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

Another important thingh, if tomorow Moldovans and Ukrainans would block the smugling routes from Transnistria, in a few days the Smironov regime will colapse. It cannot resist without the smoggling highway to Odeesa.

If we imagine that there is the will of the moldovan leadership to reunite the country and Romania is capable to sustain Moldova economically, a Georgian scenario is not possible! Why? How do you send (as Russian) an army corps, even an airborne brigade or so over Ukraine, where it is an air defence system with guns and missile systems, and maybe even some MiG-s left (moldovan ones) and the only available airport at Tiraspol can be occupied in hours. Without help the transnistrian army can be defeated in couple of days by a well disciplined and properly equipped fighting force. Of course just a blitzkrieg type scenario could work, if you remember the croatian 1995 Operation Storm in Krajna and Bosnia. But with the poor status of the moldovan army today, such a scenario is not credible...

It is not credible, Andreas, because Romanian army, in case of airborne sustainements in Transnistria, I'm sure will intervene with aids in ammo and military stuff. Even now, it is a mistery about implication of Romanians in war in 1992.

a reason more to reflect upon why smirnov is still in charge. and from there, the implication of ukrainean interest there and so forth.
Realpolitik with other words.

Of course, I told it in this topic, until now, and maybe in the future, Ukraine had the level to blackmail Moldova with transnistrian stuff.. And even Romania. But it has no interest to stop the smuggling on his teritory, because some important people here gains some real money, from this smuggling trade...

If we imagine that there is the will of the moldovan leadership to reunite the country and Romania is capable to sustain Moldova economically, a Georgian scenario is not possible! Why? How do you send (as Russian) an army corps, even an airborne brigade or so over Ukraine, where it is an air defence system with guns and missile systems, and maybe even some MiG-s left (moldovan ones) and the only available airport at Tiraspol can be occupied in hours.

But what you and Contras miss out of this picture is that you're talking about Transnistria being part of Moldova based on Moldova's UN-recognized sovereignty and in a bid to "de facto" strengthen that sovereignty. However that runs against the very idea of unification with Romania because that unification means Moldova would cease to be a sovereign state.

So Romania should support only its unification with Moldova, not Moldova's reunification with Transnistria. Not only is that none of our business but it is also what Moldovan "sovereignists" have used to derail talks about unification with Romania by instilling Moldovan nationalism and a sovereignity project.

If the Moldovans fail to see the benefits of uniting with Romania and instead badly want to obtain control back over Transnistria then we're wasting our time.

As for the logistics of a Russian move, the fact that Ukraine would oppose Romania's projects in the region and that Yanukovych is now in power in Ukraine would make them far easier.

The two projects are not exclusive each other, because Moldova will unite with Romania before Transnistrian problem is resolved, in fact would just put this problem (Transnistria) on Romania's shoulders.

Oh, yes - and all that while Russia is... what?! Day-dreaming or what?
PS: not Ukraine, Russia!!!!

I doubt Moldova will unite with Romania as long as it continues to hang on to Transnistria. Moldova cannot invoke its sovereignty over that strip while seeking to dissolve that sovereignty at the same time. It has to make a choice.

On the other hand, Romania would have to assure the Western powers that it would leave Transnistria be and avoid any military flare-up at the border of NATO. Basically "successor state" Greater Romania would have to drop Moldova's claims on that strip.

Imperialist, there are many scenarios that could be made about it.
Imagine one, when western powers say that Transnistrian regime must to come to his end. Maybe they think is to dangeroos for them to accept this paria state near the EU borders. Of corse, this means that something big would happen.

What "Western powers"? What century are you in? This is 2010 not 1910!
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on March 06, 2010 06:13 am

So you think there are no Western powers just because we're in 2010? That's a strange point to make.

US, UK, France and Germany are generally seen as being (the) Western powers.

Here's an example:

Western Powers Urge New Sanctions Against Iran

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middl...n-86386957.html

I did not state anything, I only asked a question. Surely you know the difference. Who is "putting words in someone else's mouth" now?

Here are a few more qustions to check for yourself:
Take any of these nations you listed. How large/powerful were they in 1910 and how large/powerful are they in 2010?
How able were these powers to deliver the promised guarantees to Romania when they were worldwide empires? Will they perform better in 2010?

And here is a statement: Face it, times have changed.
Radu

I only asked a question too.

I'm not talking about guarantees, I'm talking about diplomatic backing and recognition for a certain move. And yes I think the Western powers can give us that if they want to. You'd have to ask Contras what he meant with what you quoted from his post.

And I am talking about the actual "value" of such "backing". Giving such guarantees is easy for them. Acting on these guarantees is where they fall flat on their faces. Romania was raped and pillaged in two world wars, despite "diplomatic backing" and "recognition" from "Western powers".
THAT is the elephant in the room.
Radu