What's next?, next war Romanians could be part of

Oh, I wish it were Mafia! They still had a ssense of honour and - especially - the death penalty for some of their own! We just have a "manelized" version of Mafia, a Balkan one (long live Kusturica!)
About South American banana-republics: we don't have bananas, nor the heat of down there - so, it's quite different (dunno if better, though).
To those who mock our pseudo-democracy, I ask "what was the alternative?" What else could we have chosen? (as if we really chose anything, but, then... who knows...)
About Transnistria and Cadrilater: true, they were as Romanian as Bucovina was Austrian or Ukrainean; except we're neither Austro-Hungaria, nor USSR!
About Szeklers and stuff on that line: IMO, they just "rattle" this issue, but wouldn't know what to do if they had it! Perhaps they know they won't ever get it, but still like to put gas on the fire, for the fun of it!

I see you haven't any ideea of what means democracy, or a democratic state. You confuse Mafia with some stollen weapons. BTW, in every democratic country were stealings, but the authors were grabed and condemned, accordingly the law. The ones who stollen the weapons were captured and will be condamned.
Are many levels of a democratic state. For exaple, Romania is more democratic like in 1990. But I must gave you the basics for democracy, to understand how we stay, compared with other states. Of course, we still have to learn.

Democracy, main basic rules:
1. Rule of law
2. Free elections (includes here freedom of word and association)
3. Protection of minorities (all of them, not just ethnic)

In spite of these, compare with other states, like Ukraine, Russia, Colombia, other banana-states in Southern America, like you did before.

Is not Romanian land, but is claimed by Russia. Which were the basis of its claims, when Russians occupied this territory only in 1792? Exactly 20 years after that, they took Bassarabia from us.
Historicaly, Romanians and Russians have the same rights at Transnistria.

the funding from "the center" has been somwhat ... overlookable, pretty much everywhere in transsylvania, not to speak about banat. the whole "redistribution of funds from the center" is and has been a huge ripoff for most regions, except perhaps vaslui and likewise (apa nu-i, lumina nu-i...).
therefore, most likely they'd be better off administering their own taxes, as "the center" has shown an epic inability to properly do so.

Yesterday were 18 years from starting the war in Transnistria, when transnistrian paramilitary forces attacked the police station in Dubasari.

Contras, I hope you do not really believe it! If you think of Cossacks, Slavic origin, which later were called Ukrainians, I agree, but russians? Only if you see the Eastern Slavs (from Ukraine) as part of the historical Russian nation (Kievean Russia), we understand each other, but otherwise... Transnistria must belong to his ancient inhabitants, not the colonists brought by an occupying power (Russia)!
Please explain your statement!

I really think (chhhred cu tarrrhhie) we should define exactly what we mean by Transnistria: the separatist region of today OR what was meant by it during WW2: the region betwen Dniestr and Dnieper. Which one are we talking about?

How ancient?
How far do you want to go? One generation? Ten generations? One hundred generations? Neanderthals? Dinosaurs? Mononucleotic organisms?

Before "cold wars", paranoia, visas, passports and borders people were free to roam everywhere they wished/needed and many settled wherever they could. The concept of "nation" defined only by language and "nationality" made little sense in those days - in fact, these things are relatively new concepts, that arose only in the last couple hundreds of years. "Countries" could span across many nations speaking many languages. Such was the case with the Roman Empire, The Otoman Empire, and more recently United Kingdom, USSR, Yugoslavia etc. People moved freely and settled a lot easier than today. In places like Dobruja, over the last two thousand years there were many populations like Romanians, Greeks, Turks, Tatars, Bulgars, Russians. Believe me, if you want to use the "my grandpapa lived there" argument, Romanians may not emerge as the winners pretty much anywhere.

Radu

There is a "slight" difference between a country ans an empire; not so slight to the trained eye, however...
About Grand-papa's and stuff: I'm not so sure! Given the rapid urbanisation process of the communist era, most of our grandparents were born in the countryside and "migrated" to the city in their tender ages So, you might want to get back a couple/a dozen of generations...
About the good old days - it isn't so! Yes, maybe they could "move"around freely, but the "settling" business wasn't as easy as you'd like us to believe! Ask the American pioneers - also, let's remember the "servitude" stuff: some people weren't allowed to go wherever they wanted, because they were born on a certain domain and had to live, work, procreate and eventually die there!

Try not to look at the past with today's eyes. "Impenetrable borders" and visas are relatively recent concepts that occured only in the last four or five generations.
Before that, people were allowed to move relatively freely. That accounts for the richness of European culture and the many shared languages and traditions. That explains the presence of Macedonians in Dobruja and Protoromanians in Macedonia. It is also the simplest explanation for names like Topraisar, Medgidia, Cernavoda, Craiova, Targoviste, Ghiurtelec, Ciuc, Braila. That explains the Romanian plural "le/lor" that is closely related to the Turkish plural "ler" and the ubuquitous Romanian "escu" that is closely related to the Polish "eski". Shall we mention the multitude of dishes and foodstuffs that we share with so many of our neighbours?
All of this points to shared knowledge/culture born out of migration and borderless movement. It happened and it happened a lot easier than many are willing to accept.
Radu

I was a little unclear. I refer, first, at the fact that Transnistria, the eastern part of Moldova, is recognised by ONU and all world states like part of Moldovan Republic. In spite of this, Russia claims that land, indirectlly, of course, sustainig military and materialy the leaders from Tiraspol. And, from time to time, starts debates in mass-media and elsewhere, about Transnistrian independence or unification with Ukraine or Russia.
I think also at larger Transnistria, between Nistru and Bug.
Here were living Romanians, Anton Golopentia found many villages with Romanian inhabitans inclusive in eastern part of Bug river. They're living Romanians there, as Tatars, Cossacs, Poles, and many others.
Russia anexed this part of land, between Bug and Nistru, in 1792. After that, it become isconno ruskie zemli (it means very old Russian lands), as every piece of land where one Russian soldier put his foot. Look at Kalinigrad. His older name was Konigsberg, here Kant was born. First time was occupied by Russians during 7 Years War (1756-1763), but they were retreated. Was German land until 1945, when become isconno ruskie zemli .
About larger Transnistria, Romanians were here before 1792, whe Russian army comes at Nistru's shores. So we can claim that land, as Russians did, when they threaten Ukraine with disolving, if it try to became NATO member. (not on actuality, after elections).

that is, because the war ended for Austria,Prussia and Russia with status quo ante bellum. and because Peter III took a fancy in Frederick. nothing in that procedure is unique.
other than that, it's not like the land between the dnyester and bug was annexed from a romanian(moldavian) state. during that era russia expanded considerably, swallowing up all kind of khanats and whatnot.
the base, that at some certain point in time the region harboured some romanian (moldavian?) settlements, to claim the territory will not be taken seriously by anyone.
and rightfully so, as it does not reflect any present day demographic reality.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on March 04, 2010 11:28 pm

Contras,
After what you said -yes, we have the same opinion! The explanation was necessary and useful, I think!

Dead-cat,
It's not about to claim Transnistria (the Ukrainian part!), but to not allow the separation of Transnistria (the Moldovan part) from the mother country Moldova, under the argument that Transnistria has never been part of historical Moldova! I heard many romanians said that, and it's wrong! I think we all have to fight for it (not by military means!) -as long as Moldovans are still living there- and never give up! (remember Churchill!). We have all the rights to do so!

the others are in majority. i guess that was the argument for the union with transsylvania, wasn't it?

The others, all toghether, are in majority, but Moldovans (Romanians) have 40% population in Transnistria (eastern part of Moldova). All the others, individually speaking, are in minority (under 30%, Ukraineans and Russians).
This way to see the things is characteristic to Russians points of wiew. look at the claim made recently, to give Russian language oficial status in Moldova. Why Russian, when Ukrains are the second important population group, after Moldovans and before Russians?
Dead-cat, Russia expanded and asimilated all the inhabitants, by force, or dislocating hundreds of thousands of them. This status quo is problematic until today. Look at the Tatars from Crimeea, who were send in Khazastan during ww2 by Stalin, their offsprings wanted during 90 to came back home. They were not allowed, as I know.
Present day, in Transnistria, all the Moldovans refugees houses are occupied by Russians and Cossaks, arrived here after the Transnistrean war in 1992.