Anti-Missile Shield Is a Boon for Romania
Romania – on the shield or behind it?
An epic diplomatic victory or sheer luck from being at the right place at the right time? That Romania is taking part in the anti-missile shield is undoubtedly a good thing for us (Romania) for several reasons.
First of all, it represents an extra guarantee of security, which is very important, especially because it exceeds the protection ensured by NATO membership. In fact, according to anonymous sources from within NATO, they had nothing to do with the Romanian-American negotiations concerning the shield. However, there are some questions that cannot be avoided. Who would attack us? It is true that right now there is no direct threat towards Romania. But at the same time, no country in NATO or the EU can consider itself completely safe. The enemies of Western civilization don’t necessarily strike the most important points of interest, but often those that are more vulnerable. Spain paid a high price for learning this.
Do we really have the money (according to experts, a few billion dollars) to sustain such a consistent investment? If we were to make decisions based on our level of poverty, then one could make an argument for disbanding the army, cutting all investment in military technology and just relying on our pacifism or our pettiness. Whatever the investment made, it is far easier to take than the human losses caused by a possible attack.
But is it worth souring our relations with Moscow? Well, in order to ruin something, there must first be something to ruin, and our relationship with Moscow hasn’t exactly been wonderful. Shield or no shield, we still get the expensive gas.
However you look at it, faced with an offer like the one the Americans made with regards to the shield, you can’t really play both sides. You’re either with Washington or with Moscow. There is no middle ground. And, as I see it, Washington is preferable.
Of course Moscow has reason to feel unhappy. The story about the shield being purely defensive is just to put the public at ease. You don’t have to be in the military to understand that the question of whether the shield is defensive in nature is ultimately a question of military and political philosophy — but a philosophy can change. A missile itself can be used both defensively and offensively.
However, Moscow did not have an overly irate reaction, probably because they must have been expecting this event since last year. Foreign Minister of Russia Serghei Lavrov did demand explanations from the U.S. and reminded them of the status held by the strategic area of the Black Sea. But the tone has been significantly calmer than when the shield covered Poland, which is much closer geographically to Russia and one of its greatest enemies.
Second of all, Romania’s involvement in the anti-missile shield represents a change in the status of its relations with the United States and in its global status as well.
“This decision changes everything; you become relevant, what you say matters. Romania is no longer on the fringe,” says military analyst Iulian Chifu. Also, many believe this change in status might have quite interesting effects, its bilateral relations with Russia included.
From the political point of view, the big story of the shield could be a subject worthy of deep meditation for Mircea Geoana, president of the Romanian Senate. The official proposal was just made by the United States, but the deal was sealed last year when Vice President Joe Biden came to Romania.
In fact, at the time, President Traian Basescu received the White House’s blessing for another term in office. There is information that during the campaign American support was not only discrete, but very consistent. Could it be that Barack Obama’s choice had something to do with the interest Moscow has in Mircea Geoana, despite his having served as Romanian ambassador to the United States?
I’m not sure that the Americans were interested in Mircea Geoana’s visit with Sorin Ovidiu Vantu (one of the richest businessmen in Romania), but I’m afraid they were very interested in his secret visit to Moscow.
An epic diplomatic victory or sheer luck from being at the right place at the right time? That Romania is taking part in the anti-missile shield is undoubtedly a good thing for us (Romania) for several reasons.
First of all, it represents an extra guarantee of security, which is very important, especially because it exceeds the protection ensured by NATO membership. In fact, according to anonymous sources from within NATO, they had nothing to do with the Romanian-American negotiations concerning the shield. However, there are some questions that cannot be avoided. Who would attack us? It is true that right now there is no direct threat towards Romania. But at the same time, no country in NATO or the EU can consider itself completely safe. The enemies of Western civilization don’t necessarily strike the most important points of interest, but often those that are more vulnerable. Spain paid a high price for learning this.
Do we really have the money (according to experts, a few billion dollars) to sustain such a consistent investment? If we were to make decisions based on our level of poverty, then one could make an argument for disbanding the army, cutting all investment in military technology and just relying on our pacifism or our pettiness. Whatever the investment made, it is far easier to take than the human losses caused by a possible attack.
But is it worth souring our relations with Moscow? Well, in order to ruin something, there must first be something to ruin, and our relationship with Moscow hasn’t exactly been wonderful. Shield or no shield, we still get the expensive gas.
However you look at it, faced with an offer like the one the Americans made with regards to the shield, you can’t really play both sides. You’re either with Washington or with Moscow. There is no middle ground. And, as I see it, Washington is preferable.
Of course Moscow has reason to feel unhappy. The story about the shield being purely defensive is just to put the public at ease. You don’t have to be in the military to understand that the question of whether the shield is defensive in nature is ultimately a question of military and political philosophy — but a philosophy can change. A missile itself can be used both defensively and offensively.
However, Moscow did not have an overly irate reaction, probably because they must have been expecting this event since last year. Foreign Minister of Russia Serghei Lavrov did demand explanations from the U.S. and reminded them of the status held by the strategic area of the Black Sea. But the tone has been significantly calmer than when the shield covered Poland, which is much closer geographically to Russia and one of its greatest enemies.
Second of all, Romania’s involvement in the anti-missile shield represents a change in the status of its relations with the United States and in its global status as well.
“This decision changes everything; you become relevant, what you say matters. Romania is no longer on the fringe,” says military analyst Iulian Chifu. Also, many believe this change in status might have quite interesting effects, its bilateral relations with Russia included.
From the political point of view, the big story of the shield could be a subject worthy of deep meditation for Mircea Geoana, president of the Romanian Senate. The official proposal was just made by the United States, but the deal was sealed last year when Vice President Joe Biden came to Romania.
In fact, at the time, President Traian Basescu received the White House’s blessing for another term in office. There is information that during the campaign American support was not only discrete, but very consistent. Could it be that Barack Obama’s choice had something to do with the interest Moscow has in Mircea Geoana, despite his having served as Romanian ambassador to the United States?
I’m not sure that the Americans were interested in Mircea Geoana’s visit with Sorin Ovidiu Vantu (one of the richest businessmen in Romania), but I’m afraid they were very interested in his secret visit to Moscow.