[joe_mamba]

>would say that European countries get along like "a sack of horns."

True words of wisdom.

> Hopefully they were wrong :-)

They weren't. EU membership and cooperation is built on favoritism and necessity. You get into the EU if you have something of value the other members need from you (capital, geopolitical, industrial, human or natural resources) done via treaties instead of via war and conquest.

So it ended up as a toxic relationship where members exploit each other to get as much as they can while contributing as little as they can.

@Ukraine, you'll experience this when you get your turn, just ask Romania.

[boelboel]

Sometimes members are added just to prevent the EU from working better together, the reason why UK pushed hardest for expansion in 2004/2007. Funny how they'd leave the EU a few years later because of a vote that might've been decided becsuse of the 'polish plumber'.

[throw-the-towel]

But what did Romania experience?

[joe_mamba]

Banks, energy, telecom, defence, oil & gas companies had to be sold to French, German and Austrian companies for below market value, so those countries would lift their veto.

Same with joining NATO TBF. We had to buy some overpriced shoddy used F-16 from the US with a lot of miles on the clock, for the same price of brand new Swedish Gripens just so the US would accepts us in NATO.

So if history does indeed repeat itself, Ukraine will also have to sell off vital industry and resources to major EU corporations to get in. Like all those new shiny drone startups they have. Safe to assume Rheinmetall or Dassault will want those under German/French flag before Ukraine is allowed in the EU. Same with oil, gas and rare earths.

Basically EU and NATO are two tier institutions. First there's the whales, the big players who are founders and make the rules, or get invited to join, and then there's the scrappy low level players, who need to beg and offer monetary dowry to be allowed to join. In theory everyone is equal, except some dogs are more equal than others.

Because everything in the world is transactional pay-to-win. There's no charity and no handouts. If you're being invited somewhere or given something, it's because something from you is expected in exchange.

@throwaway85825 Yes, except that was non negotiable form the US side. "You buy our overpriced junk or take a hike, I don't care if your poor country can't afford it." Leaked cables between our leaders at the time.

Also food for thought to MAGA who keeps thinking that US acted like a charity for NATO.

[202508042147]

I'm surprised to read this on HN. Normally I stay away from this crap, but today I'll bite: the Romanian government did very well to sell Romtelecom, BCR and others. And I hope they'll sell more, like Tarom and other money sinks.

[joe_mamba]

Agree, but I was talking about something else, not Romtelecom or Tarom.

[dh2022]

Romanian banks were looted by Romanians in the 90s: see Paunesu brothers and BRD. Also see Dacia Felix bank, Bancorex.

Romanian telecom: post communist crash Romanian telecommunications were a disaster. For example two different phone numbers shared the same line (a.k.a. Cuplajul). In late 90s some western telecom companies started investing in Romanian cellular networks- they built all the tower and network infrastructure. I do not understand what you mean when you say the west stole telecoms from Romanian - the west actually built it.

Energy, oil and gas- the heydays of Romanian oil producing days were during the WWII when Romania supplied a lot of the oil used by the Germans. After that Russians took whatever was left over because of war reparations. Since I can remember Romania did not produce oil - it was dependent on Russian imports during communism for example. So there was no oil and gas for the West to steal either.

Re: NATO - in the 90s and early 2000sn Romania wanted to join NATO because that particular generation remembered the Russian all too well. The priceRomania paid was enforcing the embargo on the Serbs during the Kosovo and Bosnian wars.

Re: F16 - romanians are flying some hand me downs from Holland which were purchased at the dizzying price of 1 euro.

I am sorry, but you sound like a Romanian nationalist, one who unfortunately is convincing enough do that the current generation does not know how much better their lives are because of EU and NATO. But who knows, maybe they will get a chance to find out…

[edit - some typos]

[panick21_]

The idea that taking and helping countries like Romania was some massive commercial oppertunity is wild.

[joe_mamba]

Can you exemplify the freely given unpaid/uncompensated "help" you're referring to?

Because with such "help", who needs enemies?

Why doesn't US, China or Russia want that type of help?

[panick21_]

If you take everything, direct EU money plus other money from governments, foreign investments by companies, remittances from Romanians working in the EU, other aid money that flows in large amounts, not to mention market access and so on.

Anybody who rationally without nationalistic blinders evaluates that will come to the same conclusion. The idea that a Romania independent of Europe, with its shitty Post-Communist economy and the shitty companies it had could have done massively better is frankly delusional.

The idea that all foreign investment and foreign companies operating in other country is negative and explorative is simply wrong. That is the case both for individual works, company productivity and the countries economy. This has been shown to be true in tons of management studies. Insofar as Romania had issues, it its own internal corruption and other issues that they handled less well then Poland or the Baltic's.

> Why doesn't US, China or Russia want that type of help?

Russia did want the economic integration, foreign investments and so on, they just wanted it less then being an imperial power lead by a dictatorship.

If you think that is a better path for Romania then integration with the EU you are utterly braindead.

As for the US and China. The US already has its own set of alliances and cooperative agreements. It also is geographically very different and its so rich that if it was part of the EU it would be a net contributor.

China is again a dictatorship with like 1 billion people that believe they can build a system like US or the EU has themselves. And they of course did take at least large part of that package when they opened to the US and integrated the economy far more. They had foreign investment, much loser capital markets and so on.

To compare Romania Post-Communist situation with any of these, is laughable. And non of those paths are even remotely even an options.

Romania could be more like Poland, the Baltics or more like Ukraine or maybe like the Post-Soviet 'stans' just with less gas.

And of those options its perfectly clear what the right plan is.

If you have some brilliant alternative plan for Romania please share because apparently you are smarter then literally every other post Communist leader in any of those small countries. Or better yet, try to get elected on that platform. Just be aware that the massive amount of direct money and other benefits will go away, and then go watch how many people will still vote for you.

Realistic best case for that plan is that you become Belarus.

[joe_mamba]

>Romanian banks were looted by Romanians in the 90s: see Paunesu brothers and BRD. Also see Dacia Felix bank, Bancorex.

What does this unrelated thing, have to do with what I was talking about, like banks like BRD being sold to French Groupe Societe Generale and BCR by Austria's Erste Group. Bringing up random whataobutism isn't arguing in good faith.

>Re: F16 - romanians are flying some hand me downs from Holland which were purchased at the dizzying price of 1 euro.

Just do some googling mate before talking:

The U.S. Response: "Not Our Problem"

  The leaked WikiLeaks cables from the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest revealed that U.S. diplomats and visiting Pentagon representatives had absolutely zero sympathy for Romania’s economic misery.

The cables showed an incredibly aggressive, transactional approach by the U.S.:

  The Ultimatum: U.S. representatives told Bucharest that if Romania chose a cheaper European alternative (like the Swedish Gripen or the Eurofighter), or if they tried to delay the purchase due to their financial crisis, it would severely damage Romania's political standing in Washington.

The "Don't Care" Attitude:

  American officials explicitly communicated that Romania's internal economic issues were their own problem. The U.S. objective was to secure the deal for Lockheed Martin, lock Romania into the U.S. defense supply chain, and ensure Romania paid its "dues."

The "Political Insurance" Reality

  The cables exposed a deeply cynical dynamic that shocked the Romanian public when WikiLeaks published them:

  The U.S. viewed Romania as an easy target: American diplomats noted internally that Romanian politicians were so desperate for a security guarantee against Russia that they could be pressured into buying things they couldn't afford.

  The Romanian capitulation: Desperate to keep Washington happy, the Romanian Supreme Council of National Defense (CSAT) bypassed normal public tendering laws in 2010. They officially approved the acquisition of second-hand American F-16s, admitting privately that it was a political decision to appease the U.S., despite the fact that the country was in the middle of severe, painful economic austerity.

> Since I can remember Romania did not produce oil

HEllo?! Austria's OMV buying Romania's oil reserves for the rock bottom price of 600 million Euros in order to lift EU veta? Then pulling the same shit again for lifting the Schengen veto? It's an extortion racket.

>you sound like a Romanian nationalist

Pointing out the crimes of our partners and allies is now "nationalism"?

[throwaway85825]

Purchase price in jet deals is never straightforward because every deal is different. Variables could include: training (school + flight hours), weapons, contracted maintenance, spares, airfield infrastructure upgrades, engine overhaul etc. The only real way to compare is cost per flight hour.

[l23k4]

Half of the Romanians moved to other EU countries and then sent significant chunk of their earnings back home :)

[joe_mamba]

Yes, by doing the poorly paid hard labor jobs the locals didn't want because they can chill on welfare, you know, the whole "muh labor shortage" bit.

It's not like Germans, Dutch etc or the "new europeans" they imported, were rushing to wiping the asses of their elders in their own care homes or picking fruit all day in the sun on their own farms.

What was left to send home after that wasn't "significant" by any stretch, after paying taxes, rent and CoL to further boost the local economy and the wealth of the local asset owners.