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

[Cybele]

It is normal that it is not clear how and what help is given by anyone, doing it would be giving clues to the enemy. The same thing happens in Spain, only from time to time it was published (inaccurately) what was transferred to Ukraine,but the exact numbers are not stated anywhere, you have to go searching news by news to know it approximately.

The issue is different in here. Some polls made last year, showed that over 50% Romanians that were asked, opposed the idea of Romania sending weapons to Ukraine. Still, despite stating initially that they publicly admit if such thing will happen, the political elite sent military help and kept very silent about it, in contradiction with popular will.
Also, when such agreements of security for Ukraine are signed, the population is not consulted, not even the Parliament. This is where the issue lies. Maybe Iohannis fears to disclose about what military aid Romania gives to Ukraine, because the opposition can use this against him.

Here there is also a good part of the population that does not want to give military aid to Ukraine, not because it supports Russia (some do it covertly though, curiously both extremes of the politial field, far-right and far left), but above all because participating in wars is "badly seen" since infantile pacifism is deeply embedded in Spanish society. associated with anti-miltarianism.

In Romania most oppose it because they don’t see it as “our war”. The Romanian-Ukrainian relationship is different than the Ukrainian relationship with the West. We are direct neighbors with them, and perceive them differently. Also we are very close to the conflict and we would be next in line, in the war’s meat grinder, if we get involved. It’s logical that by sending weapons to Ukraine and training their pilots, gets one in confrontation with Russia.
If you would ask on the street, the majority of people would tell you they would not want any involvement in war. Those who wanted probably went there as volunteers or mercenaries already.

[ioas12]

Guys you are about to summon aspirin here

[Scarface F]

Guys you are about to summon aspirin here

Moldova is in totally different situation than Romania, without NATO and EU protection, and with Russian para-state in the east. Moldovans have right to genuinely fear Russia, Romanians do not.

[CosmoLady]

But I also wonder if either of these two countries would actually enjoy a strong, independent and especially nationalist Romanian leader. There could be some points of collision too I imagine, because of our historical past.
Orban for example showed up at a match of the Hungarian national team, with a scarf on which was printed the map of Great Hungary, which also includes a piece of Transylvania. How a nationalist Romanian leader would react to that?

Hungary and Russia would not enjoy a nationalist independent Romanian leader,
but they would at least RESPECT someone who speaks and acts directly and honestly,
who follows the national interest not the globalist interests.

For example,
Russia has good relationships with Turkey and China, despite fundamental rivalry/conflict and civilisational differences.
Trump had a good relationship with Kim Jong Un (North Korea), despite the initial arguments and nuclear threats.

Strong independent men are able to respect each other and come to a basic understanding,
because they are individuals willing to speak to each other directly, they form personal masculine relationships.
Strong independent men are not conformist members of social-political cliques.

I don’t think so. Moldova has a pro-Western administration currently, but they seem to hold to their own independent path. Polls show that at the moment Moldovans don’t want a reunification with Romania. I don't see how Romania will "annex" it.

OK maybe "annex" is not the best word,
but maybe a pro-Western Moldovan government could "unite" with Romania regardless of what the people want?
After a long enough time in power, maybe a pro-Western government could strongly promote reunification,
and manufacture a consensus with a media campaign and mass movement supported by Western money and NGOs.
Romanians support reunification more than Moldovans, maybe Romanian activists can "convince" Moldovans?

I think that if the Russians take more Ukrainian territory and advance toward Transnistria,
then there will be urgency in Moldova.
What if the pro-Western government asks for protection from Romania?
What if Romanian forces enter Moldova?
What if there is a referendum to unite with Romania while there are Romanian forces in Moldova?
Something like this happened in Crimea.

This makes an official NATO conflict with Russia (World War 3) more likely, which is bad for everyone.
The Poles have resisted any direct conflict or provocation of Russia so far.
I don't know if the Romanians will be so restrained,
if the Romanian government is like Georgia in 2008 (very corrupt, pro-Western and ultra-nationalistic/reckless).
Unfortunately the government does not always reflect the desires of the people.

This is why it is important to have an independent leader,
who is flexible and can have a personal relationship with Putin or whoever,
so that an understanding is reached, a deal is made, and conflict is avoided.

(Also if Ukraine begins falling apart and is no longer financially supported by the West, and Russia takes more territory,
then Poland, Romania, and Hungary may want to take pieces of Ukraine as well, and form their own zones of occupation.
Distant possibility; part of Ukraine was once part of Romania. Another reason to keep an independent relationship with Russia)

I don't know about Moldova.
I know that in Ukraine there is Romanian Battlegroup Getica. They are a fighting group formed by Romanian speakers in Ukraine. The group was established last year in September and began by uniting Romanian combatants who were already in various military units and structures in Ukraine.

The US, Romanian and Moldovan forces conduct exercises, probably they are semi-integrated,
probably there are already NATO/Romanian elements of the Moldovan military,
and probably there are already non-uniformed NATO forces in Moldova.
There are certainly non-uniformed Russian forces causing trouble in Moldova.
Transnistria seems to be somewhat important to the Russians.

Any war in Europe, or any war with Russia, is a significant event in world history,
I have been monitoring the periphery of Russia for many years.

[dviz]

Also we are very close to the conflict and we would be next in line, in the war’s meat grinder, if we get involved. It’s logical that by sending weapons to Ukraine and training their pilots, gets one in confrontation with Russia.

Help me understand your thinking.

You say we are close to the conflict and we would be next in line.
But if Ukraine falls we would literally be next in line. Isn't in our interest to prop Ukraine win the war, or at least not lose it?

This idea that avoiding to provoke Russia helps our asses is faulty. Before 2014, more than 80% of Ukrainians didn't believe Russia would attack Ukraine. Even after the war in Donbas, Ukrainians didn't want to "provoke" Russia. They elected Zelensky as a pro-peace president. Zelensky himself didn't believe Russia would attack despite being continuously briefed about the Russian invasion plans. He refused to build trenches on the border with Russia so that Ukraine won't "provoke" Russia. Russia would have been stopped at the border had military infrastructure had been build in all areas close to Russia, the way it was build around Donbas.

And btw, Soviets sent tons of armament and specialists in Vietnam for the fight against the US, why should Russia be upset that we, Eastern Europeans, send arms to Ukraine? Isn't Russia a supporter of the states that make sovereign decisions? Are they saying sovereignty is not for dogs, or what?

Romania had the pleasing experience of having Russia as a neighbor, and as a consequence we were immediately asked for territory. Russia is a mobster state, from any angle you look at it.

[gixajo]

And you are indistinguishable from every other midwit with the same tiresome, lame, unoriginal, ad hominem attacks as always

Zero substance, only personal attacks as always.

Do you have anything remotely interesting to say?


Haha, yes, but Zelensky fell for that trick, that was a good one



Projecting what is not written, the same tiresome tactic as always, are you a woke middle-aged woman? You sound like one!

You have a case of Russia Derangement Syndrome!

Actually you seem like an old person who watches too much state TV, whose mind is trapped. You must be old, mentally

I'm so sorry I hurt your feelings.

[Cybele]

Help me understand your thinking.

You say we are close to the conflict and we would be next in line.
But if Ukraine falls we would literally be next in line. Isn't in our interest to prop Ukraine win the war, or at least not lose it?

Why would Russia try to invade Romania without giving them a reason?
It's possible that Ukraine will fall, regardless, as many of their people are grinded daily. I don’t know what the outcome of the war will be. I can imagine it, but that is not necessarily what will happen. But with their human losses, I reckon it will happen at some point.
Romania should not prop Ukraine with weapons (humanitarian aid is ok). By giving weapons we make the conflict last longer, while more Ukrainians will die. A diplomatic solution which would’ve put an end the carnage was stopped, as the Great Britain interfered.
Some said from the beginning, Ukraine would have to concede some land. Now Putin won’t give up the territorial gains, Russia made in Ukraine. I’ve heard scenarios that Russia might take the south of Ukraine, leaving them as a landlocked territory. Maybe if the peace negotiations would have started earlier and the conflict was not dragged, this would’ve never been a scenario.

Romania had nothing to do with Russia & Ukraine affairs, to begin with. But by sending weapons we get ourselves involved. The budget for the army is based on taxpayer’s money too, so I see it as reasonable to consult the population. Plus, these decisions can have effects on us all.
We should care for our interests, of course. But we’re not actually propping them, by giving weapons. Ukraine is at risk of losing even more territory and people to Russia, by continuing this war and we’re only helping this to happen, by getting involved with weapons. So, if you look at it this way, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Because if this continues and the Russians advance, it’s possible for Romania to have even bigger border with Russia. If negotiations were made shortly after invasion, direct border with Russia would have not been a possibility for us.

This idea that avoiding to provoke Russia helps our asses is faulty. Before 2014, more than 80% of Ukrainians didn't believe Russia would attack Ukraine. Even after the war in Donbas, Ukrainians didn't want to "provoke" Russia. They elected Zelensky as a pro-peace president. Zelensky himself didn't believe Russia would attack despite being continuously briefed about the Russian invasion plans. He refused to build trenches on the border with Russia so that Ukraine won't "provoke" Russia. Russia would have been stopped at the border had military infrastructure had been build in all areas close to Russia, the way it was build around Donbas.

Provoking gives even more legitimacy for attack. Zelensky continued the work of people put in power, after the Color Revolution in 2014, who invested big money into Ukraine, and wouldn’t want to lose their influence there.
Russians claim there was genocide against ethnic Russian civilians in Donbas region, before the war in 2022. If that is true, it’s clear proof of non-peaceful policy and escalation of situation, more than mere provocation.

And one can see how pro-peace Zelensky is now too, preferring to see Ukrainian people dying daily, and keeping to deny peace negotiations.

I think what Russians saw more of a “provocation” the NATO continuous expansion and Ukraine wanting to join it, because they feel surrounded and cornered, and they won’t allow that. Because even cowards will fight to the death, if they have no choice. Sun Tzu was right about not cornering an enemy. A direct collision between big powers (Russia & USA for e.g.) would be dangerous as they are nuclear powers, so they do these proxy-wars. Problem is with these bordering nations, who allow them to fight on their land. I’m not saying it’s easy, it takes great diplomatic skills, to be caught in between these forces, and manage to get away untouched.
And now with a country like Romania which is in NATO, it takes even more consideration, not to provoke a greater war.

And btw, Soviets sent tons of armament and specialists in Vietnam for the fight against the US, why should Russia be upset that we, Eastern Europeans, send arms to Ukraine? Isn't Russia a supporter of the states that make sovereign decisions? Are they saying sovereignty is not for dogs, or what?

In Romania, it’s not “we” that send weapons but the Romanian politicians by their own accord, not asking anyone.
Sovereignty it’s more of a theoretic concept now, because Ukraine gave it away to big corporations and foreign powers, who produce their grains, influence their government, etc.

Romania had the pleasing experience of having Russia as a neighbor, and as a consequence we were immediately asked for territory. Russia is a mobster state, from any angle you look at it.

Would we be asked for territory now? What Romanian territories does Russia want, these days though and why? I’m playing “devil’s advocate” here. Do they really need and want any Romanian piece of land? Would they be capable of invading and holding influence over Romanian territory, with a completely hostile local population?
They could take Transnistria, but that is not connected to us and our current borders.

[CosmoLady]

I'm so sorry I hurt your feelings.

I forgive you unless you are being sarcastic

Please understand that any opinion against the US regime/NATO/EU/WEF/Green agenda is already considered "pro-Russian" and treasonous.

So I really do not care if I am considered "pro-Russian" or not, I am a free person with controversial heterodox opinions,
due to unusual life experiences and exceptional personal influences.

Any foreign policy opinions of mine that are considered "pro-Russian" are more precisely:

against the Globohomo American Empire/GAE/NATO/EU/WEF who are killing us all,

and are based on REALISM, not any love for the Russian state.
I have some problems with the Russian and Chinese regimes that I have not mentioned yet.

See below:

"Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin" by John Mearsheimer, 2014,
Foreign Affairs
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-conte...-Crisis-Is.pdf





"Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the International Liberal Order" by John Mearsheimer, 2019, International Security
https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/...of-the-Liberal





"The False Promise of International Institutions" by John Mearsheimer, 1994, Foreign Affairs
https://www.sv.uio.no/livet-rundt-st...stitutions.pdf


"The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities" by John Mearsheimer, 2018
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Delusio.../dp/0300234198

[dviz]

Any foreign policy opinions of mine that are considered "pro-Russian" are more precisely:

against the Globohomo American Empire/GAE/NATO/EU/WEF who are killing us all,

and are based on REALISM, not any love for the Russian state.
I have some problems with the Russian and Chinese regimes that I have not mentioned yet.

Russia is not the white knight that's gonna save us from the globohomo. The Russian elite is one of the most depraved groups of individuals, and Putin is just a dull Soviet pencil pusher who throws temper tantrums every time he's not allowed at the adults table.

Btw, the realism of Mearsheimer and co is only a redressing of imperialism that brought us two world wars. So no, thank you.

If you're curious why realism is unacceptable in Eastern Europe watch critique of realism:

[Nurzat]

What a disgusting comment. Moldova is a founding principality of modern Romania. Republic of Moldova is a land occupied by Russia, taken away from historic Moldova. Romania can only re-unite with its own territory. It is Russia who is doing the annexations in the region.

Republic of Moldova will reunite with Romania when it's ready. Romanians have a saying: sângele apă nu se face (approx. translation: blood is thicker than water).

you mention blood, but when you plot with G25 Moldovans both sides of Prut vs Romanians they almost don't overlap.

anyway, Rep. of Moldova is another country and another nation - in the past 212 years they only spent 23 years in Romania, while 32 years independent and the rest within Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. this shaped their culture a lot. they are post-Soviet in many regards, especially in the urban areas. they are very connected to Russian music, films, tv, media, the Russian world in general. those who move to Romania are in favour of the unification but those already live in Romania, while those who stay in the Rep. of Moldova are for the most either in favour of Moldovan independence (the majority) either pro-Russian, and only a minority are pro-Romanian. I mean they aren't against Romania, but they mostly wish to be allowed to have their own country.

I am one of the minority Moldovans in Romania (Western Moldova) that would be in favour of the region splitting from Romania (but not uniting with the Rep. of Moldova), without having anything against Romanians either, actually I think that if Moldova and Transylvania would become separate countries they would have to learn to collaborate a lot (Romania/Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldova to have all sorts of special treaties that would allow the flow of people and trade just as there would be no borders) and this would make the regional cities much more dynamic for business, as now we live in a megacentralized country where everything is restricted to Bucharest and the imbalance is huge, in terms of jobs, money, budgets, and it's not proportionate to the population, the disproportion makes it for a huge GDP per capita for Bucharest, one of the richest regions in the EU, funnily in the poorest country of the EU - this statistic alone speaks tons.

with the Rep. of Moldova I have another issue - they should change name, something like Eastern Moldova or Bessarabia, because they cannot represent Moldova itself, they are the half of Moldova where not much happened, 99% of the facts around Moldova and Moldovan culture happened West of river Prut, so they should respect that and change name and acknowledge Moldova West of Prut, where almost everything they use to build their nation lived and created, all the battles, the capital cities of Moldova, the relevant writers, all happened in Western Moldova, which is now part of Romania.

in terms of Romanian-Ukrainian cooperation, I will only say that it's useless to talk about it, Washington literally owns the two countries, so it is as they wish it to be. I only hope we don't get dragged into the war, and we will most probably won't, because in the end NATO and Russia shouldn't fight, or it will be the end of the world, and proxy wars can be fought only on non-NATO territory.

btw again about Rep. of Moldova - things are very complex there, there isn't two sides, but more. there's people that love Russian culture, speak Russian etc but would like to integrate with the EU without renouncing their Russian cultural belonging, but then they face some people that shout "Russophiles" at them and ask for Russian to be banned from TV and radio, there's people that want in the EU and are Russophobes, there's true Russophiles that don't want in the EU, there's also many who don't want Moscow nor Bucharest mix into their internal affairs etc. for all this, the status quo is the best for Moldova, otherwise it can become nasty if all these groups start to fight each other. and they're a post-Soviet society, they don't shy away of fighting if it comes their way.