Russian-Romanian conflict, in Moldova/Transdniester

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.

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

This post has been edited by udar on October 07, 2011 10:26 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.
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.

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.

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 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!

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

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?

This post has been edited by MMM on October 10, 2011 10:03 am

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

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

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

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...

...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!

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.

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

This post has been edited by Radub on October 11, 2011 08:50 am

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?