Should NATO be folded in favor of a European Union unified command?

[Sarmatian]

An excellent question - and a worrying one given that Transnistria is part of Moldova - which is to East Germany what Romania is to West Germany. Which is to say, Stalin forcibly separated them prior to WWII - leading directly to the Fascist dictatorship in Romania. The political class in both Romania and Moldova aspire to re-unification, and indeed the flag of Moldova is the Romanian tri-colour with the Moldavian crest added.

The people in both countries are somewhat more wary, but Romania is issuing passports to Moldovians and both sides recognise that, culturally and ethnically Moldovians and Romanians are fundamentally the same.

That's more or less what Russia did in Crimea, although I remember reading about Moldova and the opinion polls over a large period were against unification with Romania. Maybe something changed in the last few years. Personally, I don't care, if they want, l don't mind, if they don't, I also don't mind.


But NATO...

Just to make the situation stickier, Romania is in NATO and has a mutual defence pact with Moldova, meaning that should Russia attack Romanian forces INSIDE Romania it will trigger WWIII.

...doesn't work that way. NATO is obliged to intervene if war is declared on a member state, not on an ally of a member state.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's more or less what Russia did in Crimea, although I remember reading about Moldova and the opinion polls over a large period were against unification with Romania. Maybe something changed in the last few years. Personally, I don't care, if they want, l don't mind, if they don't, I also don't mind.


But NATO...

...doesn't work that way. NATO is obliged to intervene if war is declared on a member state, not on an ally of a member state.

Let me re-quote myself for you

meaning that should Russia attack Romanian forces INSIDE Romania it will trigger WWIII.

Get it now?

As to the opinion polls, they're not strictly in favour but there are more people with a strongly positive outlook than a negative one, it's not a majority, just the largest minority.

[Sarmatian]

Get it now?

Still doesn't work that way. If Country A is allied with Country B and Country C declares war on Country B, Country A is obliged to declare war on Country C. If country D is in a defensive military alliance with Country A, Country D still isn't required to declare war, even if Country C enters borders of Country A.

Think about it. What you're suggesting is that just by virtue of being allied with a NATO member in a separate agreement, Moldova basically enjoys full protection of NATO, through an alliance with Romania, and none of the responsibilities.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Still doesn't work that way. If Country A is allied with Country B and Country C declares war on Country B, Country A is obliged to declare war on Country C. If country D is in a defensive military alliance with Country A, Country D still isn't required to declare war, even if Country C enters borders of Country A.

Think about it. What you're suggesting is that just by virtue of being allied with a NATO member in a separate agreement, Moldova basically enjoys full protection of NATO, through an alliance with Romania, and none of the responsibilities.

nvm

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Article 5 could be the springboard for such a conflict, though that would not automatically be the case.

Presuming that Moldavan forces seek refuge in Romania and that Russian forces both follow them into Romanian territory and attack Romanian forces during such an operation, then Article 5 would likely be invoked.
If, however, Russian forces attacked Moldavan in Romania but then promptly withdrew without action against Romanian forces, the invocation of Article 5 is more problematic.

Should Moldava seek union with Romania, should Romania agree, and should the EU/NATO recognize that amalgamation, THEN Moldavan territory would be covered as Romanian territory under article 5. That's a lot of should that have not yet happened.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Article 5 could be the springboard for such a conflict, though that would not automatically be the case.

Presuming that Moldavan forces seek refuge in Romania and that Russian forces both follow them into Romanian territory and attack Romanian forces during such an operation, then Article 5 would likely be invoked.
If, however, Russian forces attacked Moldavan in Romania but then promptly withdrew without action against Romanian forces, the invocation of Article 5 is more problematic.

Should Moldava seek union with Romania, should Romania agree, and should the EU/NATO recognize that amalgamation, THEN Moldavan territory would be covered as Romanian territory under article 5. That's a lot of should that have not yet happened.

Add to that - should Romanian forces advance into Moldova, and Russian forces then attack them in Romania - which is the most likely scenario to trigger Article five.

Yes Sarmation - the "mutual Defence Pact" which is not merely an "alliance" is designed to drag Romania into a war with Russia and goad Russia into attacking Romania, thereby triggering a response from NATO. Romania would not risk an alliance with Moldova otherwise.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Still doesn't work that way. If Country A is allied with Country B and Country C declares war on Country B, Country A is obliged to declare war on Country C. If country D is in a defensive military alliance with Country A, Country D still isn't required to declare war, even if Country C enters borders of Country A.

Think about it. What you're suggesting is that just by virtue of being allied with a NATO member in a separate agreement, Moldova basically enjoys full protection of NATO, through an alliance with Romania, and none of the responsibilities.

Actually you know what - I'm going to quote you, just so I can quote myself at you again.

meaning that should Russia attack Romanian forces INSIDE Romania it will trigger WWIII.

See that word in caps?

See it the third time?

What's the point responding to my post if you haven't read it.

[Sarmatian]

See that word in caps?

See it the third time?

What's the point responding to my post if you haven't read it.

I've read it the first time. The aggressor in a war isn't determined by the territory where the war is fought. In WW2, the war wasn't fought on US soil, rather US was fighting it on German and Japanese soil. That doesn't make USA the aggressor in the war.

So, if Romania declares war on Russia, and Russian army repels them and crosses the border into Romania in order to defeat them, NATO still isn't obligated to declare war on Russia. They may decide to do it, but they're not obligated.

[HoreTore]

There are no obligations in politics.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've read it the first time. The aggressor in a war isn't determined by the territory where the war is fought. In WW2, the war wasn't fought on US soil, rather US was fighting it on German and Japanese soil. That doesn't make USA the aggressor in the war.

So, if Romania declares war on Russia, and Russian army repels them and crosses the border into Romania in order to defeat them, NATO still isn't obligated to declare war on Russia. They may decide to do it, but they're not obligated.

Romania isn't going to declare war - it'll just move troops into Moldova's territory - Russia will oblige by attacking those troops without declaring war. All it takes is one Russian missile to land on Romanian troops in Moldova - or to hit Romanian troops whilst being aimed at Moldovian troops - and Romania can invoke the NATO treaty. An attack on Romanian troops in Romania would oblige NATO to respond militarily, but any attack on Romanian troops will at least force NATO leaders to "consult", so even then Russia cannot rely on a complete lack of response from NATO.

Basically - the Romanian-Moldovian pact is designed to make it that much harder for Russia to do in Transnistria what it did in Crimea.

More to the point - your have your example backwards - you said the US was no the aggressor, but according to your logic it was because it attacked Germany, which had not attacked the US, due to Germany's attack on France and Britain. Romania won't be attacking Russia or crossing into Russian territory - Transnistria is in Moldova.

There are no obligations in politics.

Ah - but this is foreign relations, not politics.