Modern Romanian Army...

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

NATO membership will most likely deter any future aggression on Romania by a foreign military force.

Yep, but NATO's (read USA) place in Europe is shrinking. As economically, the Americans will not be welcomed military in an "united" Europe anymore. Their decision to move their troops of occupation from Germany to Romania and Bulgaria is a good example. I cannot see what would be Romania's role in a future NATO policy ; merely not more than a corveable as thank-you country and a debouché for American imperialism in the Middle-East region.

tempesta wrote :

QUOTE

Unfortunately, the costs of mantaining a large and well-trained army are to much for present Romanian budget. And the posibilty of obtaininig money by selling the products of defense industry sounds nice, but is hampered by politics: Romania's big allies dont like that .

That's because Romania's economy was ruined, by its post-1989 governments, and by its big allies.
When you think that Romania's GDB was of 73,2 billion$ in 1987, and today it is far below 30 billion... Or let's take the national growth, which was in 1987 of 4,8%, and today negative.
And when you think that in 1989, Romania's foreign debt was nearly 0$, and today some 11 billion, it looks normal that we cannot maintain what we maintened as army in 1989.

Source : L'ETAT DU MONDE 1988-1989, Éditions La Découverte / Éditions du Boréal, Paris, 1988, page 219.

QUOTE

That's because Romania's economy was ruined, by its post-1989 governments, and by its big allies

The Romanian economy was already in ruins.

QUOTE

When you think that Romania's GDB was of 73,2 billion$ in 1987, and today it is far below 30 billion... Or let's take the national growth, which was in 1987 of 4,8%, and today negative.   And when you think that in 1989, Romania's foreign debt was nearly 0$, and today some 11 billion, it looks normal that we cannot maintain what we maintened as army in 1989.

And you miss the "good-old days"?
Note that what might have been good for export in 1987, some years later it was pretty much outdated and technologically we could not keep up. Btw, the economical growth rate today is positive, not negative as you say.

The army we had in 1989 served some purposes, which today are outdated. I do not see the why such a large army would be necessary today.

QUOTE

The army we had in 1989 served some purposes, which today are outdated. I do not see the why such a large army would be necessary today.

The main "outdated" purpose is Romania's independence. Indeed it is outdated for the present rulers. The ever increasing instability pathological liars like Tony Blair or the probably cornered and/or manipulated president G.W.Bush cause in the world already put at risk even their own countries. At least they have an interest for perpetual war. We don't. In any case, we are already paying a high price for the lies we passively accept as the "political game". It is quite probable we will pay a tragic price for the ignorance, lassitude, even cowardice of the present days. And the military who are hiding today behind the most incompetent and corrupt politicians will have no excuse for abandoning their honesty and professionalism. I wouldn't rely neither on the liars from abroad nor on those at home when a serious situation will arise. The simple lesson of the past - there are no friends in politics and war - seems difficult to grasp but when the time comes we will learn it the hard way.

Your ignorance on economic matters is too big, any contradictory discussion on that topic would be futile.

QUOTE

The main \"outdated\" purpose is Romania's independence. Indeed it is outdated for the present rulers.

Do you honestly believe that Romania was independent before 1989 or that the Army could have defended us against any foe?

QUOTE

The simple lesson of the past - there are no friends in politics and war - seems difficult to grasp but when the time comes we will learn it the hard way

Treaties are generally meant to insure that when "the time comes" (although I do not see why such a need will come) the commitments will be fulfilled. Nobody said anything about friends.

QUOTE

Your ignorance on economic matters is too big, any contradictory discussion on that topic would be futile

No comment.

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

The Romanian economy was already in ruins.

"IN RUINS" clearly means that the the pre-1989 economy was un-functional, which is false. It was fully functional, and producing tens of times more than today, but the problem was that it was mainly directionned to the national debt.

QUOTE

Note that what might have been good for export in 1987, some years later it was pretty much outdated and technologically we could not keep up.

So 2 years later, everything was outdated?!!! Even if your industry would be outdated, the most important thing is to find or preserve your foreign market.

QUOTE

Btw, the economical growth rate today is positive, not negative as you say.

Ah... Yes... Today... I forgot that Nastase borrowed money from the IMF...

QUOTE

The army we had in 1989 served some purposes, which today are outdated.

"Some"... So independence is an outdated purpose. Only our big allies van afford that "luxury". :roll:

QUOTE

I do not see the why such a large army would be necessary today.

150.000 or 200.000 is not so large for a country of 22 million. Iraq, for a population of 20 million had an army of 250.000 - 350.000... Which was considered as a LARGE army.

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

Do you honestly believe that Romania was independent before 1989

Was Romania occupied by any foreign power? Was Romania dependent of any foreign financial organization, in 1989?

It's too damn clear! :wink:

QUOTE

Do you honestly believe that Romania was independent before 1989 or that the Army could have defended us against any foe?

Romania was independent before 1989. As for any other country in the world in the modern times independence is not absolute. Romania 2003 is more like a colony, a comparison with pre-1989 one would be ludicrous.

The army can't defend us against any foe. But in 1968 we were ready to fight the Russians and we would have. With an army far less powerful than that in the 80ies. In fact the 1968 threat decided the new military doctrine. I don't think the Russians backed off only because of the American and Chinese declarations regarding the case Romania was attacked if they knew they would encounter no serious opposition.

NATO helped us then with intelligence data and we were their formal ennemies, full members of the Warsaw Pact. The Americans backed politically the Romanian position because it was in their interest to do so. These interests, national and lately not only, decide when the time for new policies has come. We might find ourselves alone overnight and I prefer a strong army then, not a piece of paper.

When our foreign affairs minister says we are abandoning the element of sovereignity for something more "important" - a seat at the table of those who decide - I think all is clear. I suppose he was too busy doing what he's told that he didn't notice how illogical that statment is.

http://www.3dpaper.gr/eng/balanceofpower/r...pow150101.shtml This is an excellent source on teh Romanian Army

According to 2002 data, only 298 tanks and 1316 AIFVs are active/operational...
Pretty lame, huh?
I think its obvious why Ukraine can bully us however it pleases, and we shut up...

This post has been edited by Imperialist on March 20, 2005 11:05 pm

they might want to reconsider the operational/active stuff....if operational means motionless and paralyzed, i guess it is ok

What do you mean?

USSR didn't attacked Romania simply because they didn't care at that time about Romania's option. Romania's decision to stand against USSR and other Warsaw Pact countries against Czechoslovakia was regarded with humour, to use a soft term , in Kremlin. Here you go (especially for the two Romania Mare members, I call here Geto-Dacul and inahurry),I think everybody heard about
Suvorov .

Later edit : however, Ceausescu's option brought Nixon and Carter in Bucharest. And both were fooled by the Russians. Of course,Ceausescu thought he's a fecken genius. Yup,he was.But dead.

This post has been edited by Zayets on March 21, 2005 02:22 pm

I have this book, in ".txt" format, and "Ziua M" from library, but please, if you have a link to "Spargatorul de gheata" or something ( a e-book, doc, etc.), please give me that link, or contact me via PM.

Thanks in advance,

Iama

Great link! Any other books in english on that site? I cant find the english version of that page if there is one... is there?
Thanx!