarici, he is one of the three abducted in Iraq!
Even if the article itself can be questioned, the precarious state of the Romanian army today is real, fact well known in military environment.

Posted by: MMM July 08, 2012 01:23 pm
Oh, c'mon, the article is highly irrelevant and it "discloses" some skeletons in the closet of our dearest Army. It's a little like in that joke with the officer that was arrested after publicly stating his chief was an idiot: he was guilty of disclosing a secret of state!
We do not have the capacity of standing alone in front of the USSR (no mistake here) and that's the very reason for which we're in the NATO! Logical?
As for Mr. Ohanesian's connections with the "blue-eyed guys", we should leave it like that until we can prove anything!

Posted by: Hadrian July 08, 2012 10:54 pm
Based on previous recent events (georgian war, second chechen war), you can quite reliably predict similar future events.
And for the panicard title (Romania occupied in less than one day), you can just ask a truck driver if he can traverse Romania from Constanta to the western border in less than one day. He will tell you it takes him so much time to traverse Romania as to reach Germany on hungarian and austrian motorways. biggrin.gif

Now think several hundred tanks and several thousend truck trying to do the same thing. Even without any oposition, I don`t think you can do it. Just the infrastructure of Romania does not allow it. rolleyes.gif
Every man who tryed to go from western Romania to the Black sea in vacation can tell it...

Posted by: MMM July 10, 2012 07:55 am
QUOTE (Hadrian @ July 09, 2012 01:54 am)
Based on previous recent events (georgian war, second chechen war), you can quite reliably predict similar future events.
And for the panicard title (Romania occupied in less than one day), you can just ask a truck driver if he can traverse Romania from Constanta to the western border in less than one day. He will tell you it takes him so much time to traverse Romania as to reach Germany on hungarian and austrian motorways. biggrin.gif

Now think several hundred tanks and several thousend truck trying to do the same thing. Even without any oposition, I don`t think you can do it. Just the infrastructure of Romania does not allow it. rolleyes.gif
Every man who tryed to go from western Romania to the Black sea in vacation can tell it...

Don't forget the para-troopers and the "Fifth column"...
I suppose the air above Romania doesn't have "extra holes", such as the roads!

Posted by: Hadrian July 10, 2012 03:39 pm
Indeed they could be used to ocupy key points (bridges over Danube, airports), but you cannot ocupy the whole coutry with them. If it was that simple, Russia would have used them in Georgia and Chechenia.

Posted by: MMM July 11, 2012 06:54 pm
QUOTE (Hadrian @ July 10, 2012 06:39 pm)
Russia would have used them in Georgia and Chechenia.

Well, perhaps they simply do not have that many qualified paratroopers; perhaps they never really wanted to completely occupy Georgia, but to teach them a lesson (and NATO, for that matter).
But that's wild goose chase!

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)