INTERVIEW. What are the consequences of sending US troops and equipment to Romania? “We're improvising. We should have a clear state policy.” What is the vulnerability?

The use of Romanian military bases by the Americans is a normal practice between the allies and does not equate to Romania entering a war, says security analyst Hari Bucur-Marcu, in an interview for the HotNews audience. In his opinion, the real problem is the lack of a clear security strategy in Bucharest.

• Hari Bucur-Marcu is a security analyst and defense expert. He was an aviation officer in the Romanian Army and headed the Defense Strategies Service of the General Staff. He also worked in NATO structures and was involved in the reform process of the Romanian Army after 1990.

The Supreme Council of Defense of the Country approved today the request of the United States to send to Romania, in the context of the war in Iran, additional troops, refueling planes and monitoring equipment. The decision taken by the CSAT caused a debate in Bucharest: does this mean Romania's involvement in a war or is it just a normal stage of military cooperation with an ally?

For Hari Bucur-Marcu, the discussion mainly shows a problem of vision at the level of the Romanian state. The partnership with the United States remains, he says, one of Romania's important security advantages, but it cannot take the place of a coherent national strategy.

“We have been at war since 2012″

HotNews: Mr. Hari Bucur-Marcu, are we closer to a war?
Hari Bucur-Marcu: We have been at war since 2012. It is the year that the Russian Federation issued a new national security strategy, with a Putin returned to the presidency after the roundabout with the puppet Medvedev. Well, this strategy says that the main security threat to the Russian Federation comes from the West, especially Western Europe.

– Only now we are talking about another war…
– It's the same war, you know. Given that, in 2022, when the classic war of invasion that Russia initiated and continued over Ukraine actually began, Iran was on Putin's side. He armed the Russians with drones, provided them with assistance, helped them in the oil business.

Also in 2012, it was discussed for the first time, within the framework of the strategic partnership with the USA, about bringing an installation from the ship to the ground, in Deveselu, of an anti-missile shield declared against Iranian missiles. So, the moment Romania accepted to be part of a European defense system against Iran, you realize that it has also become a target. In fact, Putin's Russians, at the very moment we started the development of the Deveselu facility, protested vehemently. They threatened to hit that facility.

“In Cotroceni, there is no one to explain to the president”

– What does the CSAT meeting mean?
– At the Supreme National Defense Council, the “analysis of the temporary deployment of some military capabilities on Romanian territory” was put on the agenda. So this is official. If it was just a matter of a simple use by the American aviation of the Mihail Kogălniceanu base, these things would have already been resolved: the Government put the military base at the disposal of the Americans not for each individual mission, but for a long period.

For example, Romania leased the Kogălniceanu base to the Americans during the war in Afghanistan, so that they could manage it, in the longer term, without asking for approval for every plane that comes and goes from there. It was decided by a government decision, in compliance with all legal provisions. And under such conditions, this base could be used again for whatever missions the Americans think they need to use it for.

It is true that, in Cotroceni, there is no one to explain these things to the president, because Nicusor Dan surrounded himself with amateurs, dilettantes in the field of national security and defense. I do not trust that our rulers, from the Romanian president down, really understand the situation we are in and, above all, what their role is in solving this situation.

“A school composition”

– Why do you say that?
– The President of Romania began to be the commander of the Armed Forces by issuing a National Strategy for the defense of the country, which he submitted to the approval of the Parliament under the conditions that, in its content, there was no such thing. That is, it was not about a national defense strategy of the country, but about something else.

It was a school improvisation that has no value even for national defense planning, because this strategy should have triggered a cycle of national defense planning, of producing Romania's military power for the next 5 years. Or, he can't do that. Nor did it create the conditions for the other subsequent planning documents, such as the Defense White Paper or the Military Strategy, to be issued in turn, so that there is a concrete plan at the Executive level.

– The national defense strategy is more of a statement of principles, not a military strategy, with troop movements and battle situation planning…
– So, the document signed by Mr. Nicușor Dan and approved by the Parliament is a school composition.

“The president should have a vision. doesn't have”

– In the country's defense strategy it is written that we favor and prioritize the strategic partnership with the United States, that we are part of the European Union alliance, part of NATO…
– Wait a minute, these are statements. I ask you where are the goals, where are the resources allocated to achieve the goals, what are the steps to do that. This means having a strategy: thinking about what you want to do, how, in what time. These things are missing.

– But can we understand the president's strategy by following his actions?
– No. Let us suspect what is in the president's mind, it is not national security. The President of Romania knowingly chose to improvise, to keep an uncontrolled free will, in which he does what he thinks is appropriate and that's enough.

“Any activity in which we are close to Americans is one that strengthens us”

– Is the decision to receive American troops likely to make us vulnerable?
– No. On the contrary. Any activity in which we are close to Americans is one that strengthens us, not makes us vulnerable. It would make us vulnerable if we were close to the Iranians, who are the losers in this war.

– So do you think it's a good decision?
– Like any decision favorable to Romania's relations with the United States, it is a good decision. Trump very harshly criticized Great Britain, with which he had a very close relationship, for opposing the US action. Not to mention the Spanish, who said from the beginning that they do not want to make their bases in the Mediterranean available to the Americans. They got a response like “so what are you going to do if I want to bring my planes to you”? Now, they don't object anymore.

In the case of Romania, for now we are at the level of words. And I have the impression that the president and the prime minister of Romania, together with the foreign minister and probably the defense minister, want to show us that they are also doing something. We improvise. Romania should have had a clear state policy, and now we just have to see what is written there.

– What do you think President Nicușor Dan should actually do?
– First of all, they should have a vision. It doesn't have. The President of Romania has only reactive attitudes. I mean, there is a problem, we also have a start. Or, this is very little. We must understand that more is expected of us. We are the 7th country in the EU in terms of potential, but we remain at the bottom of the ranking in terms of achievements. Which is, however, good, compared to the alternative of some isolationist leaders, who would give us even more back.

“We are not more than that for the US”

– Why do the Americans need Romania and how do you explain the moment of the request to the USA?
– We are in the dark about this. This war is not one of attrition, like in Ukraine. It's a staged war. We are in the phase where targets on Iranian territory can be hit with aircraft carrying gravity ammunition, especially the B52. For such planes or refueling tanker planes, the base at Kogălniceanu would be suitable in terms of distance.

However, the US still has one aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean and two in the Arabian Sea. The base from Kogălniceanu is not essential. It's just that it would be easier for them to use it than not to use it. We are not more than that.

It is not as if, without Romania's entry into the war alongside the Americans, they could not achieve a military victory. Romania does not offer a strategic base, without which the Americans cannot fulfill their strategic objectives. The Americans do not condition victory on Romanian acceptance or refusal to use that military base.

“Three possible endings to the Iran war”

– How do you think the war in Iran ends?
– It won't take long. Not only from a military point of view or military art, but also from a political point of view. The American president is in an election year, in the middle of her term, and she wants to maintain her majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. So he cannot afford to prolong this war very long. The war will end, as originally planned, in a matter of weeks. There are three possible endings to the war.

The US did not set the goal of political regime change. As a result, when Iran no longer has the ability to produce nuclear weapons, no longer has the ability to produce or possess medium- and long-range missiles, and no longer has the ability to play any role in the Strait of Hormuz, that is, no longer has a military navy, Trump can say that he has achieved his goals. He doesn't need more than that.

Preferable is a situation where a certain grouping of political and military forces in Iran does what Ceaușescu's Security did with Ceaușescu. That is, to take their hands off the ayatollahs, to form a transitional government, to promise that they will not arm themselves again. This still means an unconditional capitulation, but with elements that survive from the current government. Which is acceptable from an American point of view.

And the third solution, the most favorable, is for the Iranians to take their fate into their own hands. These are the three options. Of course, we, as part of the West, being threatened by the Iranians, would like Iran to start a reconstruction process and stop being a threat to regional or world peace.

The interview was recorded before the CSAT meeting.