How much trust must have in NATO?

Now Romania is a full member of NATO,but is not much healty to have our strong military industries and our strong army,who not be very dependent by alliance?If we go not to deep in our history(but we can do this,if we want),just to WW 1 and WW 2,we will see the our big allies let us alone in decisives moments.In WW 1 lie to us if we atack Austro-Hungarian empire,the Antanta atack in south of Danube the Central Powers forces,and in north with russian army,to suport our ofensive,and this be an succes,but this atack not hapend even in the west front and germans was able to move against us more than 42 divisions.And military transports for us comming from Russia,come very late.Just after a year our army was able to fight with succes against enemy better trained,better equiped and larger forces,but than a large part of our country was under ocuppation.In the beggining of WW 2,our allies France and Great Brittain was not able to defend us and we lose again a part of our country,with shame,whitout fight,because we ar not able to fight against URSS, Hungary and Bulgaria(supported heavilly by Germany and Italy).This is hapened if you have much trust in other,and you ar not able to defend you alone(or even in much part alone).And i dont forggot what gen. Wesley Clark,military leader of NATO when NATO atack Yugoslavia sed.She sed the Trianon tratat must not be recognized in situation was than in East Europe.And i dont believe NATO will be agree with idea the Romania reunited with all provinces who losted.

Well Udar, are you looking for a discussion of NATO or of Romania's right to "lost" provinces?

NATO has always been a defensive alliance, and has never been called into play when one or more of the member countries decided to initiate hostilities on their own behalf (Example: Current U.S. involvment in Iraq and Afghanistan, whatever you may think of them, are not NATO actions. Similarly, NATO did not get involved militarily when Greece and Turkey went to war in the 1970's.) To the extent that NATO is involved in any of these areas it is as a peace-keeper and/or trying to clean up what has already happened. NATO has tried to serve as a negotiator in conflicts between member nations, such as the disagreement over Cyprus between Greece and Turkey in the 1970's. These attempts have not always been successful in the short run, but it is there as a forum, which I think is always a good thing.

Finally, remember that NATO, unlike many military alliances, and certainly unlike the relation between Romania and Germany, and later Romania and the Soviet Union during World War II, operates more on a consensus basis.

As such, it is highly unlikely that NATO will help Romania regain Bessarabia, for example, through military action. In any event, it is not clear to me that such lost provinces should be retained through military action. As the U.S. is currently finding out in Iraq, military actions are unpredictable and the results are not always favorable. Besides, as someone pointed out on one of the other lists in this forum recently, the "liberation" of Bessarabia in 1941 was viewed by the non-Romanians living there as just another occupation.

Eastern Europe has a long history of feuding over "lost" provinces, and each time that Country A regains a "lost" province, Country B loses a province. Since most of these provinces have mixed populations, this feud just goes on and on. Obviously, the methods of resolving these disputes which have been tried up to now just do not work. I hope that the admission of Romania and other Eastern European countries into NATO means that these border disputes will be resolved diplomatically in a way that pleases most of the people involved so that this cycle of feuding that started World War I will finally end.

As you pointed out, Romania does not have a strong military or economy. Given the cost of modern weapons systems, a country needs to build its economy first before it can even have a hope of having a strong military. So spending money now on building a military so that Romania can hope, some day, to regain "lost" territories just means that all of you in Romania will have to pay higher taxes and suffer under poor social services (i.e. schools, health, environment) so that the military can be built up. That seems to me to be a poor trade.

I agree that every country should attempt to strengthen itself because the world is not always kind to those who are completely unable to defend themselves. However, the post World War II era proves that a strong economy with a military that is able to defend the borders is more important that a strong military with a weak or mediocre economy. Belgium, Luxemburg and Switzerland for instance, do not have huge armies, yet their people enjoy a reasonable life style and a significant amount of security. Romania will never be a super-power because it simply does not have the population to do so. It can, however, become a Belgium, Luxemburg or Switzerland.

Perhaps I can afford to make this comment since I live in the U.S. However, tax policy and military spending are, in fact, a major issue in the current presidential campaign, and the polls seem to indicate that the population of the U.S. is about evenly split on this issue. We will see in November how things turn out.

Rob

NATO surely will never support a Romanian move east, just like most of the Romanian population won't do it. However, NATO is supposed IMHO to support Romania politically in the present disputes with the Ukraine in the Danube Delta.
There have been several repeated Ukrainian intrusions into Romanian waters in the Delta recently during the works on the controversial Birstoe Chanel and the Romanian frontier police forces in the region had to be bolstered to stop this. Yet the NATO secretary general declared at the summit held in Poiana Brasov (Romania) the last two days that this is a Romanian-Ukrainian local problem. What happened to Article 5? What happened to President Bush's promise made two years ago druing his visit in Romania, when he said that NATO and the USA will protect us in case of necessity? Romania has sent several thousand troops in Afghanistan and Irak these past two years, where it had no bussiness going. Two soldiers were killed so far. Some political support on this issue from our allies can't be that much trouble.

Don't forget (Greater) Russia's interest in the region. NATO surely won't risk to anger it's nemesis for the sake of a relatively minor issue, even if it involves one of its newly accepted members.

Gen. Dénes

I understand that this must be the reason, but I was replying to show that Romania hasn't too many reasons to trust NATO too much. The EU is much more supportive on the issue than NATO is and Romania isn't a member, yet.

Hmm, well, that just goes to show you. This is the first that I hear of any difficultied with Ukrain over the Danube delta, much less that anyone had gotten killed over it. I agree that if Romania is a part of NATO, NATO aught to be helping Romania out in this matter. Unfortunately, it is an election year over here and George Bush doesn't want to further weaken his chances of re-election by raising the issue now. Furthermore, the Bush administration has its hands full trying to work through the mess that it made for itself in Iraq.

It sounds to me that what is currently happening is not more than a little border skirmishing that can probably be delt with diplomatically. If I were the Romanian Foreign Minister I'd get the EU nations who are also in NATO to push the issue onto the NATO agenda. Politics, just like life, does work like that - get your friends to lobby for you, and do the same for them when they need you (a lesson Mr. Bush seems to have never learned).

Stay safe over there,

Rob

Hmm, I just re-read your post. Were the two Romanian soldiers killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, or in the Danube delta?

I agree with you about Iraq. I don't agree that entering Afghanistan was inappropriate after the attack on Sept. 11, 2001, however I can understand why you may feel that it is inappropriate to send Romanians there. I can certainly understand why Romanians would be disappointed by NATO's apparent disinterest in the dispute.

I agree with Denes' observation that Russia's interests in the region are a concern to NATO and the U.S. In fact, as I was looking at some of the web sites out of Russia, I was struck by how hostile some of them are to the U.S., Western Europe and NATO. I know that our C.I.A. has issued several reports discussing with great concern the possibility that Russia might "implode" as a result of its drastically shrinking population (due to HIV/AIDS, alcoholism and drug abuse, and the deterioration of their social system, inculding their health system). One of the possible scenarios in the event of such an implosion would be that Russia turns to its nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons to compensate for the weakness in its conventional military. (I do not, by any means believe everything the C.I.A. says. They were clearly wrong about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. However, I have heard from a number of sources that the lands of the former Soviet Union have been experiencing a very serious population decline, and that the average live expectancy has decreased dramatically.)

Putting myself in the shoes of, say, the General Secretary of NATO, or one of the foreign ministers of a western country, I think I would approach this situation through back-door channels. I would not want to create an impression in the minds of the general public in the Ukraine/Russia, that their government had been humbled by the "West" again. So it would be important to me to give the Ukrainians/Russians a face-saving exit, perhaps in exchange for some trade concession. Whether this is, in fact, what is currently happening, I do not know.

I'm curious to know what you think.

Rob

Moldovia as it is now called, was stolen from Romania and must be returned, However their is more then one way to accomplish that gaol. If Romania becomes strong economically; then Moldovia which is in very bad condition, will eventually want rejoin with Romania. Romania is recovering from its painful transition and within a dacade you will remarkable growth, just as it happened in Poland. Wait and you will see Romania has a large, cheap, highly skilled workforce, in adition Romania is stable nation. Under these conditions nations have always experienced great growth.

That does not mean Romania should not have a strong military, and sometimes spending on the military helps economic growth and recovery. Licence production for example brings new techinology to companys makeing them more competive. It also creates jobs and every dollar/euro put into the economy it is spent at least five more times. So a two billion dollar contract puts as much as ten billion back into the economy. You have to spend money to make money thats how it works. Also Romania's history has shown that in time of war, Romania can count on little helps from allies, which are looking out only their own interest. So while it may not seem nessary now, once trouble starts its already to late for nations such as Romania to buying what it needs.

Finally sometimes to draw foreign investment and military aid you must prove yourself in some distant war. When you allies see that you are serious then you will see them start to assit you both military and economically. As with Poland, America needs to start helping Romania, it has been a loyal ally.

Thank You

I agree that a Romania that is economically strong will be able to absorb Moldavia/Bessarabia and that this could happen through non-military means. I am not sure that it will happen without social strife. Afterall, the re-unification of Germany has not been particularly smooth.

So that's where all our jobs are going to.

I must respectfully disagree that an investment in the military helps the economy to grow all that much. True, defense spending does creat jobs. It is also true that a defense industry can export arms and help the national balance of trade. But the goods produced by that type of investment are not of a type that build additional wealth. In otherwords, if you buy a tank, it just sits there using up fuel and requiring maintenance until you actually go to war. Machine tools and infra-structure projects, such as roads and power lines, can be used to make or ship additional goods, and that, in turn, creates additional jobs.

On a related note, a few of the wargames conventions over here have had "strategic exercises" where the players take the part of heads-of-state and their staff (i.e. foreign minister) of various countries during an international crisis (you can either do a current crisis, or an historical one, like Munich, 1938). The games are run by a team of referees, and the side(s) that win are those that best acomplish their strategic goals. I participated in one in The Hague, Netherlands when I was in highschool. I recommend them - you end up learning a lot both about history and about yourself, and they require nothing more than a few pads of paper, some pens, and a building with multiple rooms. Universities are ideal for this since they usually have an aditorium and classrooms. You can often get the history department to sponsor such an event during a school holiday, and get the rooms for free. Oh, and I generlly recommend a good pub to retire to after the event.

Rob

No-one will condone the change of borders in Eastern Europe in the near future, as it might just open the proverbial can of worms. Just look at Kosovo, with over 90% of ethnic Albanian population, all wanting to become independent, but they are not allowed to.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on October 16, 2004 03:22 am

No-one will condone the change of borders in Eastern Europe in the near future, as it might just open the proverbial can of worms. Just look at Kosovo, with over 90% of ethnic Albanian population, all wanting to become independent, but they are not allowed to.

Gen. Dénes

Gen. Denes,

While I respect your opinion, Kosovo is not the same as Moldovia. EU backs the peaceful reunification of Moldovia and Romania. Kosovo is very important to Serbia and it is sicking the way that the UN failed to protect the Serb's in Kosovo, I guess genacide is ok if it is against a disliked group. Since Serbia proper is now different ethnic group, then Kosovo is it wil be difficult to ever fully reunite it with Serbia. Moldovia on the other Hand is still mostly ethnic Romanian and why would Romania have trouble with the Ukrianians and Russians that live there. Romania simply must show them that life in a united Romania will be good for them. Russia can maybe be convinced by offering them a market, a friend in the EU and NATO, and a reassurences that the Ethnic Russias living in Moldovia will be treated well. So if all parties agree their will be no stoping it.

Thank you

This post has been edited by Stephen on October 16, 2004 07:16 am

They were killed in Afghanistan
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=476

"Peaceful" is the operative word here as neither EU nor NATO will ever back territorial expansion by military means.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on October 16, 2004 08:36 am

Robert sed the NATO was allways a defensive alliance.Mabe in cold war period.First example is the agresion war against Yugoslavia,over ONU head.About our problems with Ukraine,when our neighbors put the balizes who marks border in our teritorial waters,and NATO sed is our problem,this must be a problem for us.I sed is much better to have our strong army,military industry,and ofcourse,economy,because is not to healty to trust the NATO defend us(or defend us in all situation).To be onest,i say we go in NATO to dont have anymore problems with Russia,but NATO dont help us just in this situation.I see NATO(and USA especialy)use us just like teritory for future bases,and future market for shes weapons(second hand or third hand weapons,because we dont have money to buy F-35,for example).We was not to long time ago to the 5 place in to weapons world exports,but now is very probably we will be in situation to buy weapons,not to sell.I believe its time to wake up,to see the all countries,and especialy same named great powers,have shes interests first,and nobody help you just because you ar a nice country,or you have right. Unfortunately,is a jungle law out there,a little masked,a little sophisticated,but a jungle law,were power dicted.About this,the atack against Yugoslavia was illegal,and even Kosovo was a legal part of Yugoslavia have now an uncertain status quo,but there is for example a third part of chrom world reserves,and other large minerals reserves.Who take him?Somebady sed the wars start were is some to take it.And here is another example,Irak,with shes oil.It will be much better for us to be able to defend by own powers,and dont have much trust in others.

There was no agression. Just friendly persuasion.

Given current world developments I wonder if the right choice was made. We get the benefits : increasing Albanese mafia activity

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on October 18, 2004 09:45 pm