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

But your idea of messing up the enemy's plans is predicated on some form of a "victory" in itself. In other words, if the Romanians are to successfully stop the enemy by using "irregular warfare", they can ONLY do that by "successfully" carrying out such a type of operation. Because if they do not succeed in using this tactic, then that it is a "defeat". But if they succeed and achieve the opposite of a "defeat", then that is a... "victory". So, your whole tactic depends on some kind of "victory from the start" too.

So, let us return to the main question: since Russia already used "irregular warfare" to blindingly fast and efficient success in Crimea, how is the untested (and so far unknown) Romanian "irregular warfare" better? Because it HAS to be better in order to achieve the goals set in your post.

Radu

The opposing forces:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn2a5td6rgk
vs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ-h7V730_U

(Reminder: YouTube videos may not function on Microsoft Internet Explorer, but they can be seen in Google Chrome.)

This post has been edited by Florin on April 17, 2014 12:09 am

In irregular warfare the goal is to prevent the other side from winning until they give up trying to. Your victory is the other side not winning. But again, nothing is guaranteed from the start. The original question however was could we do something, not "could we do something that can guarantee assured victory".

Russia used irregular forces in Crimea, but there was no warfare. The Ukrainian army did not fight the irregular forces Russia used.

So, if I understand correctly you want Romania to do someting (we will know what when/if the time comes) for an outcome that we do not know yet (but not a victory).
God love us if this is the extent of our defence strategy.
Radu

What I said was that Romania can do something if the political decision is to do something; while you said we can't do anything. The discussion has been about means available or lack thereof, not desired policies.

Using your framework of analysis, if I understood right, the extent of our defense strategy would be "call a bigger friend and cry on the phone". God love us if that is all.

I doubt that you seek to "understand" me...it seems that as usual you seek to "catch" me.

The "extent" of my "strategy" is simple "wisdom": do not put yourself in danger unnecessarily. I use the same strategy when it comes to dealing with gravity, electricity, oncoming traffic, man-eating animals, etc. I use a life-preserver on a boat, I use a seatbelt in a car, I use a lifeline when climbing, I ask somebody to hold my ladder, I do not drink liquids from unlabelled bottles. Yes, I know that to many "jmeckeri" this seems as "unmanly", but that keeps me away from the Darwin Awards.

The extent of your "strategy" is the usual "mioritic": "da' sa se faca ceva dom'le", "punem un petic aici si o mana de vopsea acolo", "las' ca merge si asa", followed by "asa suntem noi, ghinionisti".

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on April 17, 2014 02:21 pm

Discussing something with you is like walking through a very dense minefield. I have to choose my words very carefully but even so I know whatever I do the trip usually ends up "explosively", with you resorting to some personal attacks.

Implying I am a "jmecker" was really uncalled for. Did it make you feel better?

Like I said, I understood your point of view. You don't think we should do anything if Russia does something in Moldova. I didn't argue against your point of view. I just argued against your general claim that nothing can be done if the decision is to do something. You seem to be awfully dissatisfied with anyone believing we could do something.

p.s. You use the Miorita reference completely wrong. If anything you are the one who adopts a mioritic attitude/mentality in this discussion - "nothing can be done, we are doomed, it's pointless, we can't win, we are powerless". That's precisely the shepherd's attitude in Miorita.

Now, you see? That is the problem. You try to find the "hidden meaning" instead of reading the clear message.

I never mentioned defeat or surrender. You are the one who keeps mentioning it. All I am saying is that "if one cannot win in a fight with a thug, one would be wise to avoid fighting the thug". It is not defeatist, it is just wise. If one is skilled and experienced in fighting thugs, by all means take a chance. But if one is a "pirpiriu" there is no glory to be gained in fighting the thug. It will end badly. You surely must have been in situations when you took the safe option because you knew that it would end badly otherwise.

It is strange that in your efforts to find "hidden meanings" in what I am saying you missed what I was actually saying: "Romania should not enter fights that will end badly for it. If Romania has to fight, it must be prepared for it." We had endless discussions about this and you never seemed to be able to grasp the idea that Russia has the means to cause serious harm. As a Romanian, your naivete about what Russia is capable of (militarily, economically, politically) is hard to understand. It is as if you never read a history book (or do not watch the news).

Radu

"Radub" and "Imperialist":
In your rhetoric you used "God love us…"
I think more correct is "God help us".


This post has been edited by Florin on April 17, 2014 08:46 pm

The original question was "how can we fight Russia".

The syllogism you used was basically this: we are weaker than Russia - hence we can't fight Russia - hence we shouldn't fight Russia.

I didn't dispute that we are weaker. I didn't even dispute your opinion that we shouldn't get in a fight with Russia. What I said was that saying we can't fight Russia is wrong and that if the political decision is made to help Moldova resist a Russian aggression then we could help them against Russia with the little we had. Even though overall we are weaker. You asked how. I said irregular warfare, the typical strategy adopted by the weak against the strong.

At which point you changed the syllogism: we are weaker than Russia - maybe we can fight - but we can't win - hence we shouldn't fight Russia.

Being a wholly hypothetical discussion with no palpable data you can't say whether we can or can't win. That's the thing about irregular warfare, you just can't look at a country and given its size, economy and military power decree whether it will win or lose against an insurgency for example.

You say it's as if I haven't read history books. Well, have you read history books about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Afghanistan again? Stronger sides lose too, against all odds.

I think what Russia really wanted was Crimea as secured base for the Black Sea fleet, and as a huge "aircraft carrier" in close range to Romania, Bulgaria, Republic of Moldova and Istanbul (Turkey).
Now all they have to do is to wait for some obvious situation where Russian speaking civilians will be killed by the Ukrainian military forces, to justify the delivery of weapons into Eastern Ukraine and keep alive the mess that's there.
I think problems for the Republic of Moldova are still far away. Russia did not eat yet Ukraine, and following the snake filling logic, it cannot jump to another victim in the foreseeable future.

Propaganda vs. propaganda – who is better at propaganda ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tarHyAOZcc
vs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQDc7jAVt0M

Imperialist, those countries did not "win". They suffered severe casualties and were crippled in every possible way. Such calamitous outcomes require costly rebuild for generations. If a "stone age Romania" and large graveyards are your best hope, then we are truly in trouble.
Radu

China helped the Vietnamese fight the US, Pakistan helped the Mujahedin in Afghanistan against the USSR, Romania helped Moldova during the war in the early 1990s against Transnistrian/Russian forces, Iran helped the Iraqis fight the US. None of these countries were turned to rubble as a result.

Bringing up "stone age Romania" and large graveyards is panicky and emotional because such an outcome would be the final and most unlikely to be reached level of escalation Russia would use in response to the discrete low-level support we might give to Moldovan insurgents. Using such dramatic images shows you don't really understand how foreign aid in irregular warfare and response to such aid works. What the escalation stages are in response. If Romania were to send Moldova low-scale support in the form of small-arms, ammunition and some advisors, something it can realistically do, it would be completely unlikely for Russia to start bombing Romania. Actually it would be completely idiotic for it to do so. It doesn't work like that.

Helping Moldova to fight this force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Transnistria probably backed by forces and combat equipment from Russia (or why not captured from ukrainean army in soutern Ukraine) would involve, about me, more than delivery of light weapons... I hope that we not get ourselfs in such a problem...