Romania in NATO

[dragos]

Romania is officially a NATO member. The accession ceremony for the seven members will be held at NATO HQ on 2 April 2004.

http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/2004/04-nato...0329-natohq.htm

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/0...sion/index.html

[Chandernagore]

How does it feel ?

Buddy-buddy.

We now clearly outnumber the "Warsaw Pact" :mrgreen:

[Florin]

QUOTE

How does it feel ?

I feel great!
Hip...hip...uraaah! :cheers: :beer: :drunk:
(Because of Transylvania.)

Otherwise... we'll just be a third-hand player, to be on hand and say "Yes Sir!" when some other young boys will be needed to die in "Emptyheadstan", or somewhere else.

However, some present Romanian problems are just postponed.
Being a European Union member is also desirable. NATO will not last forever, but Europe will... At least as long as intelligent human beings will be able to make tools and lit a fire.

[dragos]

President Bush Welcomes Seven Nations to the NATO Alliance

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20040329-4.html

[cnflyboy2000]

I'm not Pres. Bush, but Welcome!

From what I've observed, I'd say NATO is fortunate with Ro at the "back door".

Most of the people i've met onsite and then chatted with offsite impress me as standup guys, that I'd personally trust my back to!

So, :cheers: from across the pond.

[Chandernagore]

Snif. Bush speech makes me really feel we're talking about the Star League Federation :wink:

[Chandernagore]

An interesting comparison of NATO countries military budget.




The country in the top left corner has no budget and essentially contributes ice creams to the morale of the troops Who's going to invade them anyway ? 8)

[Dénes]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4646554/

[Florin]

Hmmm... Interesting chart, Chandernagore.
One surprise was to see that Hungary spends 1.63 times the money spent by Romania for defense.

I am not concerned, I do not feel threatened, there is no danger in this.
I am just surprised... The population of Hungary is roughly a half of that of Romania, so they spend more than 3 times per capita for defense, compared to Romania.
All I have to say is... Like in any country, some of those money could be better used for schools, medical care, road improvements etc.

Often it is said that NATO expanded due to the unreliability of Turkey as ally, and the unwillingness to offer for usage the Turkish airports. Hmmm... I think there is an additional hidden problem: Greece. Using Greece and its islands, like Creta, an excellent coverage is possible. This make me think that Greece was also not so happy to offer its airports.

[dead-cat]

ummm. since the income is higher in hungary, so is the tax revenue and the available money.

according to the CIA World Factbook, Hungary spend $1.08 billion on defence in 2002. i don't belive they increased the amount by 50% in 1 year.

this represents 1.75% of the Hungarian GDP of 2002.

according to the same source, Romania spend $985 million in 2002, which translates into 2.47% of the 2002 GDP.

Germany is spending 1.38%, France 2.57%, CZ 2.1%, Poland 1.71%
Moldavia spend 0.4%.

i guess Romania is diverting more funds towards the military (i'll blame a well known, north atlantic treaty for that) relativly to their possibilities than Hungary.

[tjk]

Be careful that you don't become cannon fodder for U.S. imperial adventures. Otherwise, I wish Romania the best in its new alliance.

[mabadesc]

Great chart, very informative.

One question, which leaves me a bit puzzled: What's up with France spending so much money on their military? 2.5% of their GDP, and even in terms of the straight amount of money, higher than either Germany or Great Britain.
Not very consistent with their "Make love, not war" political attitude.

Are they working on a goofy project, like another Maginot line or something like that? :wink:

Florin:
[quote]Otherwise... we'll just be a third-hand player, to be on hand and say "Yes Sir!" when some other young boys will be needed to die in "Emptyheadstan", or somewhere else.[/quote]

Not quite.....that's an unfair statement. If you want to perceive your country as a "third-hand player", I suppose it's your right to do so. I prefer to perceive it at face value - as member of a strong military alliance, which entails both benefits as well as some sacrifices.
Also, if you remember correctly, most NATO previous actions involved a vast majority of US/UK troops, with other member countries contributing much much smaller numbers of troops, even if you break it down proportionally by population numbers, so I wouldn't worry about Romania having to fight the next NATO conflict. They'll probably get assigned some very limited patrol missions, but more importantly for NATO, it's Romania's strategic location that's valuable. So I'd say we got the good end of the deal in this case: assured protection in exchange for our geographic location and rights for some military air force bases.

What I don't understand is how you can be both happy ("I feel great.....[..]...hip hip urrah....because of Transylvania") and cynical/critical (the sending boys to die in "Emptyheadstan" comment) about Romania joining NATO.

I'm sure you know, nothing is for free. I agree with you, it would be awesome if we could get military protection for Transylvania (for Romania in general) from NATO without having to do anything in return.....but unfortunately military alliances don't work that way. It's a two-way street run by political and strategic interests. But like I said, I'm sure you knew that already. So, I suppose, I'm a bit confused as to whether you are pro-Romania as a member of NATO or against it. I'm really not trying to pick on you (I apologize if it seems that I am), I'm just not clear on where you stand regarding this NATO issue.

Best regards,

Mihai.

[Florin]

[quote]ummm. since the income is higher in hungary, so is the tax revenue and the available money... [/quote]

Yes, I did not miss that.
Also, as an outsider I think the Hungarian government has a better grip over the cash flow in Hungarian economy. This offers them more available funds.
As you may know, in Romania the tax evasion is huge. Some unofficial accounts claim that about 20% of the total funds flow is declared and taxed in Romania.
But my post started from the military spending as a number, not as an percent from GDP. And my note was just to mention that they could use some of the money for better purpose. Eventually, you cannot blame somebody for wasting money, as long they are not yours.

[Florin]

[quote] [quote]Otherwise... we'll just be a third-hand player, to be on hand and say "Yes Sir!" when some other young boys will be needed to die...[/quote]

Not quite.....that's an unfair statement........ I prefer to perceive it at face value - as member of a strong military alliance, which entails both benefits as well as some sacrifices..... So I'd say we got the good end of the deal in this case: assured protection in exchange for our geographic location and rights for some military air force bases...... I'm sure you know, nothing is for free………….. I'm a bit confused as to whether you are pro-Romania as a member of NATO or against it. I'm really not trying to pick on you (I apologize if it seems that I am), I'm just not clear on where you stand regarding this NATO issue…..[/quote]

The post you quoted shows clearly my happiness for seeing Romania as a NATO member. And about being a third-hand player, wasn't that always? (the 1877 Independence War, the WWI, the WWII, the Warsaw Pact...).
Even when our military achievements were essential for winning a war, like in the 1877 Independence War, or just important, like at 23 August 1944, they were anyway downplayed at the green table of negotiations.
So why should I be sad this time? I am happy! I just felt I should say all I think.
Regards,
Florin

[dead-cat]

[quote]
But my post started from the military spending as a number, not as an percent from GDP.
[/quote]
yes i undestood that, but i still think it's comparing apples with pears, because a dollar spend in Hungary does not have the same yield as one in Romania. wages are higher in Hungary and so are prices. thus a higher spending must not necesarily mean they get more "bang for the buck".

that's why i think the best criteria for comparision is % of GDP which shows the level of commitment to the military of the respective gov.