4 ms·

> Bucharest... Romania in general, has to play a difficult diplomatic game. The only source of the stability in the region comes from Bucharest. Look at its nei

> Bucharest... Romania in general, has to play a difficult diplomatic game. The only source of the stability in the region comes from Bucharest. Look at its neighbours: > Moldova, who was part of the Eastern bloc, has strong tendencies towards EU and RO, Romania is even offering them citizenship, to literally everyone that applies for one. Moldova has a region called Transnistria which is the equivalent of Ukrainian Donbass. It's a ticking bomb. Transnistria is not an issue really. With modern Western weapons, both Moldova, and Romania can contain it with a single division. > I can say that Romania is already living the new Cold War, it's right at the core. Without EU and NATO, today Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia wouldn't have been a unitary body of democractic values called Romania. Romania, with all its flaws, still has a functioning military, ministry of interior, mostly stuffed with pro-nationalist cadres. The chance of Russia pulling Crimea on it is low. They will not have the same ease to bribe half of the general staff as they did in Ukraine.

kergonath 5y ago
> Transnistria is not an issue really. With modern Western weapons, both Moldova, and Romania can contain it with a single division. This would be an issue as big as Putin would want to make it. He would not have any qualm sending some troops there if it could further destabilise Europe. > Romania, with all its flaws, still has a functioning military, ministry of interior, mostly stuffed with pro-nationalist cadres. The chance of Russia pulling Crimea on it is low. They will not have the same ease to bribe half of the general staff as they did in Ukraine. Thankfully.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > This would be an issue as big as Putin would want to make it. He would not have any qualm sending some troops there if it could further destabilise Europe. And... bad for him! He should be let doing his destabilising as much as he wants, as long as he is wasting his armies, and it is 2:1 for NATO. The current Western discourse about possible confrontation with Russia is too sentimental, and not guided by ground truths. Few things what pundits say make sense military wise about the current situation in Europe. As I said before, the truth of few centuries of military history is unequivocal: it is a very good thing to trip your opponent into a big war for a small gain, while your main force can stay back, and preserve its power.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    > And... bad for him! He should be let doing his destabilising as much as he wants, as long as he is wasting his armies, and it is 2:1 for NATO. You say that. A couple of years ago I would have agreed. Now I see several major NATO partners unwilling to intervene in such a situation. I am sorry for my Moldovan friends, but in most likelihood nobody will budge for Moldova. Particularly as we've seen how American support can be fickle these days, and such an operation would last longer than a term of an US president. So yeah, not much confidence here. > As I said before, the truth of few centuries of military history is unequivocal: it is a very good thing to trip your opponent into a big war for a small gain, while your main force can stay back, and preserve its power. That's fine and dandy when you have a convenient 2000 km-wide moat and all this is quite abstract. If there is a thing we really don't want in Europe it's a war, regardless of the size and who ends up winning it. Also, another truth you can learn from History is that there is no easy war.
- f6v 5y ago
  I’d love to see how Russia would have pulled Crimea if the population didn’t support it. It’s obvious that Russia isn’t going to do anything like that in Romania as the majority of the population isn’t pro-Russian there.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    Sorry if it wasn't clear, but that was for Transnistria. The population of Transnistria supports it just as much as the population of Crimea. It's been that way for quite some time now. I agree that it would be different for Romania. Thankfully, as I wrote.

kergonath 5y ago

> Transnistria is not an issue really. With modern Western weapons, both Moldova, and Romania can contain it with a single division. This would be an issue as big as Putin would want to make it. He would not have any qualm sending some troops there if it could further destabilise Europe. > Romania, with all its flaws, still has a functioning military, ministry of interior, mostly stuffed with pro-nationalist cadres. The chance of Russia pulling Crimea on it is low. They will not have the same ease to bribe half of the general staff as they did in Ukraine. Thankfully.

baybal2 5y ago
> This would be an issue as big as Putin would want to make it. He would not have any qualm sending some troops there if it could further destabilise Europe. And... bad for him! He should be let doing his destabilising as much as he wants, as long as he is wasting his armies, and it is 2:1 for NATO. The current Western discourse about possible confrontation with Russia is too sentimental, and not guided by ground truths. Few things what pundits say make sense military wise about the current situation in Europe. As I said before, the truth of few centuries of military history is unequivocal: it is a very good thing to trip your opponent into a big war for a small gain, while your main force can stay back, and preserve its power.
- kergonath 5y ago
  > And... bad for him! He should be let doing his destabilising as much as he wants, as long as he is wasting his armies, and it is 2:1 for NATO. You say that. A couple of years ago I would have agreed. Now I see several major NATO partners unwilling to intervene in such a situation. I am sorry for my Moldovan friends, but in most likelihood nobody will budge for Moldova. Particularly as we've seen how American support can be fickle these days, and such an operation would last longer than a term of an US president. So yeah, not much confidence here. > As I said before, the truth of few centuries of military history is unequivocal: it is a very good thing to trip your opponent into a big war for a small gain, while your main force can stay back, and preserve its power. That's fine and dandy when you have a convenient 2000 km-wide moat and all this is quite abstract. If there is a thing we really don't want in Europe it's a war, regardless of the size and who ends up winning it. Also, another truth you can learn from History is that there is no easy war.
f6v 5y ago
I’d love to see how Russia would have pulled Crimea if the population didn’t support it. It’s obvious that Russia isn’t going to do anything like that in Romania as the majority of the population isn’t pro-Russian there.
- kergonath 5y ago
  Sorry if it wasn't clear, but that was for Transnistria. The population of Transnistria supports it just as much as the population of Crimea. It's been that way for quite some time now. I agree that it would be different for Romania. Thankfully, as I wrote.