Russian-Romanian conflict, in Moldova/Transdniester

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!
Radu

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....

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?

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 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?
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.

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...

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.

Then there are different types of escalation, as I'm sure you know. 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

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.

This post has been edited by Florin on September 24, 2011 08:47 pm

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

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!

Radu

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.

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.