"Internationalising" the Black Sea, Basescu's policy

Apparently by "internationalising" the Black Sea, the president understands offering (permanent) bases to the US and introducing a new naval power to the Black Sea:

http://www.ziua.ro/b.html

Yes, this is yet another of those great romanian initiatives, that go down with the first Russian wink...

Is just a reason for government/presidency to have that bases in Romanian soil. They want that for politichal reasons, just to have for next election a subject more in theyr propaganda: "We were those who convince America to bring his Navy to guard Romanian interests in Black Sea!".

Funny thing - countryes who had american bases on theyr soil, wants to reduce US military presence there.... and wish to be whitout them. Hey, were is the iron cortina now? Why to artificially create another one? Were is the bright future? Why to live in a past, a past of Western countrys? This is what we want? No...

Iama

Hi Iamandi,

Which are the countries with US bases on their soil that want to get rid of them?

Doubtless there are a few, but don't be fooled by loud public demonstrations by vocal anti-American minorities, which can be found anywhere. They are seldom representative of general opinion, which is usually indifferent to, or supportive of, a US presence.

Cheers,

Sid.

The bases bring important economic advantages to the countries they are in. That's why we want them. That's why the Germans want to keep them, even if the Cold war is long gone.

Basescu had a very good idea. The Black Sea region has many oil and rare material deposits, previously dominated by Russia. Now, the Americans want these resources. By allowing the bases, Romania becomes the most important American ally in this region, thus having a chance to get some of these resources in the future.

Well, Basescu's policy is lame IMO.
If he would have said "fellow romanians, I know its gonna be hard, but I initiate a 4 year naval plan to rebuild the romanian navy and strengthen Romania's presence in the Black Sea. I know that the US will understand the importance of this presence and give us any needed assistance", I would have supported it 100%.
Just to give some bases is an easy way out.

Besided, their economic impact will be small.

take care

I doubt something like that is realistic with our economic situation.

Its a question of will, not of budget. Dont imagine aircraft carriers or nuclear subs though, thats true... But a navy. Like before.

Well, until Basescu internationalises the Black Sea by increasing US presence, the Ukrainians have internationalised the transport on the Danube by establishing THEIR (very Ukrainian, non-US/Russia/another power) presence:

http://www.curentul.ro/curentul.php?numar=20050625&art=19737

Look mr. President, we've just been internationalised! I am sure we can swing right back at them by allowing the US X Fleet a permanent base here. That would make us feel important. And powerful.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on June 26, 2005 06:38 am

Presence of military warships of USA (NATO ) in Black Sea will not became a pressure fact against Ukraine, Russia... ? Here are enough flags of NATO on board of the Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania.

What can do more military presence in Black Sea? They will be as a crow scarrie presence against turkish ships who take fish from romanian waters? Or what? I have friends ex-soldiers at border patrol ships, who told me about "antibraconaj" actions or anti-cigar trafficants... Some shootings with 14,5 m.m. MG's. In future, i espect to see at tv (bleah! i hate tv!!!) a Los Angeles class sub who catch some calcan illegal turkey fishers who enered in romanian waters....

Cernomorskaya Fleet had enough fuel and crew (and crew training) to do something imoprtant against us, bulgarians and turks?

Americans (yeah, NATO... ) are such naives? Ok, another romanian "impale"... They will come here to internationalise Blac Sea... and our leaders wants to ... "to milk the cow" ... to milk that rich cow named USA (i know, NATO organisation...).

What is the price ? In absolutelly all aspects of the life, allways it is a price tu be payed for anithyng. So, what will be the price for this???

When you win at something, you will loose at another thing. What we don't see, blind us, blind in face of the continuation of "hey, look, americans came, after all that time!"?

What win USA at this?
Why?
I want peace for my country and for this part of the world, who had a lot of conflicts in her history.

Were i read this jocke: "You see how pervert sounds for romanians PEACE DAY"?

Anyway... I'm a conservatorist? No, but i don't want more foreign presence in my country. Pause! Don't jump to my throats! Is my prefference, as a citisen of Romania. Is my right to think in this way, and no chance to reconvert my mind...

Much armed force so close to Russia can be opposite to peace dreams.

Iama

This post has been edited by Iamandi on June 28, 2005 11:50 am

The Irak discussion has been moved to the Guerilla actions in Irak thread:
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=2027

Generalul Ralston tempereaza ambitiile Romaniei la Marea Neagra

http://www.adevarulonline.ro/index.jsp?pag...ticle_id=158176

The view from Moscow:

http://www.gandul.info/2005-12-09/internat...azele_americane

Russia in NATO?

Better than NATO in Russia

Gen. Dénes