Ukraine started negotiations with Romania for a bilateral security agreement in Davos

[robertb]

Part of the problem was the break up of the USSR, at that time Russia was dealing with a lot of internal problems and it didn't help having vultures from everywhere trying to rob the place.

In a calmer atmosphere they would have taken Crimea and parts of Ukraine that really should be Russian to begin with. Sadly that didn't happen and we have the mess we see today.

Also Eastern European countries are having buyers remorse. They couldn't wait to join NATO and the EU. They wanted NATO to protect them from mean ole Russia and they wanted the EU because they wanted free gibs from those greedy West Europeans.

It has come time to pay for all this, as a partner of NATO you have to do things like supply weapons to Ukraine and spend money on their military. No longer can they just do things their way for business or have complete control over their own economy.

I feel your pain because I have spent a lifetime paying taxes to help build the American empire that doesn't benefit me in any way. So just try to enjoy your life as best you can because Washington, Moscow, London, Berlin and etc don't give a flying fuck about you. They will not lose 1 second of sleep sending you to die in a pointless war.

[dviz]

Hey Cybele, I wrote this answer a couple of weeks ago but never finished it.

So here we go, maybe later I get to complete this answer

Do you think empires need reasons (from the invaded parties) when they invade other countries?

Do you believe Russia has revived its tsarist imperialistic past?
I mean, that’s a possibility. But Putin does not seem to want to annex West of Ukraine and expand further. It may be, that Russia will take the south of Ukraine, which they perceive as strategic for their security.

Russia has never abandoned its imperial past. Soviet Union was just another iteration of the Russian Empire, and so is current Russia. For Russia to be a country and not an empire it should return to the borders of the Grand Duchy of Moscow, and liberate all its former subjects east of the Urals. Otherwise it will remain a colonizer and oppressor, aggressive to its neighbors, very much like China. Russia cannot democratize, because it loses the empire. This is the bargain with the devil Russians are making: they live an autocratic regime so that they can keep the empire. Even regular Russians understand this, and is the reason for the popular support of Putin.

In short both Ottomans and Russians (and not only them) used these regions as “currency exchange”, between themselves. The Ottomans were told by the French (since Napoleon was about to attack Russia), to expect a bit more with signing the peace negotiations. The French had their interests too in the region, of course. But they didn’t wait and so, half of Moldova (Bessarabia) was given to the Russians. Maybe the history would’ve been different for Moldova, if the Ottomans had waited.

This is exactly what the realism of Merschmeier advocates for: empires to continue treating countries as bargaining chips - an ideology which we know very well has led to largest massacres in worlds history (WW1 and 2). A return to realism (call it imperialism) will only get bloodier, to the point of wars with nuclear weapons.

Some historians said that the Ottoman Empire, did not had the right to give up land from Principality of Moldova to tsarist Russia either. Principality of Moldova was vassal of the Ottoman empire, but Moldova did not lose its status as a sovereign state, maintaining its national statehood, political, economic, legal systems, administrative, fiscal and religion. Others, said that the Principality was not so autonomous actually. In any case, that was done by both empires, more or less legally.
Catherine II, empress of Russia, was German and she planned with Joseph II the sharing the Balkans including Moldova, Wallachia, Transylvania, etc. between themselves.
Indeed, the empires and these nobiliary families who in some cases were related and had ties, cared for their interests to the detriment of whatever foreign populations they were ruling. Empires seek to drain the local resources and have obedient subjects. And when they fall it’s bad too, to a degree, because they leave whatever regions they had, in chaos and for other empires to seek to occupy.

I think you've been mislead. The Ottomans did not gave up land from the Principality of Moldova. They couldn't, Moldova wasn't part of the Ottoman empire, and not even a part of the Russo-Turkish war. The Ottomans only ceded Bugeac, which at that time was a territory of the Ottoman empire, populated mostly by Tatars. To Romanians Bugeac was known as Basarabia, so Russia renamed the eastern half of Moldova as Bessarabia, pretending that this was the territory ceded by the Ottomans (it obviously wasn't). The Russians were helped by the Greek prince of Moldova at that time, who thought that although this was a land grab, it was also for the benefit of Christian Moldovans, who were now protected against Muslim Ottomans. This Greek prince is the prototypical useful idiot, and although we quickly executed the bastard, the damage was done, and hundreds of thousands of Moldovans suffered greatly because of it.

I see, you have a humanitarian view. You care about Ukrainians dying. So, in your view, if Ukrainians give up, they stop dying. But do you care about Russians dying? Crimean cities under Russian occupation and Russian cities in Russia proper are bombarded on weekly basis. Hundreds of thousands of Russians (if not millions by now) are internally displaced. Do you care about them? Why don't take your humanitarian plea to Putin? Why doesn't he give up? Doesn't he care about his own people? He put them through this suffering. Russians from Belgorod or Voronezh didn't ask for this war. Why doesn't he care for them?

You’ve kinda twisted my idea in some way. My point was that Ukrainians are dying in bigger numbers than the Russians, they will not be able to go on forever, even women and disabled are sent to the front.

Your point is actually incorrect. Russians have more fatalities than Ukrainians. This is because civilians have not been deliberately targeted in this war (even in the Kiev region, that was in part under brutal Russian occupation, has, so far, less than 2000 civilian fatalities in the entire war), and so civilian losses are a small fraction of the overall losses. Most of the fatalities are in the military, and Russia had egregious losses in the first months of war, when they were trying to advance. Now, the advances have been blocked on both sides, and both Russia and Ukraine lose men at roughly the same rate.

Since the loss rate is similar, how come you don't plead with Putin to stop the war? He started it anyway. Are you saying that Putin doesn't care about own people and doesn't listen? Or perhaps you are saying that you care more for Ukrainians than Russians?

Wasn’t Ukraine also given territories by Russia? Excuse me, but Khrushchev if I'm not mistaken, gave Bukovina to Ukraine and now we sit and cry that Russia takes their territories.

It wasn't the Ukrainians doing that. We've lived with Ukrainians/Ruthenians peacefully for 1500 years. It was the Soviets (Tsarist Russia in communist garb) who annexed Northern Bukovina. In fact, they attached Northern Bukovina to Ukraine, and not Russia, for the simple reason that Ukraine was in the way. And they didn't stop at annexation, they have also deported the Romanians from there, so that they would make the land grab permanent. Northern Bukovina is lost for good, there are fewer Romanians there (percentually) than Hungarians in Transylvania. I see no point in souring our relations with Ukraine for a territory we cannot reclaim, when Ukrainians are the only ones defending Romania from losing other territories to Russia.

[dviz]

That's actually not reasonable at all. Military budgets and spending are not up for society-wide debate. The start of a military conflict is also not subject to referendums, otherwise democracies would be crushed by dictatorships every time. No individual wants to go to war. No family wants to lose close relatives and their possessions. Only dictators enjoy wars from their bunkers.

From a political-philosophical perspective, referendums are an expression of direct democracy. If a referendum is held that’s direct expression of population. If you hold a referendum and ask population if they want to send weapons to foreign country and don’t twist the truth, wouldn’t that be democratic? And if you, as administration, are not transparent, is that democratic?

Romania is not a direct democracy but a representative democracy, so this point is moot. In a representative democracy, there are a lot of limits to democratic practices when it comes to military spending, planning and action. The military is not a transparent organization. A lot of this lack of transparency has to do with not wanting to give the upper hand to dictatorships, which are not transparent in any respects, not just militarily. Of course, the lack of transparency increases the risk of corruption, as corruption is very hard to root out from highly hierarchical organizations. In the particular case of Romania, the military has a good reputation - it is the Romanian institution with the highest level of public trust, and so I would say that the lack of transparency is handled reasonably well.

Of course, if you would ask the people they wouldn’t want a war, because it’s them who will be sent to the front.

Nobody wants to go to war, period. From the start, this gives an advantage on the battlefield to dictatorships, because they can easily force people into the meat grinder. If democracies ponder for long whether they should defend themselves, they lose every war. This is why decisions related to conscription are not made democratically.

Administrations fear losing power the most, because they have all the money, all the influence. They would sacrifice millions of lives, in order not to fall.

This is exactly what Putin does. when his popularity drops (like it did in 2014, when it dropped to 60% according to official numbers, probably lower in reality) he does some saber-rattling. This time though (2022), he jumped the shark.

As for military spending, probably lots of money are used to buy expensive equipment, to feed further the American military–industrial complex.

The reason why a lot of Eastern European countries buy American, but also South Korean military equipment is because they are far more available in the short term, come with fewer strings attached, and sometimes with security guarantees as well.

Look at what happened to the German equipment delivered to Ukraine. Ukrainians found that they cannot service in the field their German tanks and self-propelled howitzers, instead they have to send them out of Ukraine for service, which makes them unavailable for very long periods of time. Obviously, other countries look at this debacle and draw their own conclusions.

I don't expect 100% of they say is true, so I agree. And yes, Russia dismissed the invasion claims publicly. However, Stoltenberg said Putin sent a draft treaty in autumn 2021 to NATO, as pre-condition not to invade Ukraine. So maybe NATO thought about and expected the war, but ignored Putin's request instead of negotiate about it.

Putin also requested in the same document for all Eastern Europeans countries to leave the NATO block. What a clown.

“He went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite,” Stoltenberg reiterated, referring to the accession of Sweden and Finland into the alliance in response to Putin’s invasion. Their entry, he later insisted, “demonstrates that when President Putin invaded a European country to prevent more NATO, he's getting the exact opposite.”

This idea that Putin wants to prevent NATO getting closer to Russian borders is complete nonsense. NATO countries are not revisionist to Russian borders. China and several other Asian countries are. Putin fears for his regime not for his borders.

In reality, NATO expansion happened because Russia's neighbors begged to join NATO after being abused by Russia for centuries.

Maybe they should seek to make own alliance.

An effective anti-Russian-aggression alliance was not possible in the past 200 years for many reasons. But if Ukraine escapes Russia largely intact, such an alliance will happen: Ukraine, Poland, Romania, and perhaps the Baltic states (although the Baltic states have much higher security needs than the security guarantees they can provide - for them NATO is the best bet).

No, I’m not ok with Russia occupying RM.
I’m also not ok with Romania occupying them (hypothetical scenario) or anyone else, for that matter. Moldovans from Republic, should stay independent if they want so. But if they choose (they pretty much did, as they stood separated for decades now) this path, is normal to think of ways of dealing with all good and bad things, that come with being a separate state.
R. of Moldova is a neutral country though, how realistically will they be invaded? Russia would get even more international opprobrium if they attacked or tried to annex them.

Russia was also a guarantor of Ukraine's borders. Nothing Russia signs is worth the paper wasted. International opprobrium is not going to make Putin behave. He's well insulated in his bunker.

Russia will occupy Moldova if Ukraine falls - neutrality means nothing to them, and I think Moldovans are rethinking neutrality too. Russia is signaling that Moldova was part of historic Russia (total falsehood), which makes Moldova fair game for occupation in their twisted mind.

No.
In a hypothetical scenario the Romanians in Moldova (our side) and Dobruja would oppose any Russification attempts. Compared to centuries ago, our identity has crystallized more. And it depends how much power they can project and for how much time, they'd be able to occupy the territories. Even after WW2, and Soviet occupation, Romania kinda had independent policy from Soviet Union and managed to get Soviet troops, out of the country after 1958.

What are you saying here? that we should not oppose Russia militarily before it occupies Romanian land??

Another option would've been developing nuclear weapons of our own. Maybe we should revive Danube Program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube_Program

Nuclear proliferation is not viewed kindly anywhere. This may do more damage to our security arrangements than providing any sort of defense capabilities.
We should advocate for a complete nuclear arms ban instead.

Romanian politicians put all their faith in NATO. NATO has like 5.000 foreign soldiers (half of them being American) stationed in Romania, a country next to an ongoing war. That’s not much. In comparison Germany hosts over 35.000 American troops, while it’s not bordering Ukraine. Japan hosts over 50.000 American troops even though, at the moment the relationship with China are not as tense, as with Russia. Probably, for the Americans the Pacific region is of higher interest and concern, than the NATO’s Eastern Flank.
I wouldn’t wanna see if the Alliance will actually for us work or not. 5.000 soldiers so far are our security guarantees.

Unbounded access to armament and ammunition is actually more important in the case of an invasion, as the example of Ukraine shows. Had Ukraine had that available, Russia would have been defeated a long time ago.

[dviz]

In a calmer atmosphere they would have taken Crimea and parts of Ukraine that really should be Russian to begin with. Sadly that didn't happen and we have the mess we see today.

Crimea has been part of Russia for roughly 100 years, but for the last 100 years (before the invasion in 2014) it has been part of Ukraine.
So explain why Crimea should be part of Russia.

Also Eastern European countries are having buyers remorse. They couldn't wait to join NATO and the EU. They wanted NATO to protect them from mean ole Russia and they wanted the EU because they wanted free gibs from those greedy West Europeans.

It has come time to pay for all this, as a partner of NATO you have to do things like supply weapons to Ukraine and spend money on their military. No longer can they just do things their way for business or have complete control over their own economy.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. In all Eastern European countries, the population see Russia as an aggressive country they have to defend against. Literally, the only countries in the East that tolerate somewhat Russia's behavior, are those where revanchism remains an important part of the internal political discourse, namely Serbia and Hungary. All the rest, are solid NATO members.

[Cybele]

Hey Cybele, I wrote this answer a couple of weeks ago but never finished it.

So here we go, maybe later I get to complete this answer

Hey dviz! No worries, I'm quite late myself to reply.

Russia has never abandoned its imperial past. Soviet Union was just another iteration of the Russian Empire, and so is current Russia. For Russia to be a country and not an empire it should return to the borders of the Grand Duchy of Moscow, and liberate all its former subjects east of the Urals.

Current Russia is a federation not an empire. A federation is an extensive state, voluntarily composed of autonomous states and peoples. An empire is a large polity which rules over territories outside of its original borders. As long as these diverse people, don’t mind living in these states, which create the Russian Federation, why should they go back to the borders of Grand Duchy of Moscow?

Otherwise it will remain a colonizer and oppressor, aggressive to its neighbors, very much like China. Russia cannot democratize, because it loses the empire. This is the bargain with the devil Russians are making: they live an autocratic regime so that they can keep the empire. Even regular Russians understand this, and is the reason for the popular support of Putin.

Do these people east of Urals, integrated in Russian in the territory, are oppressed in any way and need to be liberated? Their federal system seems to work for them.
And if the regular people from all over the country, understand they are in an autocratic regime, why they support Putin, which keeps them by force in his empire? I mean one would expect he would have no popular support, because the regular people are kept in there by force and oppressed.

I think you've been mislead. The Ottomans did not gave up land from the Principality of Moldova. They couldn't, Moldova wasn't part of the Ottoman empire, and not even a part of the Russo-Turkish war.

I’ve read that the Ottomans indeed gave up land from the Principality of Moldova (the eastern part which is separated by the Prut river from the rest of the province) That happened, even though Principality of Moldova was just a vassal to them, not direct Ottoman teritory. And Russians were also given south Moldova (nowadays Budjak/Bugeac, or as it was called back then Basarabia) which was Ottoman territory.

In the article 4 (of a total of 16) of the of the Treaty of Bucharest signed between the Ottomans and Russians, in May 1812 is mentioned: "The first article of the preliminary treaties, already signed, stipulates that the Prut (river), which enters Moldova and flows into the Danube, up to the mouth of the Chilia and up to the sea, will be the border between the two empires"


By articles 4 and 5, the Ottoman Empire ceded to the Russian Empire a territory of 45,630 km², with 482,630 inhabitants, 5 fortresses, 17 cities and 695 villages, (according to the census ordered by the tsarist authorities in 1817). The lands of Hotin, Soroca, Orhei, Lăpușna, Greceni, Hotărniceni, Codru, Tighina, Cârligătura, Fălciu, the eastern part of the land of Iasi and Bugeac became part of the Russian Empire.

The Ottomans only ceded Bugeac, which at that time was a territory of the Ottoman empire, populated mostly by Tatars. To Romanians Bugeac was known as Basarabia, so Russia renamed the eastern half of Moldova as Bessarabia, pretending that this was the territory ceded by the Ottomans (it obviously wasn't). The Russians were helped by the Greek prince of Moldova at that time, who thought that although this was a land grab, it was also for the benefit of Christian Moldovans, who were now protected against Muslim Ottomans. This Greek prince is the prototypical useful idiot, and although we quickly executed the bastard, the damage was done, and hundreds of thousands of Moldovans suffered greatly because of it.

There was a local Greek dragoman who sided with the Russians in peace negotiations (Dimitrie Moruzi), betraying the Ottoman Empire, but he was not the main culprit of what has happened. Generally speaking, many of the phanariots and dragomans were corrupt. But the borders between the two Empires was clearly established in the peace Treaty from Bucharest, and the Treaty could be accepted only by Ottoman mejlis and the sultan himself. D. Moruzi does not appear as a decision-maker, since he was not the head of the Ottoman delegation (in 1812, the delegation was led by Seyyid Mehmed Said Galib efendi). Just over a month after the signing of the peace, admiral P.V. Ciceagov, communicated to tsar Alexander I, at 16 (28) June, the ratification of the treaty by the sultan.

It was not only the dragoman Moruzi who didn’t oppose and encouraged this deal, but also an Ottoman grand vizier, for example. After the Ottoman defeats in October 1811 on the Danube front, the grand vizier asked for an armistice. General M. Kutuzov had put forward as one of the conditions the establishment of new borders on the Prut, and not on the Dniester, as the grand vizier would have wanted, a condition that the latter accepted. Initially Russians wanted Wallachia too, then whole Moldova, then Moldova between Siret and Dnister, and finally settled with Moldova between Prut and Dnister. Meetings of the two belligerent parties followed in Giurgiu, in which Dimitrie Moruzi also participated as an Ottoman dragoman.

In short, I found the following argument, which supports the affirmation that the Ottoman Empire betrayed the Moldovan Principate and gave up (in original article translated into French the words “gives up” and “abandons” are used) half of its land (east of Prut river), to the Russian Empire:

The dragomans, the phanariots, not even the grand viziers, none of these were decision making factors, in international treaties. The abrogation or acceptance of an international treaty was not within the competence of the negotiators, nor of the grand vizier, but of the Ottoman mejlis and the sultan. And the sultan himself ratified this treaty, one month after it was signed.

Your point is actually incorrect. Russians have more fatalities than Ukrainians. This is because civilians have not been deliberately targeted in this war (even in the Kiev region, that was in part under brutal Russian occupation, has, so far, less than 2000 civilian fatalities in the entire war), and so civilian losses are a small fraction of the overall losses. Most of the fatalities are in the military, and Russia had egregious losses in the first months of war, when they were trying to advance. Now, the advances have been blocked on both sides, and both Russia and Ukraine lose men at roughly the same rate.

Since the loss rate is similar, how come you don't plead with Putin to stop the war? He started it anyway. Are you saying that Putin doesn't care about own people and doesn't listen? Or perhaps you are saying that you care more for Ukrainians than Russians?

I’ve read that the Ukrainians lost more soldiers than Russians did, overall. At some point it was around 7 Ukrainians kia, to 1 Russian kia

Admittedly, I have not read or listened to anything related to the war in the last days, and I don’t know exactly the latest rate of deaths of either side. But I imagine it’s still not in favor of the Ukrainians.
It’s not about, who I care more about. I’m neither Ukrainian nor Russian, but it does not mean, I’m cheering for them to butcher each other. That is also why, I don’t support the idea of sending weapons, which will prolong the war.

It wasn't the Ukrainians doing that. We've lived with Ukrainians/Ruthenians peacefully for 1500 years. It was the Soviets (Tsarist Russia in communist garb) who annexed Northern Bukovina. In fact, they attached Northern Bukovina to Ukraine, and not Russia, for the simple reason that Ukraine was in the way. And they didn't stop at annexation, they have also deported the Romanians from there, so that they would make the land grab permanent. Northern Bukovina is lost for good, there are fewer Romanians there (percentually) than Hungarians in Transylvania. I see no point in souring our relations with Ukraine for a territory we cannot reclaim, when Ukrainians are the only ones defending Romania from losing other territories to Russia.

I wrote that Russia (but yes, in fact the Soviets) also gave land to Ukraine.
Northern Bukovina was a land attached on them by the Soviets, so after the fall of the USSR, if it wanted, independent Ukraine could’ve admit the deportation of local Romanian population and offer to return the land. Of course, it would never return it. And in the end some of our politicians agreed to that, making a secret treaty with Ukraine. Otherwise, it’s not like our relations have ever been too close.
Also, I beg to differ, Ukraine is not defending anyone, certainly not Romania. They lost sovereignty to foreign interests, and now their country become a battleground. If Ukraine is helping in any way Romania, is by providing an example, of how not to end up like.

[Anglo-Celtic]

I feel your pain because I have spent a lifetime paying taxes to help build the American empire that doesn't benefit me in any way. So just try to enjoy your life as best you can because Washington, Moscow, London, Berlin and etc don't give a flying fuck about you. They will not lose 1 second of sleep sending you to die in a pointless war.

Smedley Butler knew this. "Look, a Russian squirrel!" Mr. Butler knew that "war is a racket" in your great-grandparents' day, and it's truer now more than ever. Still, people fall for the destroyed pipelines and the smashed incubators, worse propaganda than the most extreme paranoia about lizard people.

[Cybele]

Romania is not a direct democracy but a representative democracy, so this point is moot. In a representative democracy, there are a lot of limits to democratic practices when it comes to military spending, planning and action. The military is not a transparent organization. A lot of this lack of transparency has to do with not wanting to give the upper hand to dictatorships, which are not transparent in any respects, not just militarily. Of course, the lack of transparency increases the risk of corruption, as corruption is very hard to root out from highly hierarchical organizations.

Even if Romania it’s a representative democracy, there should not be limits to democracy related to the military sector (including spending, actions, etc.). Or if there are, solutions should be found to improve this, like better involvement of the Parliament, creating laws regarding freedom of information, etc. The Parliament is considered to represent the population, so it’s one of its duties to have a democratic control (which it’s totally normal), over the military sector, in accordance to the Constitution.
Parliamentarians have to supervise issues related to the acquisition of armaments, control of armaments and the state of readiness of military units.
The emphasis on international security cooperation can affect the transparency and democratic legitimacy of a country's national security policy, if it leads to the exclusion of parliamentarians from this process. It is, therefore, important for the Parliament, to be able to follow and participate to the debates and decisions in the international arena.
It’s important that the will of the population is reflected in the decisions of parliamentarians, otherwise they should be changed with ones who are capable of doing that.

I want to point out that Iohannis was not even formally consulting the Parliament, when making all kind of agreements in the name of Romania, with Zelensky in Davos. Yes, in theory we are a representative democracy, in practice when such actions are taken, not even the Parliament which supposedly represents the population, is consulted.

Also, I personally don’t believe we are internally facing the threat of an authoritarian reversal in Romania, a return of a dictatorship, that justifies the lack of transparency. And by lack of transparency I mean, for the civilians to have real access to information regarding political decision made by their leaders, Government, parliamentarians on behalf of them, and to see their will, interests, concerns, really reflected in those decisions.

In the particular case of Romania, the military has a good reputation - it is the Romanian institution with the highest level of public trust, and so I would say that the lack of transparency is handled reasonably well.

One of the conditions for representative democracies to work, is that the population is really well informed, about what’s going on in the country.
Maybe one of the reasons the Army enjoys a higher level of trust is that, the population does not really know what’s going on inside of it. Because of the lack of transparency, the likelihood of scandals to be known to the public is reduced, compared to other institutions which are more open.
The population can be unaware of some negative aspects like incompetence, abuses, bad conditions, really outdated equipment, etc. But of those who join the army, and see the real conditions, many opt to leave. There were thousands of military personnel who left in 2023.

Last year, a journalistic investigation, revealed the level in which the Army was in reality. One could see in the comments on YT that some who dealt with this institution confirmed it’s the truth. And in others, the surprise to learn about the actual state of things; that it was so bad, because in their mind the image of the Army was different.

But one cannot expect to have a country dealing with incompetence and corruption on a large scale, and only some institutions to somehow be void of them.

The Parliament and the Government have the lowest trust level. It shows how much Romanians feel they are truly represented by these democratic institutions.

Putin also requested in the same document for all Eastern Europeans countries to leave the NATO block. What a clown.

Putin asked for a long time for NATO to go back to its borders from 1997, but the further involvement of the West into Ukraine’s affairs, was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

There are countries like Ukraine, Romania, Poland, Moldova, the Baltic states etc. which are on the border, creating a space of buffer.
They should’ve been left out, of the political problems USA & the West generally have with Russia and vice-versa. Their administrations should have their countries own interest in mind, but when there are color revolutions and corrupt politicians involved, there is a problem.
If Russia has no right to occupy, create military bases, create color revolutions and generally, they have stay out of these countries, then the West should do exactly the same. The land, resources, etc. of these countries are of the people living in them, not of Russia or the Western corporations.

This idea that Putin wants to prevent NATO getting closer to Russian borders is complete nonsense. NATO countries are not revisionist to Russian borders. China and several other Asian countries are. Putin fears for his regime not for his borders.

The issue which he complains about, is that of security. Foreign military forces (NATO), through military bases and troops are getting too close to Russia, surrounding it.

Russia was also a guarantor of Ukraine's borders. Nothing Russia signs is worth the paper wasted. International opprobrium is not going to make Putin behave. He's well insulated in his bunker.

I know of the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership, which was signed in 1997 by Russia and Ukraine. In which they both declared to respect each other borders. But Russia claims, Ukraine violated a clause in which the parties, agreed not to enter into any agreements with third countries, against the other party.
In violation of these provisions, Ukraine ratified in 2004 a memorandum in support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) operations and in 2005 amended its military doctrine declaring NATO membership as a strategic goal of the state. Ukraine later amended the constitution stating that the strategic course of the country was to acquire full NATO membership. Russia views these moves as violations of the treaty.

Russia will occupy Moldova if Ukraine falls - neutrality means nothing to them, and I think Moldovans are rethinking neutrality too. Russia is signaling that Moldova was part of historic Russia (total falsehood), which makes Moldova fair game for occupation in their twisted mind.

Who exactly is signaling that Moldova should be occupied, as part of historic Russia? I mean, it’s not the official position of the Russian state.
That is definitely bad argument, for whomever came up with it. Republic of Moldova, was once part of a vassal state, which should have not been divided between empires and given to Russia, in the first place. Same story could have happened with Wallachia, which the tsar also wanted in 1812, but eventually gave up upon.
Also lands from Romania were once parts of the Roman empire, should Italy occupy us now because of that? Or all the territories they once had?

The political landscape has changed. Moldova is nowadays an independent country, who’s borders and territorial integrity should be respected.
I believe it’s for the best for them at this moment, to remain neutral. There are people out there claiming things of the sort you mentioned, but I believe the RU-MD issue which has to be tackled, has more to do with Transnistria.

What are you saying here? that we should not oppose Russia militarily before it occupies Romanian land??

No, I’m not saying that. And it’s quite clear, there would be an armed fight, if Russians troops would invade our country.
I was talking of a hypothetical scenario, in which Russia would manage to occupy Romania or parts of it, in spite of local military resistance. That the locals would oppose Russification.

Nuclear proliferation is not viewed kindly anywhere. This may do more damage to our security arrangements than providing any sort of defense capabilities.
We should advocate for a complete nuclear arms ban instead.

One can see, the countries which have nuclear weapons hold tight to them, as nuclear war is more feared than conventional one. Only one country (South Africa) has been known to ever dismantle an indigenously developed nuclear arsenal completely. Belarus, Ukraine, also gave up the Soviet nuclear weapons.
NATO, is uncertain.
With nuclear weapons we would have a national security guarantee, which would be completely independent from anyone else.
We would have had our own independent means, to deter attacks. Or to try to protect our country in case of need. It would have been a reliable solution, compared to relying on guarantees made by others.

But, it’s just a pipe dream. I mean Romanian army still works with Soviet weapons and ammunition. Creating and maintaining nuclear weapons, requires effort that we most probably, would not be capable of. And of course, there would also be the international pressure, of bigger countries who want to maintain their own influence in the area and would discourage such thing.

Unbounded access to armament and ammunition is actually more important in the case of an invasion, as the example of Ukraine shows. Had Ukraine had that available, Russia would have been defeated a long time ago.

Ukraine received weapons and ammunition really fast though, they are fighting for two years, and Russia it’s still far from being defeated.

[Mountaineer]

True Romanians don't sympathize with Russia.