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

I disagree with the part in which you say personal opinions cannot be changed. Events can change opinions. For example, before this crisis I was neutral to positive towards USL. Didn't like some characters there but I accepted the logic that they would democratically come to power. "Alternanta la putere". After the way USL behaved the past couple of months I have a negative attitude towards them. Had they acted with respect for the rule of law, had they given sufficient time to the process (without hurrying) and had they acted with less populism in the face of external criticism I wouldn't have had anything against the impeachment.

Yeah, had the scorpio not been a scorpio (I'm talking about the fable, not the"star sign", so pleeeeeeease don't be offended ), he wouldn't have stung the tortoise and they'd both be alive! Except in nowadays' Romania, the "river" in which both will drown might be called PPDD!

This post has been edited by MMM on August 25, 2012 06:45 am

Happens to agree to your last sentence, MMM! I also mention that it bothers me very much the accusation (expressed especially at Antena 3) that we, who voted the dismissal of Basescu (as I did) deserve our fate because we didn't went to the streets to protest against the Constitutional Court decision! Its insulting (to me) to ask something like this when it was the organizers job (USL) to ensure that our vote (overwhelming if reported to the turnout at the last election in 2009) is respected!

Inded, it doesn't work. You must go to the front page www.jamestown.org and click the Hot Issue panel.

Yes, Contras, now I see it. To my "regrets", until this scandal I had no idea there was such a radio station, "Voice of Russia"!
ANDREAS: let's not go into a debate on these terms, OK? You have your oppinion, backed by your sources and arguments, I have mine, backed by my sources and arguments. It so happens the views are 100% opposed...

This post has been edited by MMM on August 25, 2012 06:43 am

Sorry, my intention was not to inflict some political issues at home, I want to reveal some opinions who are abroad. Voice of Rusia was and is one of the most vocal international media broadcastings who paid more atention at Romanian political situation. There is some things suspect, because Voice of Rusia is a own state Broadcasting corporation, and what it says cannot be oppose with the Rusian state (and Putin) opinion. And there we can see some geopolitical aspects.

You missed a little detail in the process… The gross fraud of "evaporating" more than 2 million votes from the electoral list. That is why the P.S.D. justice minister resigned (quote his words: "I don't want to spend my late years in jail") and that is why the Constitutional Court did not validate the "honest vote".
* * *
If Jesus would return now, he will not whiplash his way into the Temple, but into the Romanian Parliament.

This post has been edited by Florin on August 26, 2012 10:39 am

I see I have to repeat myself: Let's stick to the topic. Current Romanian politics are not the issue here.

If you wish so bad to discuss this "circus", please do it in a dedicated topic. I will not repeat this warning.

http://bogatu.voceabasarabiei.net/?p=2118

...interesting point of view, but if it is plausible or not depends on whether we consider USSR a unconventional way of expansion of Russia trough communism... Otherwise if we consider the Communism an ideological system which by fortune found a good soil for expanding in Russia, the answer is no! Without getting into polemic I do not believe in the idea that Iliescu is guilty that in 1990-1991 Romania and Moldova were not united as one state! Regardless of who was then the leader in Romania the union was almost impossible or... if possible it would have resulted in a civil war if not worse!

Iliescu put his spot on our later development in early 1990. But there are some things about Basarabia during those years, things not clear. Here Barladeanu, one of the most trusted comrades of Iliescu sais some things:
http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.ro/2010/01/...trebuie-sa.html

Mr. Mircea Snegur, the president of Moldova back then, was not too eager for union either - it would mean to lose his presidential function, which was of good benefit for many of his family members. He lost a unique opportunity to make order into the "Transnistria Republic" in the two-three days when the separatist guys were confused after the failure of the coup d'etat in Moscow / Soviet Union.
But there was a bigger problem.
The big problem: The newly born Russian Republic, under president Eltin, was regarded very favorable in 1991 by the U.S. and the European Union, while Romania wasn't (and here Mr. Iliescu has a very big guilt, but whatever).
I dare to bet that any request from the Russian Republic to oppose the Romania-Moldova union would get in 1991 a favorable answer from West in that moment.

The only chance to do the Romania-Moldova union was in the several days following that failed coup d'etat in Moscow, then to hold on against the combined foreign pressure to make us changing our minds. To make the first step, both Iliescu and Snegur had to be fast decision people - something they never were.
Moreover, they needed the sincere desire to do it, and I personally doubt they had any of it.
I never liked Petre Roman (my personal feeling is not intended to be a substitute of your independent judgment), but he was a fast decision guy, and maybe as president in 1991 he would dare to jump into it - but it still depended also on Mircea Snegur.
***
Regarding the civil war you mentioned as possibility: it happened anyway.
While Russia clearly helped Transnistria, it do not know if we did something to help the other side.
I agree that more Russian speaking people from Moldova would get involved in a civil war in case of a political union, but exactly because of that Romania would had to get involved to tip the balance. I do not say that Russia as it was in 1991 would just sit and accept it, but remember that a new state was born, Ukraine, where the majority of population is hating Russia ferociously. And the borders of Ukraine, as everybody knows, isolate Moldova / Transnistria from Russia.
It would be very risky for Romania to anger Russia in 1991, but we could get away with it. The proof is all independent states that are now on map, former Soviet Union provinces.

This post has been edited by Florin on September 04, 2012 01:44 pm

1. No way! Lenin admited during the revolution that his main purpose was getting the power ("la butoane" ), only afterwards they'd build the communist state; the process continued, but (happily) never finalized...
2. Why would you say that? Who and where would have started this civil war? The UDMR? The guys behind Smirnov? This urban legend with iliescu ensuring the stability is just a myth, an "after-the-facts" myth, IMO.

Contras I agree with you that Iliescu is largely responsible for most of what happened in Romania in the 90's and keeping Romania in a "gray area" with political, economic and social consequences (negative ones) for our country and every one of us... but, I still believe that even with a president like Basescu f.i. we and Moldova would not be able to unite in one country in 1991! In this respect I fully agree with Florin opinion, noting that if a union would somehow be achieved in 1991, we would have expected a civil war for sure! For MMM who seem to believe that such a possibility (civil war -insurgency in Gagauzia, Transnistria and maybe Szekely Region) would be some kind of sick joke I ask him to read newspapers from that time in order to refresh his memory! I am speaking here about 1991 not about 2004 or later! And I am not talking or believe that Iliescu ensured stability, I am talking about the hypothesis (that I don't believe possible) that somehow Romania and Moldova would have succedeed unification in a single state back in 1991... and certain consequences that would have been attracted by this act!

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on September 04, 2012 09:02 pm

I was registered member of the American Library in Bucharest from the days of the Ceausescu regime (when everybody starting a membership in library was "marked"), so of course I continued to read their materials in the early 1990's.

The way the American magazines were describing what was going on during the conflict between Transnistria / Republic of Moldova was disgusting: these magazines were 100 percent on the side of the Russian speakers / Transnistrian guys, and some of the arguments were really absurd.
I also had this in mind when I wrote that in case of a Romania - Moldova union, the move would not be welcomed in 1991 by the United States and the European Union.

P.S: Something unofficial and I cannot prove (so it is up to you): about 5 years later, some signals from the European Union were that "why you did not do it when you had the chance, in 1991".
Thanks! A lot of things changed or faded by 1996...1997, including the "love at first sight" between Russia and the Western world.