Anti-ballistic interceptors ? Again ?!? Why ? Why now ? Why militarisation of this region ? Against whom ? Why so close to Russia ? Is this in harmony with the framework of European security interests ? Are some EU countries doing whatever they want, despite legitimate interests of other EU or non EU countries ? Ultimately who will pay the price ? Thanks

As if somebody actually asked Romanian people if they really wanted to become the lightening rod, sitting ducks in any exchange --- even erroneous --- of hits. Oooops, sorry Romanian people! Just more collateral damage. This is how it goes in the democracies. Did EU decide this? Did NATO actually vote on this? And as we know that they did not, who and how can make the decisions to place nuclear infrastructure in yet one more country in Europe? Europe is full of nukes. Germany wants them out, and I feel that Germany may be the only country that would succeed in this. Germany understands what does it mean to loose several generations of young people in WWII. And getting to be a sitting duck in a nuclear exchange is not something they want to do. Others have not yet learned their historic lessons. If there is one good thing that came out of the WWII, is the profound understanding of what calamitous policy making and warmongering brings upon a nation. But Germany seems to be the only one of the Western countries to trully understand it.

Romania has overthrown communism, discovered capitalism and buried itself in debt. So - Romania is a free country! If it wants to militarize the vulnerable territory around Constanta, its politicans can invoke freedom - and obey its creditors - to do just that. But, of course, freedom is relative. The US rules all Europe. Freedom from US militarization is impossible. And so, NickF, the single response to your varied questions is: Ask the US-UK-Israel elite why they enjoy kicking Europe around like a wornout football. Until you get an answer - and it'll be a long time coming - enjoy the experience!