THE ROMANIAN PURGE ~ CFR PLANS IN ROMANIA – Part 2

———————————————————————-

From: Marko Papic <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:26:58 -0600
To: Eugene Chausovsky<eugene.chausovsky@stratfor.com>
Cc: Kyle Rhodes<kyle.rhodes@stratfor.com>; Nathan
Hughes<hughes@stratfor.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: View from expert – missile shield in Romania]
Let’s get Nate in on this question… He knows better than we do, and also
it gives us good visibility if there are more Stratfor analysts responding
the questions.

Eugene Chausovsky wrote:

Hey man, pretty swamped this morning and honestly this is a question
that would be better answered by Nate on the technical/military side –
or do you have any insight into this Marko?

Kyle Rhodes wrote:

Got any time to answer this? I have no problem with saying we’re not
available for this if you’re swamped – they should’ve had all of their
questions in line from the start.

——– Original Message ——–

Subject: Re: View from expert – missile shield in Romania
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:33:21 +0200
From: Michael Bird <michael.bird@thediplomat.ro>
To: Kyle Rhodes <kyle.rhodes@stratfor.com>
References: <bf5e9055abad8208feffe688863a21a7.squirrel@webmail.thediplomat.ro>
<4B82FBE0.5000007@stratfor.com>
<8EC51C891D0F40DBAD75B8381021B9F2@dmg6>
<4B83E78C.5020506@stratfor.com>

Thanks very much Kyle

– I have one additional question, which I don’t know whether Mr
Chausovsky or another expert will be able to answer –

We are trying to determine where [geographically] such a missile
shield would be best placed. Although we understand that there is no
SM-3 land-based system currently in existence, taking into account
other similar installations, what properties would the location need
to have in order to be compliant with the demands of the missile
shield?

thanks again for your help

Michael Bird
Editor-in-Chief
‘The Diplomat – Bucharest’
Address: Blvd Calea Mosilor nr 306,
Bl 56, Sc A, Et 2, Apt 7, Sector 2,
Bucharest,
Romania
Tel/Fax: +4021 210 1336
Mobile phone: +4072 271 3417
E-mail: michael.bird@thediplomat.ro
Web: http://www.thediplomat.ro <http://www.thediplomat.ro/&gt;
The Magazine for informed internationals
——————————————————————————————————
Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments,
is
for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and
privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
is
prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact Diplomat Media
Grup at
office@thediplomat.ro and destroy all copies of the original message.
——————————————————————————————————-

—– Original Message —–
From: Kyle Rhodes
To: Michael Bird
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: View from expert – missile shield in Romania
Michael,

Below you’ll find responses by Eugene Chausovsky, Eurasia Analyst.

Also, please cite STRATFOR as a global intelligence company and, if
possible, please include a live link to http://www.stratfor.com along with
the online version of your article.

Finally, would you mind sending me a link to the story when it
publishes?

Best,

Kyle

What are the wider implications of the missile shield in Romania on
the security of the Balkan region, especially on relations between
NATO states and the Middle East, as well as on multi-billion euro
pipeline projects [such as Nabucco] planned between the two zones?

The purpose of the ballistic missile defense (BMD) system that the
United States plans to station in Romania, along with possibly other
Balkan and Central European countries like Poland and Bulgaria, is
to strengthen the U.S. security alliance with these countries. It
should be noted, however, that the main security threats to these
countries comes (or is perceived to come) not from the Middle East,
but from Russia. These alliance developments have not been met
lightly by Moscow, with Russia expressing concern and seeing the
placement of the BMD system as a risk to its security. Also, the
Russian-backed breakaway republic of Transniestria in Moldova said
it was willing to allow Russia to place its own offensive weapons,
Iskander missiles, in its territory shortly after Romania said it
would participate in the BMD system by stationing land-based
interceptors on its own territory. While the Middle East,
particularly Iran, is considered a threat by NATO states, the BMD
impact on relations is clearly greater and more immediate between
NATO and Russia.

As for Nabucco, that remains a project that is still in the
discussion and planning stages and there are no indications that
actual construction will get underway and be completed in the next
few years. While there is much potential to take energy supplies
from the Middle East and the Caucasus directly to Europe via
Nabucco, it is unclear where exactly this gas would come from and it
remains an extremely expensive and technologically challenging
venture. Also, there is another European natural gas project, the
Nord Stream pipeline that flows from Russia directly to Germany
under the Baltic Sea, which has already secured financing and is set
to begin construction within months and be completed by 2011. There
is, therefore, no strong correlation between the BMD system and
Nabucco, simply because it faces other more direct challenges.

Following the announcement of the planned missile shield for
Romania, how necessary is it now for there to be another NATO
missile shield [as was discussed in summits in 2009 and 2008] when
the potential threat [from the east, potentially Iran] is covered by
US’s PAA in Romania, Aegis in the Mediterranean, Israel’s Arrow and
while Turkey has its own ABM system planned [although not directed,
I understand, at Iran]?

Again, the NATO missile shield’s primary target is not Iran, so in
that sense it is not particularly necessary. Indeed, the real target
— Russia — does not necessitate such a BMD system for defensive
purposes either, as it does not adequately protect Romania and the
region from Russia’s weapon system. But what it does do is give
these countries a firm security guarantee that calls for U.S.
expertise and an actual U.S. military commitment on the ground to
support these systems. Therefore it is more of a political move than
a military or technical one. Iran certainly poses its own security
threat (one that is coincidentally propped up by Russia and its
possible sale of S-300 missile systems to Iran), but as you
mentioned, there are other defensive missile systems already in
place to address this threat, and other contingency plans in the
works that aim to deal with this threat if and when it becomes
necessary.

Michael Bird wrote:

Thanks Kyle – email will be fine and if there are any other points
I can follow up

yours sincerely

Michael Bird
Editor-in-Chief
‘The Diplomat – Bucharest’
Address: Blvd Calea Mosilor nr 306,
Bl 56, Sc A, Et 2, Apt 7, Sector 2,
Bucharest,
Romania
Tel/Fax: +4021 210 1336
Mobile phone: +4072 271 3417
E-mail: michael.bird@thediplomat.ro
Web: http://www.thediplomat.ro <http://www.thediplomat.ro/&gt;
The Magazine for informed internationals
——————————————————————————————————
Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any
attachments, is
for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and
privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is
prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact Diplomat
Media Grup at
office@thediplomat.ro and destroy all copies of the original
message.
——————————————————————————————————-

—– Original Message —–
From: Kyle Rhodes
To: michael.bird@thediplomat.ro
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: View from expert – missile shield in Romania
Hi Michael,

We’d be happy to comment on the situation for your magazine.

Are you interested in an email or phone interview?
Best,

—
Kyle Rhodes
Public Relations
STRATFOR

+1.512.744.4309
kyle.rhodes@stratfor.com

michael.bird@thediplomat.ro wrote:

Dear Kyle Rhodes

My name is Michael Bird and I am writing from ‘The Diplomat – Bucharest’
magazine – a monthly English language magazine on politics, business and
security issues in Romania.

We are now writing an article on the implications of the new security
shield planned for Romania – and it would be great if we could gain a
brief view of a security expert from Stratfor on this new decision for the
country.

We would ideally like an answer at the end of play Tuesday 23rd February
[USA].

What are the wider implications of the missile shield in Romania on the
security of the Balkan region, especially on relations between NATO states
and the Middle East, as well as on multi-billion euro pipeline projects
[such as Nabucco] planned between the two zones?

Following the announcement of the planned missile shield for Romania, how
necessary is it now for there to be another NATO missile shield [as was
discussed in summits in 2009 and 2008] when the potential threat [from the
east, potentially Iran] is covered by US’s PAA in Romania, Aegis in the
Mediterranean, Israel’s Arrow and while Turkey has its own ABM system
planned [although not directed, I understand, at Iran]?

I hope you can be of help and to hear from you soon,

yours sincerely

Michael Bird
Editor-in-Chief
The Diplomat – Bucharest
http://www.thediplomat.ro
michael.bird@thediplomat.ro
Address: 187-189 Traian st, sc. 2, etj 6, ap. 38, sect. 2
Tel: +4031 402 2710
Tel/Fax: +4031 402 2709
Mobile phone: +4072 271 3417
The Magazine for informed internationals
—————————————————————————-
————————–
Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is
for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosureor distribution is
prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact Diplomat Media Grup at

office@thediplomat.ro and destroy all copies of the original message.
—————————————————————————-
—————————

—
Kyle Rhodes
Public Relations
STRATFOR

+1.512.744.4309
kyle.rhodes@stratfor.com

—
Kyle Rhodes
Public Relations
STRATFOR
kyle.rhodes@stratfor.com
(512)744-4309

—
Kyle Rhodes
Public Relations
STRATFOR
kyle.rhodes@stratfor.com
(512)744-4309

—

Marko Papic

STRATFOR
Geopol Analyst – Eurasia
700 Lavaca Street, Suite 900
Austin, TX 78701 – U.S.A
TEL: + 1-512-744-4094
FAX: + 1-512-744-4334
marko.papic@stratfor.com
http://www.stratfor.com

ROMANIA/EUROPE-Commentary Views Massive Migration of Romanian Labor Force as Big National Loss

2013-04-21 00:00 GMT

Commentary Views Massive Migration of Romanian Labor Force as Big National
Loss
Commentary by Ilie Serbanescu: “Migration, a National Tragedy” – Romania
Libera Online
Thursday August 4, 2011 16:41:02 GMT
One might say that these calculations, which show the contribution of the
Romanian workers to the development of other countries, and not of
Romania, have no relevance because the economic disaster in Romania pushed
them to migrate, and their country could only offer them poverty if they
had the bad idea to return home. Yet, I cannot help making such
calculations when I hear the officials saying that the Romanians who work
abroad contribute to the financing of the country’s balance of payment and
to its development with the money they send home. I even want to make
these calculations to reject their stupid attempt to claim that black is
white and loss is gain!

The almost three million Romanians who work abroad (according to the
estimations in the survey carried out by the Soros Foundation) are in fact
people in their prime (aged between 18 and 40), in full biological,
physical, and mental capacity, perfectly fit to work and create. Those
three million people represent about 40% of Romania’s labor force in that
age group. Is the fact that 40% of Romania’s adult labor force work for
other countries, and not for their own, a gain or a loss?! Apart from the
purely concrete aspect of the loss consisting in the fact that those
people pay no contribution to the Romanian pension and health systems, we
are talking about an incommensurable and unrecoverable loss for our
country’s productive and creative capacity, for its national substance,
and for its status in Europe and in the world. One very suggestive word
can describe that situation: it is a tragedy! A tragedy which is
officially presented as a contribution to the financing of Romania’s
balance of payments and to its development!

The sums of money sent to their home country by the Romanians who work
abroad do not represent such a big contribution, not only in a
philosophical sense, and on a long-term basis, but also in a prosaic
sense, and on a short-term basis! They only represent a very small part of
the contribution Romanians who work abroad make to the development of
other countries, and the sums of money sent to Romania are so small that
they do not make the slightest contribution to the development of
Romania’s economy. Those sums of money are not used to start new
businesses in Romania, or to make important private investments. Most of
that money is spent for consumption purposes in the hypermarkets opened by
foreigners in Romania. In other words, that money is spent for the
foreigners’ profit in our country instead of being spent directly in the
foreigners’ countries, and therefore Romania does not benefit from it at
all!

One last remark. Based on the fact that about 80% of the money saved by
the Romanians who work abroad is kept in foreign banks (about 100 billion
euros, which is approximately four times more than the money kept in banks
by their fellow countrymen in Romania), I have heard some people say that
special banking products should be promoted in order to make that
situation more favorable to the Romanian banks. The problem is that the
banks in Romania are subsidiaries of foreign banks, and therefore it makes
no difference whether Romanians keep their money in banks abroad or in
Romania! Even Romanians who are (still) in Romania keep their money in
foreign banks, because there are no more Romanian banks in Romania! This
aspect, alongside with the massive migration of the Romanian labor force,
demonstrates the same phenomenon: Romania’s dissolution!

(Description of Source: Bucharest Romania Libera Online in Romanian —
Website of re spected, privately owned, independent, centrist daily; URL:
http://www.romanialibera.ro)

Material in the World News Connection is generally copyrighted by the
source cited. Permission for use must be obtained from the copyright
holder. Inquiries regarding use may be directed to NTIS, US Dept. of
Commerce.