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

In June 1940, Czechoslovakia and Poland ceased to exist.
Yugoslavia refused to fulfil it's obligations as an ally, to declare war to a third country who will try to attack Romania if Romania was in war with SU. Turkey mentioned that it will accomplish his obligations.

Isn't that more a wish than the reality, Contras? Because if I am asked I would rather say that we stay worse than any other neighbour except Republic of Moldova. I am not referring here to our military training, which is good to excellent, but the poor quality old equipment and absence of concrete projects of endowment in the near future! We lack new tanks, we have no modern artillery, no modern helicopters or planes, not even a large number of modern antitank system for infantry units. Look to Hungary or Bulgaria, or, why not, Serbia, and you will agree...
Well, at least we are members of NATO, Thanks God!

Hmm, Hungary doesnt have any tanks (i think i read a while ago on another site that they renounced to the only tank batalion they had), and even if their army is almost 3 time smaller then ours, its still worse equiped compared to us.

Bulgaria is a bit more better the Hungary, but still well behind in almost every term, and Serbia is too small now, and too poor and weak to have a very good equiped army.

We have some good pieces of artilery (as reactive artilery and new mobile 155 mm ones) who are produced here, as well we produce our own tanks, IFV and APC, our own helicopters and even missiles. Yes, we are far from being a big power in Europe, but for sure we dominate pur neighbours, with exception of Ukraine. But Ukraine (an artifical country who is very possible to not exist as is today in the future) is still in a bad shape, and even they inherithed some capacities from former USSR it began to become outdated.

Gulf War 2 was ending after the fall of Baghdad. After that is not a really war, but an insurgence. And this insurgence has succes as long as Americans had no idea to deal with it.
After gen Patreus find a way to deal, insurgents were defeated. Americans were learning by their mistakes. How could you name the fact that, after you conquer the capital and entire country in six weeks, in place of bringing more occupation troops, you "send the boys home".
It was only Rumsfeld and Bush incapacity to deal with military problems.

About Ukraine posibilities and manouver room (smaller day by day), the future after elections, read here:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100125_uk...sian_resurgence

Contras, you are either wrong or misinformed.

Romania (and I am referring to the state called "Romania" since Carol I) never fought a war without being part of an alliance. Name a war that Romania was involved in and I will point out the alliance to you. But do not take my word for it, search for yourself (wikipedia is a good start).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_war_of_independence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Balkan_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Campaign_(World_War_I)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_during_World_War_II

Romania was neutral at the beginning of both world wars. This neutrality was guaranteed by foreign powers. Romania was invaded (or lost territories) in both wars after these foreign powers were unable to provide protection to Romania. When Romania entered and fought in both world wars, it did so as part of an alliance.

Radu

Ukraine's Mig 29 and Su 27 arent in their best shape either. They become older, and Russia isnt quite willing to retrofit them.

About wars, is a pretty common mistake to believe (especialy after some TV images from recent wars) that war isnt anymore fight on land. But if you dont have the infantry keeping the ground, is almost usseles. And to rely just on technology, UAV's and guided missiles it become more and more a dream. Peoples adapted, new ways mixed with old ones, and by-pass the technological superiority, especialy if you are very determinated and have some brain.

This is a book of an american officer who deal with the subject:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=d2Ux1lz0PU...page&q=&f=false

This post has been edited by udar on February 28, 2010 01:02 pm

[/QUOTE]Name a war that Romania was involved in and I will point out the alliance to you.[QUOTE]

I never said that Romania don't need to be part of an alliance, all world's states (with few exceptions) were part of alliances.
I don't understand what your point is. we were alone, as I said, in 1940, because all our allies were beaten or noncooperative, except Turkey. I said that all the wars in modern times (with few exceptions) were waged by states who were part in alliances, or backed by allies. That's not a point of divergence.
There are many regional powers who were in alliances. (France, UK, for example.)

About one war we waged against the will of our allies, is 1919 campaign, when our allies tried to stop us to conquer Hungary. All the military operations were without asistence or advise of one of our allies. Of course, we were part of Entente, but our allies had other plans and objectives.

Contras, you are either wrong or misinformed.

Romania (and I am referring to the state called "Romania" since Carol I) never fought a war without being part of an alliance. Name a war that Romania was involved in and I will point out the alliance to you. But do not take my word for it, search for yourself (wikipedia is a good start).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_war_of_independence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Balkan_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Campaign_(World_War_I)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_during_World_War_II

Romania was neutral at the beginning of both world wars. This neutrality was guaranteed by foreign powers. Romania was invaded (or lost territories) in both wars after these foreign powers were unable to provide protection to Romania. When Romania entered and fought in both world wars, it did so as part of an alliance.

Radu

How many wars in Europe, on that period, betwen european countries, wasnt fight in alliances?

The point of divergence is that you claim that Romania can be a "regional power" on its own. History tells us otherwise.
Romania's integrity was always guaranteed by other more powerful nations.
When Romania lost these guarantees, Romania ended up losing large parts of its territories or was invaded.
When Romania went to war, it did so as part of an alliance.
It is immediately obvious that when Romania is on its own, it is "powerless", and when allied with someone else it gets some "power".
THAT is the flaw in this whole "regional power" fairy tale.
Before Romania was part of NATO, Romanians were terrified that they were on their own and could be invaded by Russia. Now that Romania is part of NATO, Romanians talk of wars with Russia. Croitorasul cel viteaz!
Radu

Tell me where I said that. I gave you other examples, like France or UK, who are regional powers and are part of alliances.

All central European states were afraid by Russia, not only Romania. Poles, Czekz, Slovakians, Hungarians, all of them were afraid by a resurgerent Russia, who flexed his muscles on Dniestr in 1992.
But as I said, Russia's power will decrease, because she will be confronted with big problems in muslim states (who will claim their independence, like Cecenia) and in siberian ones.

Isn't that more a wish than the reality, Contras? Because if I am asked I would rather say that we stay worse than any other neighbour except Republic of Moldova. I am not referring here to our military training, which is good to excellent, but the poor quality old equipment and absence of concrete projects of endowment in the near future! We lack new tanks, we have no modern artillery, no modern helicopters or planes, not even a large number of modern antitank system for infantry units. Look to Hungary or Bulgaria, or, why not, Serbia, and you will agree...
Well, at least we are members of NATO, Thanks God!

Nice to see that someone is using his brain in this thread. Totally agree with the above.

Hungary has 12 T-72 in service and a few T-55 for training, more in reserve
We have absolutely no self propelled gun artillery, the ATROM 155 mm never went past prototype stage (one built)
We do have a large number of 122 mm MRLS, but only 24 launchers are upgraded to LAROM standard.
As for "we produce", it would be more accurate to use the past tense - we produced. And what we produced were licensed or copied technologies of the 1950's and 60's, some of which were slightly upgraded over the last 15 years.
So, if you guys like to indulge in (in my opinion useless) "what if" scenarios at least get the basic facts and principles straight.

As for the aerial capabilities, all our neighbors have BVR capable aircraft and missiles, our Lancers have only WWR AAMs. In a real combat situation, any Lancer which will survive BVR engagements will be totally outclassed in dogfights with much more maneuvrable Fulcrum, Flanker and Gripen. Our Puma SOCAT gunships, although equipped with excellent armament and avionics, lack any form of ballistic protection, they can be brought down with an AK

Land forces are irrelevant as long as you are unable to control the skies over them and support them with airpower. No air cover in a modern conventional battle means almost total anihilation or at least a severe defeat - see Falklands 1982, Khafji 1991, Iraq in April 2003, Sri Lanka 2009.

This post has been edited by Vici on February 28, 2010 02:11 pm

You said a number of times that Romania was on its own. Then you said that Romania was part of an alliance. OK then! Let us play by your rules.
Look at what happened when Romania was on its own.
Then look at what happened when Romania was part of an alliance.

Let me sum it up for you:
- Romania on its own = powerless
- Romania as part of an alliance = power (but not powerful as such)

Romania was never able, and it may never be able, to be a "regional power" on its own. It will always need a cructh, be that the Entente, The Axis, Warsaw Pact or NATO. It may not be something that you are willing to acept, but it is the reality.

Radu

You really don't understand. I said that Romania was alone in June 1940, because all his allies were beaten or uncapable to fulfil their obligations.

I never said that Romania should be a regional power on his own. I gave to you exemples of Frace and UK. Also, Turkey is a regional power in ascension, and it is part of an alliance.

All the regional powers are part of alliances, what is so hard to understand?
Because I'm tired to repeat again and again all I said and all I don't said.

The reason why the guarantors were unable to provide the guarantee is irrelevant. Without these guarantees, Romania was powerless. THAT dependance of alliances is Romania's weakness.

So, if you agree with me that Romania needs to be part of an alliance to be powerful, then why are you arguing with me?

Radu

I'm not arguing with you.
Of course that Romania must be part of an alliance to be powerfull, I'm never said that Romania could be powerfull without it. Look at my statements and say if I'm wrong. I really don't know from where you deduced that I said otherwise.