How much trust must have in NATO?

To follow the title of the topic, I am not going to dig after old pains as Bessarabia, Northern Bucovina etc.
Considering the history of Romania as a modern state, I think the alliances which worked the worst for Romania were with Russia, regardless the regime in power.
It seemed the Russians simply couldn't understand that they have to respect Romania as an alliance partner. It happened again and again: 1878, 1916, 1918, 1944-1945.
By comparison, our alliance with NATO should be a good idea.
But I am skeptical about the will of NATO to help Romania and Poland in a presumptive future with a very aggressive Russia.

It is interesting to see that even the apparition of the menace of nuclear weapons did not stopped the humans to fight each other. Statistically, there was no single day of peace on Earth since the end of WWII. (Meaning there was always a conflict, on one continent or another.)

Florin,

I think that question is not can we trust NATO, but rather which members of NATO can we trust. Below are listed the top five NATO nations, that I think Romania can trust and should focus on building relationships with.

1. Great Britian

2. Poland

3. United States

4. Germany

5. France

Thank you.

this topic also leads ud to the reciprocal question : How much trust can NATO have in us ?
I mean , the officers, both Army and Intelligence were trained to fight against NATO their whole life, and now .....
to put this in the words of Dinescu : " they drank Vodka with the russians for 50 years, now they drink whiskey with NATO"

Mg-42,

The is answer is quite simple, of course NATO can trust Romania. Romania's membership in Warsaw Pact like all other former members was forced! Romania though out its history been an extremely loyal ally to which ever nation it was allied with at the time. It has always Romanias allys which have repeatedly gone back on their word and made empty promises to Romania.

I think of all countys in NATO, Great Britian would make the most trustworthy ally for Romania. The US who knows?, Bush with empty promises and his so-called "Axis of Evil," it is hard to believe that the USA is not just out for its own interest. Even so Romania now is a very loyal ally to America. Romania Knows that it can trust Poland, however Poland is not as powerful as Britian or the US. Germany and France our two of Romanias traditional allies, though Romania's support of Britian and the US has cooled relations somewhat lately.

Thank you.

It's not really like that. Even as part of the Warsaw pact, Romania's defence strategy was circular and took dseriously into consideration the fact that the Soviet Union might become some day an enemy.

Well well, I would hate to shatter your illusions but was there not a treaty between Rumania and AH at the outset of WW1 ? Was Rumania not an ally of Germany during WWII ? I don't think Rumania has a better record than anybody else

I think that Rumania, like every member of the alliance, should trust all NATO countries and build relationships with all of them. Why restrict yourself ?

It's not really like that. Even as part of the Warsaw pact, Romania's defence strategy was circular and took dseriously into consideration the fact that the Soviet Union might become some day an enemy.

it's the question of the human factor : officers who since their 20's have been indoctrinated that the "evil west" is our ennemy and have heared it for almost every day of their lives can't just be switched to "NATO-friendly mode" on.
of course on the surface everybody is ok. but you don't forget your "youth ideals " so easy.
IMO, until all the officer corps is made of post-1989 graduates , NATO can't trust us. I don't mean that in the case of war, we will switch sides, but vital information will probably leak to the old buddies in the east.

and the question " who can we trust in NATO" is absurd, IMO. either we trust the whole concept, or we make sparate alliances with the countries we choose to trust: England, Poland and so on.

1. Great Britain

Great Britain was against us when we needed political support for the Union of 1859.

Great Britain was actively against us during the Independence War (1877-1978), when they sold modern rifles to the Ottoman Army, which cost us so many lives.

Great Britain was politically against us during the Second Balkan War, maybe because the Bulgarians used mostly British equipment, and the Romanians used in general German equipment. Maybe also because I guess they knew about our alliance with the Central Powers, while nobody could predict in 1913 that Bulgaria will be the one sliding into the Central Powers.

Then, Churchill simply bargained us for Greece.

Personally, I respect a lot the British nation in general, but let be realistic.

2. Poland

I don't know, I don't comment. Maybe the reminder of common past experiences with our Huge Eastern Neighbor should help the 2 countries to be closer. However, as long Romania will be perceived as weak, the Poles will look toward Germany, however strange this may sound.

3. The United States

There is only one little problem: America changes its policy very often, depending of the most recent interest involved, and if decides that it does not like you any more, it erases from its memory any service you previously did for her. The American politicians think in "days ahead", and never in "years ahead". And you cannot blame them, simply because this mentality is typical for the average American.

4. Germany

Germany proves to have a very good memory about who helped her and who didn't. It was more common for them to be betrayed in alliances, than for them to betray their allies.
Maintaining very good relations with Germany will never hurt.

5. France

Well, the French are by far more nationalistic than the average nationalism you may expect from any nation. And of course, they think they are the best in everything. However, they like to remember that in modern times they always supported Romania politically, and other than the usual "French pride", I do not see anything bad in close relations with them.

This post has been edited by Florin on October 23, 2004 05:40 am

Neutrality is the best option for me, Eire, Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland are not Nato members and seem to have managed quite well without it!
I've nothing against american bases (or should I call them Nato bases?) as long ase they are in the USA!

"Capul plecat, Sabia nu-l taie"

I believe this is a saying that originated sometime when the Turks occupied Romania. It means: "Bend your head down and the sword will not cut it",..submitt yourself to your occupier's demands and you might live..

I never really liked to ask others to solve my problems,.. that's what's wrong here,.. and I frankly don't think NATO, US, EU will solve Romania's territorial problems, It is us that must find a solution, and the sad truth is that we are politically, militarily and economically very-bad-off. Nobody will make a good move for Romania (unless there is an interest), friendship does not exist in politics.
"Which of our """allies""" would want a Greater-Romania?" None!

I see nothing to be gained, and alot to be lost.

I am going to assume that when you say "solve Romania's territorial problem" you are talking about claims on territory not currently controlled by Romania. If the "problem" is that Romania has too much territory, and you want another country to take it, I am sure that problem can be solved. I guess that would be a "Lesser Romania". You do understand that you are far outside the flow of European history since 1945? Many countries have some claim on their neighbor's territory, but they have put them aside. In some cases, these claims are have strong historical legitimacy, but that has not kept them "hot". Germany and France do not waste their time arguing about the "problem" of Alsace, do they? Most of my European friends think that it is a good thing that national borders mean less and less between EU countries. Moving them to settle old grudges is a very low priority. In my humble opinion, this is as it should be.

You misunderstand the purpose of NATO if you expect it to support Romania when it presses territorial claims against its neighbors (other NATO members or not). It is a defensive alliance.

I mean no offense by this Maresal, but have you been living on Mars for the last 50 years?

This post has been edited by Jeff_S on January 31, 2005 10:37 pm

Not just territory outside Romania. Everything that is disputed. I hear talk about making Transylvania an independent country, or about fragmenting Romania.
I heard a theory that after the revolution in 1989 there was a plan to dissolve Romania to brake it apart, but that was not possible because there is still strong Natioal Unity amongst the peoples.

The truth is that you can't ask others to solve your problems. Once you do that you have become a slave.

Nato wants to be come a world police or an international Army, - of course i'm against it. Don't you realize the purpose of NATO has changed?
It does not have the same purpose today as it had during the Cold War.
NATO represents American domination of Europe. If NATO was defensive organization as you say, it would have been disbanded after Communism and Warsaw pact collapsed... but no, they are not so dumb, and have realized before the potential that this organization can achieve.
How would you like to see foreign troops in your country? Or are so used to foreigners that you no longer care ?
Who was dropping bombs on peoples in the war in Kosovo? was it not NATO?
(and that NATO bombing campaign was comprised of 90% American planes)
How do you expect European peoples to react when your bombs fall on this continent 50 years later just as they did in world war 2 ?
You cannot claim anymore that NATO is a defensive organization, not after the last 15 years of it's futile existance.

Der Maresal, leave those who actually live in Romania and are Romanian citizens to worry about US troops on their soil or the fate of Romanian minorities (Ukraine, Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary) or majorities (Moldova) near our borders.

As for the bombing of Serbia and teh otherthrowing of Slobodan Milosevic, again you are too far way to judge instead of Romanians. His regime was extremely nationalistic and sooner or later he would have turned on the Romanian minority on the Timok Valley. Btw ultranationalism hasn't died yet in Serbia and they are presently preparing to demolsih a Romanian church built there last year, just because the mass is helds in Romanian.

Ofcourse i strong disagree with actions against romanian minorities who is atacked not only in Serbia,but in all souronding countries.But this not change the fact the NATO become a new alliance,with other purposes than only defence she`s members.Is the armed hand of USA interests in Europe(and USA try to expand this all over the world-see Afghanistan and even Irak).Why you think France and Germany create EU army corp?What hapened with Kosovo now?I read that was NATO plans for intervention in Europe,and Romania was included,like target,in case of problems in Transilvania or Basarabia\Transnistria,before to join with alliance.And remeber the problems with Bastroe channel and border with Ucraine.We ar too weak to count.Just the interests of biggers count.Mabe if we build a nuclear arsenal under Ceausescu,now the situation was better,for us and for our brothers near our borders,and dont stay to others mercy.