Talk about missles when one romanian mechanized brigade would tear Transnistria to bits in matter of days :).

From Poland have you been to Transdniester? I have and you might be surprised at how much firepower is in the area! I was surprised on my first visit. My second visit allowed me to see that Transdniester would look at Romania and say - Come on you want a piece of us? By the way it would be a good spot for Russian missiles... :) Kyle Keeton

I do believe this is a good Idea for Transdniester to host Russia's Missile program this may boost their chances of Recognition as a Recognised state by Russia and Possibly Belarus too, I personally do not have a objection to Transdniester hosting Russia's Missiles. Also the world seems to have gone one sided these days but I think another point of view should be heard and this is it. Transdnietser If you do get recognised I will recognise you as soon a Russia does.

@ from Poland Not with the Russian Military there.. :)

yes of course, a mechabnized brigade would tear Transnistria but as soon it would cross the border those iskanders would be flying to destroy the ABM sites, and if it escalates it is the end of the world.. ICBM would start flying from everywhere.. so, please don't be so obvious with your shortsightedness..

February 15, 2010, 10:46, from Poland wrote > Talk about missles when one romanian mechanized brigade would tear Transnistria to bits in matter of days :). The world is well aware of your blood thirst and willingness to serve anglo-american Imperial masters. May you serve in AfPak and other stans for a very long time to come.

But the missiles don't take days to fly, unlike Polish ones:) and it woud take a Modova invasion, but hey the Plotting poles, never bother about that sort of detail, come to think of it neither does Romania either. Hope the Soldiers don't come from Bucharest, with nothing to go home to! And after that they face the friendly Ukrainians, no home, no life, an interesting Romanian free choice! They might just find the place empty when they get there, history sometimes does repeat itself; gone away for the weekend, see you later when you are STILL here.

If the missile defenses to be erected in Romania aren't meant to defend against Russia then effective neutralization measures that would be deployed only in the case of a Russian attack should be hailed as a solution to tensions rather than an escalation of them because they give Russia greater peace of mind without interfering with defense against Iran. I am not sure this would be interpreted that way, but such an interpretation makes a lot of sense.

This is great move for Russia. Russia needs to know that the projection of power is the only language the Pentagon and the proponent of U.S global dominance understand and respect.

Good news, absolutely Russia must answer to the US and NATO aggressivity as they try to isolate and surround Russia militarily.

Here we go again. With the meddling by USA and "the West" in eastern Europe, it now seems that countries and regions are lining up between the two powers again, USA vs Russia. I am getting SO tired of the Cold War, and we keep it going with all this plotting. I wonder when Obama is going to crack down on the people in his own administration who are working against his "Restart" efforts. The way things are headed, his message is not worth the paper it's printed on.

@Kyle It is not even close to what romanian armed forces are. @Impera Belarus is already recognized but its real independence from Russia is disputable. @Alex One thousand troops wont change a thing. @Sasha I think no one will die over Transnistria. @Srbin Yes and we eat babies :). @Cash Maybe our missles arent to fast but they fly really low and thus are hardly detectable ;). @William Those complexes have no offensive capabilities. @Ernesto You`re right except one thing - no one isolated Russia, Russia did it herself - have You thought why most former republics and allies broke off? In case of one country it could be specific but majority of them did. What am I saying here is not to ignite flame wars - but for normal military reasons putting balistic missles that are in range of conventional artillery is a waste of them - not a projection of power. The major use of balistic missle launcher is to have Your enemy in range while he doesn`t have You. It is that simple - and when those conditions arent met then there is no point. This is why Iskanders are not deployed in Kaliningrad and they wont be deployed in Transnistria. Those are are too small areas to keep balistic launcher complexes from destruction by conventional bombardment.

"from Poland" reminds me on the NATO and its puppets in Eastern Europe - they talk much, they bark much, but when it comes to real war they hide in the rat holes. We saw what happens when NATO puppets try to harm Russian citizens during the August 2008 war in Georgia. I remember quite well how Poland, Baltic countries and other NATO puppets had big mouths and big tongs but no one of them, including their master from the other side of the Atlantic, dare to do anything to stop Russia and to help their ally Georgia. They didn't dare to impose even a smallest possible sanctions on Russia. They are "brave" just like their masters - only on paper, on Internet forums, and Hollywood movies, but cowards in practice. So this comment of "romanian mechanized brigade" which would "tear Transnistria to bits in matter of days" reminds me on that cowardly barking we saw in August 2008 when NATO and its puppets did nothing to save their ally Georgia. Attack on Transnistira is attack on Russia becuase there are Russian citizens there. And we know quite well what would happen in that case... We saw that in practice!

This is probably just a lot of hype for political maneuvering. Obama is Russias RIGHT HAND MAN and will do nothing to challenge Russia's retaking of much of the old Eastern block. As long as Obama is in office, Russia has a free pass to do whatever they want, with nothing but cute little speeches in response. This is a new era in American politics and Russia will probably exploit it to the max.

From poland posted"Talk about missles when one romanian mechanized brigade would tear Transnistria to bits in matter of days " And just how are they getting there? do they plan to invade Moldova too? Anyway Romania will never try something like that, as with other former eastern European countries,they are kept on a very short leash by NATO.For the simple reason NATO will never enter the same military theater with Russia. Then all you ultra nationalist can do is sit and dream cos that's all you are getting.Believe me, we the main NATO members will not incinerate ourselves and the world for an insignificant country.learn the lessons from Georgia.These of you we ------ took into NATO in the first place.Well its the leash for you

from Poland, Defensive capability protects offensive capability and offensive capability can defend a country by destroying the offensive capability of the enemy (in nuclear war terms a prime example of this is the doctrine of "first strike" wherein one side destroys the other side's nuclear arsenal before it can be fired). Hence, rationally speaking offensive and defensive capability are one in the same. In the case of Russia and NATO, NATO has an overwhelming conventional warfare advantage over Russia and a potent nuclear arsenal. Without Russia's nuclear deterrent therefore, she would almost certainly be defeated in a conflict with NATO; with Russia's nuclear deterrent extant, NATO couldn't attack Russia without Russia destroying NATO. However, NATO is a very long chronological distance away from being able to neutralize Russia's deterrent because Russia has a huge arsenal, NATO doesn't have any proven means of destroying even a few ICBMs, and Russia has already developed ultramodern missile systems it claims are able to penetrate the defensive systems NATO, basically just the US, is developing. Iran is a country which has yet to gain long range missile capability (though its missiles are gradually gaining greater and greater range), it has yet to develop nuclear weapons, and even once it had both those things it would at first only have a few nukes for maybe decades. Therefore, we don't need anything truly applicable to Russia to defend against Iran, at least not in the near future, and therefore we aren't deploying anything applicable to Russia. Russia's position on the issue of AMS from the start has been the fear of a slippery slope in which modest AMS capabilities being developed now would supposedly some day mature into something capable of threatening Russia's deterrent, particularly since both sides are now pursuing arms reductions. Give Russian ingenuity and the failure of star wars, I think that's unlikely, though who can say.

I agree with bear the NATO main countries will not confront Russia in any means the least they want is problems with Russia but I also agree that Transdniester is a good place also Kaliningrad and you can protect the Ballistic missiles with S-300pmu2 so there is no problem with air strikes and remember that Iskanders are mobiles so you can hide them so I don't see any problems in that area. This may be used to neutralize Poland American sites, the thing I don't understand is why this countries are hosting American missiles and they know that they will be targets in a major event, they should be asking for business not weapons this is ironic. I read in Ria Novosti that Prime Minister Putin offers Lithuania to help them with a nuclear power plant and the president of this tiny country refused that offer. It is incredible but if the US comes and offers weapons they will say yes - it is crazy and that's why this countries never or at least for a long time will not come out to prosperity. Because weapons don't generate jobs and progress but the offer made by Putin is different, it will create jobs and stability for the country and you will be able to build new factories and so on but the other way the only ones who make the profit are the American companies and that's all from me. A good discussion. From Guatemala

Hi guys! Pretty interesting discussion resolved here - but most of You missed one BIG point - You treat Georgia as a part of NATO. Georgia was not a part of NATO, it was not even allied - other countries had no commitment, and if You knew NATO doctrine then You would know that NATO wont help the aggressor (and Georgia was the aggressor here). USA thought about bombardment of South Ossetia and blockade of Black Sea - but it just didn't want to defend someone who was wrong (US is not stupid as You may think). Having this point out of the way - let's go to comments! @Bear And what? Mighty 10,000 troops will launch their offensive from Kaliningrad on Lithuania and Poland? Come on! Giving up to Your logic then we wouldn't need NATO to defend us against You because there are Russian citizens in Poland too :). @Jingo I have nothing against Obama - I think is he is actually more aggressive than Bush. Instead of giving some fiction AMD he gave us Patriots and SM-3 missiles. @Sam I understand that Russia always wants to attack someone but come on! Do You need anymore territory? - cause I think You have enough. @William You are correct except one thing - during potential nuclear exchange it is Russia who is on lost position, simply because higher concentration of population and industry - which in overall is much smaller than NATO countries. @Rodrigo You have a good point in idea that S-300PMU2 could protect 9K720 but they won't - not against low altitude cruise missiles. Iskanders also can't hide from fragmentation artillery barrage - which can spread over large areas on short range. Check how Kaliningrad or Transnistria is shaped - very long and very thin just ideal for artillery barrage.

Good idea! It will happend if" Defence pakt" Who "spreding liberty, freedom and happiness "(with some colleteral damage in tens of millions in their own homes)around the globe start pushing east....Transdniester is (de facto) state (one of few free in Europe) and their politicians are indeed a wise people with this call to put missiles(and everything posible) on their land...They say "to protect Ukraine,Russia,Transdniestr(Belorussia to I think)...HOW RIGHT THEY ARE-RIGHT ON TARGET! I will also add on some coments-who ever think(any state or "defence pact") to attack Transdniester-it will be a suicide!Do it yourself at home without Russia help -it will be less painfull! Thanke you....