Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (8) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Russian-Romanian conflict, in Moldova/Transdniester
Imperialist
Posted: September 25, 2011 04:32 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



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:

Radu

Here we go with the tanks again. :roll:

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.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on September 25, 2011 04:34 pm
PM
Top
ANDREAS
Posted: September 25, 2011 05:49 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 814
Member No.: 2421
Joined: March 15, 2009



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....
PMEmail PosterYahoo
Top
Florin
Posted: September 26, 2011 12:53 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1867
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



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". :lol:
Additional information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus

This post has been edited by Florin on September 27, 2011 03:09 am
PM
Top
Radub
Posted: September 26, 2011 07:54 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



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
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: September 26, 2011 08:54 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



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? :lol:
PM
Top
Radub
Posted: September 26, 2011 10:02 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



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:

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. :lol:



Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on September 26, 2011 10:03 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: September 26, 2011 05:12 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



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.
PM
Top
Radub
Posted: September 26, 2011 05:34 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



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. :D
The question is still: is a conflict with Russia worth it? Why?
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
udar
Posted: September 26, 2011 06:38 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier
*

Group: Members
Posts: 281
Member No.: 354
Joined: September 24, 2004



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. :D
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

This post has been edited by udar on September 26, 2011 06:40 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
contras
Posted: September 26, 2011 08:03 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 730
Member No.: 2693
Joined: December 28, 2009



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.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Radub
Posted: September 26, 2011 08:32 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



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? :roll:
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
udar
Posted: September 27, 2011 01:00 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier
*

Group: Members
Posts: 281
Member No.: 354
Joined: September 24, 2004



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? :roll:
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
PMEmail Poster
Top
Radub
Posted: September 27, 2011 01:53 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



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? :D 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. :roll:

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

PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: September 27, 2011 04:27 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



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?
PM
Top
udar
Posted: September 27, 2011 04:36 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier
*

Group: Members
Posts: 281
Member No.: 354
Joined: September 24, 2004



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?  :D  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.  :roll:

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

This post has been edited by udar on September 27, 2011 04:37 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (8) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0346 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]