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

C'mon! There were so many lies, exagerations and disinformations in those years that one couldn't really believe too much! The other guys on the forum who were older than me (13 in 1990) could confirm that! The newspapers of those times are NOT a reliable source of information, especially regarding the internal aspects (politics, economy a.s.o.)...

This post has been edited by MMM on September 05, 2012 07:40 pm

MMM, no doubt you're right but compared to current media that was even reasonable
Seriously in terms of foreign informations (USSR, Ukraine, Moldova events a.o.) for many newspapers of the time I can bet they were objective. I remember f.i. Expres Magazin, Tinerama, Romania Libera...

In those time, 1991, European Union does not exist! Wasn't a common voice, there were just opinions of the Western states. Germany was preocupated to consolidate the union with former RDG and others. The real state d'affair was a complete degringolade.

An interesting future war game, about Romania and Rusia, here:

http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.ro/2012/09/...oi-bantuie.html

Russia's possible next move in 2013:

http://voceabasarabiei.net/index.php?optio...307&Itemid=1909

Who cares about Transdniester? Let them declare independence and join CIS. Chisinau should stop looking towards the East already. Transdniester is nothing but leverage that Moscow uses to interfere with Moldova's road towards the West. And Chisinau is falling for it.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on October 16, 2012 06:56 pm

It's not "that" simple... After Trans-Dnestra will follow other regions of Moldavia: plus, this would mean (IMHO) recognising de jure (after de facto, which already happened two decades ago) Russia's western foothold (military, I mean).

As long as they keep looking towards Tiraspol they also keep looking towards Moscow. As long as they maintain their claims over Transdniester the West perceives this as a conflict that could flare up at any moment like it happened in Georgia, and the West doesn't want to be part of that. So the inability to get over Transdniester keeps Moldova in no-man's land.

The best decision from the point of view of the ethnic majority of the Republic of Moldova (or at least for the unionists among them) would be to leave that Russophone region go its merry way and focus on the bigger prize - moving closer to the West.

I don't see why we/they should be interested in Moldova re-asserting its sovereignty over Transdniester. The unionists want the sovereignty of the artificial state of Moldova gone (in the sense of union with Romania), not re-asserted over a breakaway region.

The problem is not so simple. In Transnistria, ethnic Romanians are over 40%, the rest is 30% each, Russians and Ukrainians. Russians are not the inhabitants, they are in majority members of military personal and other types who will flee next day that Chisinau re-estabilish his authority here.

Is an international principle here. The Moldovan state (including Transnistria) was recognised in its initial form by all ONU members. There will be for the first time in history that somebody renounce by its own will to a part of its territory for nothing in change. And what about Tighina?

Which weighs more on the scales - 2.6 million Romanians in Rep. of Moldova or 180,000 Romanians in Transdniester?

Chisinau will not re-assert its sovereignty over Transdniester in full and unconditionally.
First, Moscow will make sure the negotiations will last very long (they've already lasted some 2 decades). Then, if an end is in sight, the condition will most likely be to give Transdniester autonomy like Gagauzia has. Which will include the constitutional right to secede if the Rep. of Moldova unites with Romania!

So the ethnic majority in the Rep. of Moldova has to make up its mind about what's more important for its future - Transdniester or the move towards the West (which may not necessarily take the form of an official union with Romania).

For us Romanians in Romania the issue of Transdniester is unimportant. And for the unionists it should be a nuisance because it's nothing but a trick used by Moscow.

Trick? Maybe, but it works, at least until now and in the foreseeable future. If that's so simple, then why is it Merkel directly concerned?

It works because the Romanians in Rep. of Moldova have made an obsession out of it and the Moldovan communists exploit it, which forces the pro-Western political forces to remain seized with this issue too. They can't appear to be less "patriotic" than the communists, can they? By conditionally getting Transdniester back Moldova would be held hostage by it. The sooner Moldova lets Transdniester go the better.

Again:

In those time, 1991, European Union does not exist! Wasn't a common voice, there were just opinions of the Western states. ......

It did exist. I forgot - there were 9 states in that moment? 1991 was before or after Sweden, Denmark and Finland joined? The fact that there were less states does not mean it did not exist.
And it had a lot of influence, too. The simple fact that that all former Warsaw pact members were courting the organization to be allowed in means it was impressive in 1991 as well. It was stronger than now, from a financial point of view. I am talking about additional government debt that added in the last 21 years.
P.S: I like the advertise shown right now in the bottom of the page: "Click here to see your arrest record."

This post has been edited by Florin on October 17, 2012 06:38 pm

In those time, 1991, European Union does not exist! Wasn't a common voice, there were just opinions of the Western states. ......

It did exist. I forgot - there were 9 states in that moment? 1991 was before or after Sweden, Denmark and Finland joined? The fact that there were less states does not mean it did not exist.
And it had a lot of influence, too. The simple fact that that all former Warsaw pact members were courting the organization to be allowed in means it was impressive in 1991 as well. It was stronger than now, from a financial point of view. I am talking about additional government debt that added in the last 21 years.
P.S: I like the advertise shown right now in the bottom of the page: "Click here to see your arrest record."

Check the Wikipedia!
Austria, Finland, Sweden: 1995!
In 1991 there were 12 member states, hence the flag!
European Union
Re: differences: yes, it might have been more powerful from a financial point of view (though I doubt it, EVEN IF only "strong" countries were members then), now it's closer to the European meaning of it! Almost all European countries are members (except those who don't want to be, like Norway and Switzerland) and most ex-Soviet / ex - Jugoslav states.
PS: What advertisement? I never saw it...