Georgia and Ukraine NATO MAP stalls; Russia glad

[Kane Starkiller]

Why would Russia point its nukes at a nation that is, militarily, a non-threat?

You people automatically assume that Russia is pointing nukes at everyone, or is itching to invade or conquer or kill or rape. Which is why you do the things that end up provoking the Russians to do what they are doing now.

Did I say Russia would be pointing nukes at everyone? Try to understand that Poland is much weaker than Russia both conventionally and especially in nuclear terms. Russia is also next door which means that Poland's freedom of action would be greatly constricted.

Russian military strength, either conventional or nuclear, has not changed much in quantifiable terms from the 1990s. So Russia was as much a military threat then as it is now. In case you are arguing economic conditions prevent war, they aren't exactly allowing for a huge land war now either.

Baltic countries wouldn't exactly require a huge land war. A few movements of troops, a little incursion like the one in Georgia to safeguard Russians and that's it. Baltics would have no choice but to fall in line.

The same could be said of a putative Russo-Polish, German-Polish or any other type of military and political alliance. It does nothing to answer the initial point - Poland could have leeway in foreign policy even without agreeing to US bases; after all, as member of the EU, I doubt Russia would seriously ever consider going to war with it.

This gives it more leeway. Defense agreement that protects it from Russia and doesn't make it dependent on EU. I could say, just the same that I doubt US would attack Russia no matter how many ABM systems it had but that wouldn't convince you would it?

Turkey attacked Kurdish terrorists in Iraq while US forces were there. I kinda doubt Russia would be "more tolerant" than Turkey, especially with nuclear forces to back them up, which Turkey even does not have.

Yes but Turkey itself was part of NATO while Iraq (or the Kurds) was not. It was a conquered country so that is not an analogous situation.

"Pressure NATO"? In that case it would more likely pressure NATO into not expanding, if it can pressure it on anything. And that seems to work out better than asking for mercy afterwards.

I didn't say they would be successful but they are more likely to try and pressure NATO than to simply cross the border of a NATO member. If there was a massive terrorist attack inside Russia it would have to respond in order to keep any credibility, NATO would realize it and very likely clamp down on the terrorists. Notice how the head of Pakistan ISI agency traveled to India just after the attack, they know India will be pissed and that it goes beyond the usual squabble. India, on the other hand, didn't think of just crossing the border into Pakistan.

Kane, you are in some sort of wonderworld. What is "defeat"? Even during WARPAC times, Romania sharply disagreed with Russian policy at times, and it didn't cause Russian nukes to fall on their heads. Much less now is that even possible.

What does it mean to sharply disagree? More sharply than Hungary and Czechoslovakia? Of course they didn't lob any nukes at them, hordes of tanks were quite sufficient. But please don't tell me Poland can just pretend those nukes don't exist in case of a confrontation with Russia.

Ah, so once again, for the umpteenth time, your mantra is "RAR OPPOSE THE EVIL RUSSIANS!!!" Apparently diplomacy is defeat! So apparently, sandwiching yourself deliberately between two antagonistic powers is actually good foreign policy.

Did I say the Russians are evil? They want to expand their influence westwards and if that doesn't make them evil it certainly doesn't make Poland evil for trying to thwart that expansion by going to bed with the US. Secondly Poland didn't choose to be surrounded by Germany and Russia which historically tried to conquer it. It really doesn't have any choice.

As paranoia goes by, the fact that you are steeped in the same black/white mentality that led to WW1 and WWII, does not give your points any more credence.

What black/white mentality? Are you saying Germany is not interested in expanding it's influence eastwards? Russia was never at war with US yet it still claims it must have it's nuke for deterrent. Does anyone call Russia paranoid because of it? Yet if much weaker Poland decides to do something to counter the, admittedly unlikely, threat from Germany then it is paranoid?

Yeah, now we really get to the point: it's not about "independence". It's about Poland being a US stooge and sponge for all times whenever necessary. Right. Tell me again how is that called? "Defeat"? "Unequally important members"?

Which "problems" would a nuclear weapon in the hands of Poland create exactly? They would not use it unless they are invaded; perfectly protecting them against any possible war save a World War III.

It is not what the US wants; and so we get to understand that all this talk about NATO "guarantees" is really about U.S. interests, and not really the interests of constituent nations - they may coincide at some point but the US will not look at solutions which are not beneficial to itself, or even allow for a really independent foreign policy, since with Nukes, a nation can tell both NATO, Russia, SCO, anyone to go stuff itself.

Who exactly guarantees that Poland would not use them unless there is WWW3? You?
No nuclear power is interested in seeing nuclear weapons spreading to other countries. Second I never hinted that US is helping Poland because of the goodness of it's heart, obviously US will also benefit. I thought this was clear even before we entered this discussion? US is looking for it's own interests and Poland for it's own. You make it sound as if US not being altruistic in this is some great revelation.

Basically France once told NATO to sod off, and it has nukes. If Poland, or any other nation truly wanted real independence in foreign policy, I believe this strategy is the one to pursue.

France broke with NATO in 1959 while it's first nuclear test was in 1960 and first operational weapons only showed in 1964. Obviously Poland (or any other country) would love nothing more than to have nukes, and ABM shield of it's own and aircraft carriers and submarines and bombers and...well you get the idea. But they all have to settle for what they can achieve.

Good god, heheh. Poland has retained a large fraction of it's WARPAC PPL-era hardware, if anything, it's the Polish tank hordes that could roll over Germany in a breather. That is in case both nations were not a part of the EU, making any war talk even more idiotic than it already is

You make it sound as if EU is a magical amulet that makes any future confrontation with Poland and Germany impossible. Then of course there is the fact that German economy is 5 times larger and much more technologically advanced. If Germany decided to expand it's military there would be little Poland could do. Of course Poland is in the process of modernisation itself since it obviously doesn't wish to rely solely on continued good will of its neighbors.

[K. A. Pital]

Poland has almost a thousand modern tanks in service, and a lot more fighter and bomber craft, and that's only counting stuff which is in service.

[Thanas]

Poland has almost a thousand modern tanks in service,

To be fair though, all of these are outdated models compared to the german stuff. The Bundeswehr is fielding Leopard 2A6, whereas only the 125 Leapord 2A4 the poles bought can be considered equivalent. Most of their stuff is outdated material.

and a lot more fighter and bomber craft,

No. Germany has 52 Eurofighter, 53 F4F and 193 Tornado aircraft in service, whereas Poland has only about 48 F-16, 36 Mig-29 and 48 Su-22. They fare worse in both quality and quantity.

Of course, the question of Germany invading poland is so ridiculous it should not be brought up in the first place and I do not know what Kane Starkiller is smoking if he even thinks that Germany wants any piece of Poland. The worst you get are a few nutjobs who get smacked down in the courts every time. Most germans are quite content to simply buy land in Poland if they want to have their old houses back.

[Thanas]

As paranoia goes by, the fact that you are steeped in the same black/white mentality that led to WW1 and WWII, does not give your points any more credence.

What black/white mentality? Are you saying Germany is not interested in expanding it's influence eastwards? Russia was never at war with US yet it still claims it must have it's nuke for deterrent. Does anyone call Russia paranoid because of it? Yet if much weaker Poland decides to do something to counter the, admittedly unlikely, threat from Germany then it is paranoid?

Yes. It is as paranoid as Germany trying to do something to counter the french threat in the west since the french have been far worse enemies than the poles could ever hope to be in their wet dreams. Do you see Germany calling for help in forestalling a possible french incursion? Because based on your premise, Germany would have every reason to do everything possible in trying to curb French influence.

Also, nobody in Germany is interested in Poland. Even the most anti-polish people I have ever met largely wished for the poles to stay in their country and do not bother them.

Good god, heheh. Poland has retained a large fraction of it's WARPAC PPL-era hardware, if anything, it's the Polish tank hordes that could roll over Germany in a breather. That is in case both nations were not a part of the EU, making any war talk even more idiotic than it already is

You make it sound as if EU is a magical amulet that makes any future confrontation with Poland and Germany impossible. Then of course there is the fact that German economy is 5 times larger and much more technologically advanced. If Germany decided to expand it's military there would be little Poland could do. Of course Poland is in the process of modernisation itself since it obviously doesn't wish to rely solely on continued good will of its neighbors.

Nobody is interested in invading Poland. If anything, your attitude is what hinders Poland from getting more influence - largely the fact that they seem to believe that every policy must be "anti-polish" and the precurse to invasion. Reaction: Opposing it as if it was another Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact. They pulled that shit with the EU treaty, for example. Poland should wake up, realise the world doesn't revolve around it and start acting like a EU member nation instead of perpetually trying to spite its neighbours. Tusk is a good man, but the potatoheads are the trouble.

[Kane Starkiller]

Yes. It is as paranoid as Germany trying to do something to counter the french threat in the west since the french have been far worse enemies than the poles could ever hope to be in their wet dreams. Do you see Germany calling for help in forestalling a possible french incursion? Because based on your premise, Germany would have every reason to do everything possible in trying to curb French influence.

Also, nobody in Germany is interested in Poland. Even the most anti-polish people I have ever met largely wished for the poles to stay in their country and do not bother them.

But Germany did try to do something about the French as did France. Their answer was to create an ever thickening economic integration so as to make the invasion infeasible. In this their interests coincided. Other factor is that up until 1990 Germany was an occupied country. East was under Russian control and Western Germany had no choice but to serve as US base of operation in the face of Soviet threat. After the end of Cold War Europe is starting to revert from the exceptional period of 1945-1990 where European continent was dominated by US and USSR to the state that existed pre-war: a group of European powers fighting for influence.
You can see it, for example, in France trying to initiate Mediterranean Union which in the first proposal would only include Mediterranean countries (as in not Germany).
But more importantly, I never implied that Polish generals are biting their fingernails over an impending German attack or anything. Merely that you don't forget 100 years of history especially when the attackers still exists and are still major powers.

[Thanas]

But Germany did try to do something about the French as did France. Their answer was to create an ever thickening economic integration so as to make the invasion infeasible. In this their interests coincided. Other factor is that up until 1990 Germany was an occupied country. East was under Russian control and Western Germany had no choice but to serve as US base of operation in the face of Soviet threat. After the end of Cold War Europe is starting to revert from the exceptional period of 1945-1990 where European continent was dominated by US and USSR to the state that existed pre-war: a group of European powers fighting for influence.

Wrong. If someone is fighting for influence, it is done via the EU, not via the means of pre-1939. Also, Poland is offered the same chance as any other european country - namely, the exact same degree of economic integration you talk about. So your objections to my argument are not really viable.

You can see it, for example, in France trying to initiate Mediterranean Union which in the first proposal would only include Mediterranean countries (as in not Germany).

Yeah, and what happened to it? Also note that Germany is holding talks with Russia about economic integration without France at the table. Shocking. Everyone must be threatened about this massive fight for influence.

But more importantly, I never implied that Polish generals are biting their fingernails over an impending German attack or anything. Merely that you don't forget 100 years of history especially when the attackers still exists and are still major powers.

The same arguments applies to Germany as well, since all the enemies of WWI and WWII still exist today. As I said, by your reasoning Germany should be worried as well.

[Shroom Man 777]

Should Canada and Mexico also bitch about how the USA encroaches upon their sovereignty thanks to the disparity in military strength, conventional and nuclear, and how they must seek alliances with other nations and organizations to gain more leeway in international and regional discourses?

Or, perhaps, should Cuba try to seek partners to strengthen its strategic position and gain more... leeway?

[Kane Starkiller]

Wrong. If someone is fighting for influence, it is done via the EU, not via the means of pre-1939. Also, Poland is offered the same chance as any other european country - namely, the exact same degree of economic integration you talk about. So your objections to my argument are not really viable.

Don't tell me you are so naive as to think that Portugal suddenly has the same amount of influence as France just because they are all in the EU? Poland wants more influence in the EU than France and Germany are prepared to give it, that's what all the fuss was about.

Yeah, and what happened to it? Also note that Germany is holding talks with Russia about economic integration without France at the table. Shocking. Everyone must be threatened about this massive fight for influence.

What happened to it is that Germany got pissed and France backed down. And yes many countries do feel threatened by Germany getting all cozy with Russia. Most importantly Eastern Europe.

The same arguments applies to Germany as well, since all the enemies of WWI and WWII still exist today. As I said, by your reasoning Germany should be worried as well.

Of course it is worried. This is why Merkel went straight to St. Petersburg after Georgian-Russian conflict to talk with Medvedev thus signaling clearly that Germany wasn't against Russia. This is why, as I noted above, it pressured France to change the Mediterranian Union to include all EU countries which basically made it useless as means of enhancing French power.

Should Canada and Mexico also bitch about how the USA encroaches upon their sovereignty thanks to the disparity in military strength, conventional and nuclear, and how they must seek alliances with other nations and organizations to gain more leeway in international and regional discourses?

Of course. But the first thing is to see whether there exists such a power which can reliably ensure their security and greater independence from US and it is useful enough so that allying with it is worth alienating the US. As it currently stands there is no such power so Canada and Mexico don't try it.

Or, perhaps, should Cuba try to seek partners to strengthen its strategic position and gain more... leeway?

Wasn't it doing just that for the past 50 years?

[Thanas]

Wrong. If someone is fighting for influence, it is done via the EU, not via the means of pre-1939. Also, Poland is offered the same chance as any other european country - namely, the exact same degree of economic integration you talk about. So your objections to my argument are not really viable.

Don't tell me you are so naive as to think that Portugal suddenly has the same amount of influence as France just because they are all in the EU? Poland wants more influence in the EU than France and Germany are prepared to give it, that's what all the fuss was about.

Nice tangent but how does that translate into Europe suddenly reverting to pre-1939 attitudes?

Yeah, and what happened to it? Also note that Germany is holding talks with Russia about economic integration without France at the table. Shocking. Everyone must be threatened about this massive fight for influence.

What happened to it is that Germany got pissed and France backed down.

See? It managed to do so through dialogue.

And yes many countries do feel threatened by Germany getting all cozy with Russia. Most importantly Eastern Europe.

Feeling threatened does not translate to "running into the arms of the USA and become a proxy nation". Like I said, diplomacy is the key and germany has sugarcoated every part of the diplomacy in the past years since Schröder left office.

The same arguments applies to Germany as well, since all the enemies of WWI and WWII still exist today. As I said, by your reasoning Germany should be worried as well.

Of course it is worried. This is why Merkel went straight to St. Petersburg after Georgian-Russian conflict to talk with Medvedev thus signaling clearly that Germany wasn't against Russia.

Proof of that assertion? What happened was that Merkel went to St. Petersburg to make sure Russia didn't get the wrong message. Merkel always backed Sarkozy when he talked to Medvedev on behalf of the EU. Don't read more into it than what it really is.

This is why, as I noted above, it pressured France to change the Mediterranian Union to include all EU countries which basically made it useless as means of enhancing French power.

Yes. And the point is once more - being worried does not mean one has to resort to military means immediately.

[Shroom Man 777]

Should Canada and Mexico also bitch about how the USA encroaches upon their sovereignty thanks to the disparity in military strength, conventional and nuclear, and how they must seek alliances with other nations and organizations to gain more leeway in international and regional discourses?

Of course. But the first thing is to see whether there exists such a power which can reliably ensure their security and greater independence from US and it is useful enough so that allying with it is worth alienating the US. As it currently stands there is no such power so Canada and Mexico don't try it.

And look at how Canada and Mexico turned out, without the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact stationing paratroopers and ABM systems near the American border to stymie the USA's influence...

Canada and Mexico turned out fine despite the unchallenged presence of America right next door to them. Why can't Poland and the other nations end up in the same way, except that in their case, America is replaced with Russia? Is it because the Russians are, as you so astutely point out, evil?

To paraphrase Zapp Brannigan: What makes a man Russian? Is it lust for power, gold, or were they simply born with a heart full of communism?

Or, perhaps, should Cuba try to seek partners to strengthen its strategic position and gain more... leeway?

Wasn't it doing just that for the past 50 years?

The Russians tried to station nuclear weapons in Cuba, and that nearly led to a nuclear war since it threatened the global balance of power.

If the Americans try to station ABM in Poland and threaten the balance of power by potentially neutering Russia's strategic capacity, won't the effects also be similar?

We saw how Cuba turned out. After the Americans raised a fit and had a blockade, the Russians decided not to put strategic assets in Cuba.

The situation is similar, if not the same, in the case of Poland, isn't it? If it's the Americans who are stationing strategic systems next door to great powers, it's a-okay. If it's the Russians who end up somehow blockading Poland (or threatening some military action in response to "game changer" actions), then they'll be the bad guys. But if America blockades Cuba, it's wonderful and ruining a shitty third world nation's economy is all good if it ensures freedom, hypocracy and democrisy or some such.

Of course, you could argue that it's realpolitik or some shit, how it's "grim, gritty and realistic" or how "it's how the world works" or how "we always do things" or some stuff. But it's quite stupid and it's really not worth ruining nations or killing people over. Unfortunately, the conduct of leaders and nations leave a lot to be desired. So, I guess I should support some idiotic geopolitical notion that'll only raise tensions and maybe get some people who I don't know killed, because that's how it's always been done.

Dooming oneself to repeat the mistakes of the past is a traditional pastime, am i rite?

[Kane Starkiller]

Nice tangent but how does that translate into Europe suddenly reverting to pre-1939 attitudes?

I just told you. Disparate European powers having different interests and fighting over influence. No one said that they'll be going to war next year or something.

See? It managed to do so through dialogue.

And how do you think that "dialogue" went like?
"Oh please please please France don't create an alternate alliance designed to expand your influence please pretty please?"
Or do you think that Germany threatened with causing shit for France on other issues if it went through with it? It is possible to fight without actually going to war.

Feeling threatened does not translate to "running into the arms of the USA and become a proxy nation". Like I said, diplomacy is the key and germany has sugarcoated every part of the diplomacy in the past years since Schröder left office.

But it did translate since that was exactly what Western Germany was during the Cold War. After Cold War ended and Russia was thrown back a thousand km to the east and Germany was united it was no longer so eager to listen to US.
What is diplomacy but stick and carrot dressed up to sound nice?

Proof of that assertion? What happened was that Merkel went to St. Petersburg to make sure Russia didn't get the wrong message. Merkel always backed Sarkozy when he talked to Medvedev on behalf of the EU. Don't read more into it than what it really is.

And what wrong message would that be? That Germany is against Russia? That is exactly what I said. It wasn't all that hard to "back" Sarkozy since he really didn't say anything other than usual need for peaceful resolution, need for talks etc. Russians achieved what they wanted, Germany made clear it won't oppose them and anything else was public consumption rhetoric.

Yes. And the point is once more - being worried does not mean one has to resort to military means immediately.

Where did I say it means that? Poland certainly isn't preparing for war with Germany nor did I hinted at it. Really where do you come up with that stuff?

And look at how Canada and Mexico turned out, without the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact stationing paratroopers and ABM systems near the American border to stymie the USA's influence...

Canada and Mexico turned out fine despite the unchallenged presence of America right next door to them. Why can't Poland and the other nations end up in the same way, except that in their case, America is replaced with Russia? Is it because the Russians are, as you so astutely point out, evil?

To paraphrase Zapp Brannigan: What makes a man Russian? Is it lust for power, gold, or were they simply born with a heart full of communism?

Why do you keep claiming I stated Russia is evil? So because Canada and Mexico had no choice but turned out relatively OK that means Eastern Europe should try the same? US is not Russia and there is absolutely no guarantee that the success would be replicated and it is quite silly to expect from Eastern Europe to undergo such an experiment.

The Russians tried to station nuclear weapons in Cuba, and that nearly led to a nuclear war since it threatened the global balance of power.

If the Americans try to station ABM in Poland and threaten the balance of power by potentially neutering Russia's strategic capacity, won't the effects also be similar?

We saw how Cuba turned out. After the Americans raised a fit and had a blockade, the Russians decided not to put strategic assets in Cuba.

The situation is similar, if not the same, in the case of Poland, isn't it? If it's the Americans who are stationing strategic systems next door to great powers, it's a-okay. If it's the Russians who end up somehow blockading Poland (or threatening some military action in response to "game changer" actions), then they'll be the bad guys. But if America blockades Cuba, it's wonderful and ruining a shitty third world nation's economy is all good if it ensures freedom, hypocracy and democrisy or some such.

Of course, you could argue that it's realpolitik or some shit, how it's "grim, gritty and realistic" or how "it's how the world works" or how "we always do things" or some stuff. But it's quite stupid and it's really not worth ruining nations or killing people over. Unfortunately, the conduct of leaders and nations leave a lot to be desired. So, I guess I should support some idiotic geopolitical notion that'll only raise tensions and maybe get some people who I don't know killed, because that's how it's always been done.

Dooming oneself to repeat the mistakes of the past is a traditional pastime, am i rite?

You keep putting words in my mouth. When did I say that US expansion is good but Russian expansion is evil?
However it is true that ABM in Poland is a defensive system: the very worst thing it can do is shoot down an enemy ICBM. The very worst thing Russian missiles in Cuba could do is blow up cities. So it's not really the same.
Finally you seem to think that Russia having the ability to wipe out Poland from the face of the Earth is natural and fair but if Poland actually tries to make deals and acquire military technology that protects it from such an attack then it is only stirring up shit. So when Russia threats to nuke Poland over an ABM you claim it is actually Poland or US which is being aggressive by questioning Russian divine right to nuke anyone it chooses.
Let me state it again: if Russia is not morally evil for trying to make sure that it can nuke any country it chooses then other countries are not morally evil for trying to protect themselves from such an attack.

[Thanas]

Nice tangent but how does that translate into Europe suddenly reverting to pre-1939 attitudes?

I just told you. Disparate European powers having different interests and fighting over influence. No one said that they'll be going to war next year or something.

Do not try to play the whole "they are all using the same methods" game because they are not. That is the whole point which seems to escape you.

And how do you think that "dialogue" went like?
"Oh please please please France don't create an alternate alliance designed to expand your influence please pretty please?"
Or do you think that Germany threatened with causing shit for France on other issues if it went through with it? It is possible to fight without actually going to war.

Wow, you have been there and observed the talks, right? Maybe France decided not to piss off a lot of the countries in the EU without those countries threatening it? You know, goodwill and all that?

Also, show me how this is comparable to what Poland is doing.

Feeling threatened does not translate to "running into the arms of the USA and become a proxy nation". Like I said, diplomacy is the key and germany has sugarcoated every part of the diplomacy in the past years since Schröder left office.

But it did translate since that was exactly what Western Germany was during the Cold War. After Cold War ended and Russia was thrown back a thousand km to the east and Germany was united it was no longer so eager to listen to US.

Show me how the two situations were comparable. Is half of Poland occupied by the Soviets who enjoy a large conventional and nuclear superiority over Poland? After Poland fought a war against the soviets?

What is diplomacy but stick and carrot dressed up to sound nice?

Again, that does not mean every option of diplomacy is on the same level. The point is that Poland royally screwed over its partners in the EU with that move and that wasn't the only incident where the poles decided to bite the hand that feeds it.

Yes. And the point is once more - being worried does not mean one has to resort to military means immediately.

Where did I say it means that? Poland certainly isn't preparing for war with Germany nor did I hinted at it. Really where do you come up with that stuff?

When you talked about a possible german attack on Poland, which in your opinion necessitated or was grounds for Poland running into the arms of the USA.

[Kane Starkiller]

Do not try to play the whole "they are all using the same methods" game because they are not. That is the whole point which seems to escape you.

Economic carrot, economic stick, military carrot, military stick and ultimately going to war are means I'm familiar with. What new revolutionary means are you referring to?

Wow, you have been there and observed the talks, right? Maybe France decided not to piss off a lot of the countries in the EU without those countries threatening it? You know, goodwill and all that?

Also, show me how this is comparable to what Poland is doing.

Ah so France decided to create an alliance specifically designed to overlap with certain EU countries and including Northern Africa but not including UK or Germany and half way through suddenly realized that whooops it might anger Germany and UK so it backed down by itself in the interest of "goodwill". You'll excuse me if I don't buy that.
An example:

"If the EU is divided by the Mediterranean Union, that would be a very bad message on the eve of the French presidency," of the European Union, said Martin Schulz, German Socialist bloc leader at the European Parliament.

"That would lead to France's isolation, which we certainly do not want."

Show me how the two situations were comparable. Is half of Poland occupied by the Soviets who enjoy a large conventional and nuclear superiority over Poland? After Poland fought a war against the soviets?

Not half but entire Poland was under Soviet occupation after it was occupied by Germany. They are trying to make sure that won't happen again and after centuries of European wars you'll excuse them if they are not counting on Europe finally becoming one with the universe and outgrowing war as an external security policy.

Again, that does not mean every option of diplomacy is on the same level. The point is that Poland royally screwed over its partners in the EU with that move and that wasn't the only incident where the poles decided to bite the hand that feeds it.

Are you referring to Polish ABM shield treaty?

When you talked about a possible german attack on Poland, which in your opinion necessitated or was grounds for Poland running into the arms of the USA.

When I said military means I meant actually going to war as I explained in my previous post. Poland obviously doesn't fear any sort of imminent German attack otherwise it wouldn't be buying Leopard tanks from them. What this deal is meant to do, as I explained, is to decrease Polish dependence on Germany since they don't feel comfortable being so dependent and vulnerable to a country which repeatedly tried to conquer them especially if Germany moves closer to Russia.

[Thanas]

Do not try to play the whole "they are all using the same methods" game because they are not. That is the whole point which seems to escape you.

Economic carrot, economic stick, military carrot, military stick and ultimately going to war are means I'm familiar with. What new revolutionary means are you referring to?

Sigh. I am feeling like I am talking to a wall here, since you clearly are not familiar with the methods, otherwise you would not claim that they are all on the same level.

Wow, you have been there and observed the talks, right? Maybe France decided not to piss off a lot of the countries in the EU without those countries threatening it? You know, goodwill and all that?

Also, show me how this is comparable to what Poland is doing.

Ah so France decided to create an alliance specifically designed to overlap with certain EU countries and including Northern Africa but not including UK or Germany and half way through suddenly realized that whooops it might anger Germany and UK so it backed down by itself in the interest of "goodwill". You'll excuse me if I don't buy that.
An example:

"If the EU is divided by the Mediterranean Union, that would be a very bad message on the eve of the French presidency," of the European Union, said Martin Schulz, German Socialist bloc leader at the European Parliament.

"That would lead to France's isolation, which we certainly do not want."

Well, you have just revealed your ignorance of European politics if you truly think that Martin Schulz speaks for Germany. That was the European parliament speaking. If anything, that affirms my point - when faced by the European parliament, france chose to step down. Somewhat different from "Germany threatened france", won't you say?

Show me how the two situations were comparable. Is half of Poland occupied by the Soviets who enjoy a large conventional and nuclear superiority over Poland? After Poland fought a war against the soviets?

Not half but entire Poland was under Soviet occupation after it was occupied by Germany. They are trying to make sure that won't happen again and after centuries of European wars you'll excuse them if they are not counting on Europe finally becoming one with the universe and outgrowing war as an external security policy.

TODAY, you idiot. I know the history. The point is that there is the EU nowadays and there will not be a war between member states as long as it exists. What Poland is doing is splitting the EU.

Again, that does not mean every option of diplomacy is on the same level. The point is that Poland royally screwed over its partners in the EU with that move and that wasn't the only incident where the poles decided to bite the hand that feeds it.

Are you referring to Polish ABM shield treaty?

No, to the other instances like deciding to go back on a treaty they signed, like deciding to block EU voting reform etc.

When you talked about a possible german attack on Poland, which in your opinion necessitated or was grounds for Poland running into the arms of the USA.

When I said military means I meant actually going to war as I explained in my previous post. Poland obviously doesn't fear any sort of imminent German attack otherwise it wouldn't be buying Leopard tanks from them. What this deal is meant to do, as I explained, is to decrease Polish dependence on Germany since they don't feel comfortable being so dependent and vulnerable to a country which repeatedly tried to conquer them especially if Germany moves closer to Russia.

And it never occurred to you that a military buildup might actually lead to an arms race? Tell me, was Poland more secure before they became the No. 1 target in a nuclear war? So in your opinion, becoming a proxy nation for the USA is worth alienating the EU and Russia? And a military buildup is somehow supposed to guarantee freedom from possible german domination? Let me break it to you - if germany had any desire to dominate poland, it would act like it and actually have a very good chance of succeeding. Instead, the poles are treated with kid gloves.

[Kane Starkiller]

Sigh. I am feeling like I am talking to a wall here, since you clearly are not familiar with the methods, otherwise you would not claim that they are all on the same level.

What are they then?

Well, you have just revealed your ignorance of European politics if you truly think that Martin Schulz speaks for Germany. That was the European parliament speaking. If anything, that affirms my point - when faced by the European parliament, france chose to step down. Somewhat different from "Germany threatened france", won't you say?

You cannot possibly be that naive. What it's just a coincidence that Schulz is German speaking of German grievances? Not to mention the implication that MEPs actually have real powers to act independently or against the wishes of member countries? This is just a snippet if you read the entire article you'll notice Sarkozy backed down after a meeting with Merkel.

TODAY, you idiot. I know the history. The point is that there is the EU nowadays and there will not be a war between member states as long as it exists. What Poland is doing is splitting the EU.

It's good that you know that after centuries of bloody warfare there will be no wars as long as EU exists but for those people without the crystal ball something more tangible is required. What Poland is doing is wanting more influence as opposed to French-German alliance that ruled EU so far.

No, to the other instances like deciding to go back on a treaty they signed, like deciding to block EU voting reform etc.

This goes beyond the current discussion which has already sidetracked a bit but again this is about Poland having more influence. You know diplomacy.

And it never occurred to you that a military buildup might actually lead to an arms race? Tell me, was Poland more secure before they became the No. 1 target in a nuclear war? So in your opinion, becoming a proxy nation for the USA is worth alienating the EU and Russia? And a military buildup is somehow supposed to guarantee freedom from possible german domination? Let me break it to you - if germany had any desire to dominate poland, it would act like it and actually have a very good chance of succeeding. Instead, the poles are treated with kid gloves.

See you keep claiming that by allying themselves with US Poland will become a "proxy nation" implying that currently Poland actually has more options in external policy. It doesn't. A few deals with Belarus and Russia is right back on it's borders with it's huge conventional military which makes any mention of nukes unnecessary (although Poland knows full well they are there). In basing ABM missile shield both Polish and US security is enhanced. Russia doesn't like that so it threatens Poland with nukes. You are saying that Poland should back down to eliminate the nuke threat but then what will be the next thing Russians will ask in exchange for not targeting Poland with nukes?
Finally you admit yourself that Germany could easily dominate Poland if it wanted to and that Poland by itself has little chance of resisting hence the Polish alliance with the US. But if that alliance angers Germany then we must ask ourselves: why is Poland with an independent security alliance a problem for Germany?

[K. A. Pital]

Poland actually has more options in external policy. It doesn't.

Actually it does.

In basing ABM missile shield both Polish and US security is enhanced.

Polish security is reduced, since a lot more nuclear weapons are going to be rained on it just to take out US installations. It's strange to say that the security of a missile sponge is "increased". Did Cuba's security "increase" due to the placement of missiles?

...what will be the next thing Russians will ask in exchange for not targeting Poland with nukes?

Nothing. Why waste already scarce nuclear weapons on targeting a nation where no enemy strategic installations to take out exist? You would better use those nukes against you primary foe and his bases. In general, redirecting nuclear weapons to target WARPAC states creates a huge problem for Russia, wasting precious ICBMs on those nations seems excessive, and putting MRBMs to target closer regions is also a large command-and-control problem, requiring huge revisions of war plans and massive equipment re-dislocations.

...why is Poland with an independent security alliance a problem for Germany?

Maybe it's not as much "independent", but a good example of US influence? After all, why should Germany be happy with US influence spreading back into Europe just as soon as the US started to somewhat leave Europe alone to it's own affairs? I'm sure in that relation Germany's feelings may be even somewhat similar to that of Russia.

[Kane Starkiller]

Actually it does.

How? Without US the only two countries it can deal with are Germany and Russia. This way it can make deals with US too and both Russia and Germany need to count on that when they deal with Poland.

Polish security is reduced, since a lot more nuclear weapons are going to be rained on it just to take out US installations. It's strange to say that the security of a missile sponge is "increased". Did Cuba's security "increase" due to the placement of missiles?

By that logic the best way for Russia to increase it's security is to scrap all of its nuclear weapons so that way there won't be nearly as many US nukes targeting it.
The issue is increasing the damage in case of an attack vs decreasing the likelihood of an attack happening in the first place plus increasing influence.
The same goes for Cuban missile crisis which came about just after the unsuccessful CIA backed invasion of Cuba. Cuba therefore figured that increasing the damage in case of US attack, which itself was very unlikely since it could lead US to war with USSR now based in Cuba, is worth decreasing the likelihood of a very real threat of a conventional attack which was already attempted plus increasing Cuba's importance to USSR itself.
Poland is driven by the same logic.

Nothing. Why waste already scarce nuclear weapons on targeting a nation where no enemy strategic installations to take out exist? You would better use those nukes against you primary foe and his bases. In general, redirecting nuclear weapons to target WARPAC states creates a huge problem for Russia, wasting precious ICBMs on those nations seems excessive, and putting MRBMs to target closer regions is also a large command-and-control problem, requiring huge revisions of war plans and massive equipment re-dislocations.

How can you make such a guarantee to Poland? Poland, for example, is very interested in seeing Belarus breaking with Russia and approaching the West since that would create a buffer between it and Russia. We all know how Russia feels about that so there are ways in which Poland and Russia will enter confrontation with or without an ABM. ABM and US troops give Poland greater leeway.

Maybe it's not as much "independent", but a good example of US influence? After all, why should Germany be happy with US influence spreading back into Europe just as soon as the US started to somewhat leave Europe alone to it's own affairs? I'm sure in that relation Germany's feelings may be even somewhat similar to that of Russia.

I meant independent from Germany and Russia. Obviously if Germany opposes US influence in Eastern Europe it has plans of it's own for the Eastern Europe. Leaving Europe alone is not quite simple since Europe is not a united country and especially East will always be under threat of domination from Russia and they don't like that.

[K. A. Pital]

By that logic the best way for Russia to increase it's security is to scrap all of its nuclear weapons so that way there won't be nearly as many US nukes targeting it.

It doesn't apply to rivalry between nuclear powers for obvious reasons. While for a non-nuclear power the best security option would be having it's own nukes... the second best option quite easily might be having no strategic weapons at all.

This way it can make deals with US too and both Russia and Germany need to count on that when they deal with Poland.

The reverse side of this approach is mightily spoiling otherwise normal relations with both Russia and Germany. I hope you won't argue that Poland's recent behaviour in the EU has blown any German goodwill towards it, and it's recent behaviour regarding the ABM installations and the lunatic Saakashvili has spoiled the already bad relations with Russia to even worse.

Poland, for example, is very interested in seeing Belarus breaking with Russia and approaching the West since that would create a buffer between it and Russia.

Well, if you are trying to do that, good luck maintaining good relations with Russia. Belarus is an integrated part of our IADS and defense network, the sole remaining AEW and ABM-EW outpost in Europe - and if you are going to try swaying Belarus 'away' meaning it will ditch defense agreements with Russia, hardly any goodwill will be seen from Russia, period. In that case, yeah, it makes sense to buddy with the US. After all, that's terrible foreign policy if you try to do that on your own.

[Shroom Man 777]

But Stas, Poland is much more geographically closer to the Soviet Union and Germany and shares borders with them, so it is more important for Poland to assume confrontational relations with its big neighbors since its relationship with the USA - a nation that has screwed so many other nations over in the past, including Georgia - is much more important since the USA is so far away and is detached from the actual physical consequences of the European region, meaning that the USA really doesn't care about Poland at all. It is imperative and obviously in Poland's best interests.

[Kane Starkiller]

It doesn't apply to rivalry between nuclear powers for obvious reasons. While for a non-nuclear power the best security option would be having it's own nukes... the second best option quite easily might be having no strategic weapons at all.

It all depends on the exact circumstances. A deal with the only superpower providing security and military modernization isn't at all bad.

The reverse side of this approach is mightily spoiling otherwise normal relations with both Russia and Germany. I hope you won't argue that Poland's recent behaviour in the EU has blown any German goodwill towards it, and it's recent behaviour regarding the ABM installations and the lunatic Saakashvili has spoiled the already bad relations with Russia to even worse.

First thing is that there is a large difference between how Germany sees the situation and how Russia sees it. Germany doesn't appreciate US involvement in Eastern Europe to be sure, but the first thing is to keep Russia as far as possible so on that front Germany is not completely opposed. As for Russia Poland is more interested in creating a situation where it won't be dependent on Russian goodwill.

Well, if you are trying to do that, good luck maintaining good relations with Russia. Belarus is an integrated part of our IADS and defense network, the sole remaining AEW and ABM-EW outpost in Europe - and if you are going to try swaying Belarus 'away' meaning it will ditch defense agreements with Russia, hardly any goodwill will be seen from Russia, period. In that case, yeah, it makes sense to buddy with the US. After all, that's terrible foreign policy if you try to do that on your own.

Since I'm not Polish it's not really going to be "me" but as I said above Poland considers creating a situation where it won't have to rely on Russian goodwill to be more important than maintaining it currently.

But Stas, Poland is much more geographically closer to the Soviet Union and Germany and shares borders with them, so it is more important for Poland to assume confrontational relations with its big neighbors since its relationship with the USA - a nation that has screwed so many other nations over in the past, including Georgia - is much more important since the USA is so far away and is detached from the actual physical consequences of the European region, meaning that the USA really doesn't care about Poland at all. It is imperative and obviously in Poland's best interests.

USA however didn't try to exterminate a good chunk of Polish population nor held it under occupation for 50 years. So as far as Poland is concerned US is head and shoulders above any competition.

[Shroom Man 777]

If we're going to talk about history, the Germans also tried to do the same thing to the Russians - but we see Russia and Germany making deals today. Since Putin and Merkel ain't no Stalin and Hitler, I doubt they're conspiring against Poland.

History is important, but doing things that are bound to repeat history isn't all that smart.

You guys should totally take this to the Coliseum. A debate about Russia would be awesome!

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

If we're going to talk about history, the Germans also tried to do the same thing to the Russians - but we see Russia and Germany making deals today. Since Putin and Merkel ain't no Stalin and Hitler, I doubt they're conspiring against Poland.

History is important, but doing things that are bound to repeat history isn't all that smart.

You guys should totally take this to the Coliseum. A debate about Russia would be awesome!

As much as it will be interesting, it will go no where. Kane Starkiller is pretty much an staunch anti-Russian, who would even go as far as advocate that Poland deliberate place itself between a rock and a hard place, which is fucking ridiculous as it is stupid.

[Kane Starkiller]

If we're going to talk about history, the Germans also tried to do the same thing to the Russians - but we see Russia and Germany making deals today. Since Putin and Merkel ain't no Stalin and Hitler, I doubt they're conspiring against Poland.

History is important, but doing things that are bound to repeat history isn't all that smart.

You guys should totally take this to the Coliseum. A debate about Russia would be awesome!

Of course they are making deals. No one said Poland should be on a war footing with Germany or Russians or anything, but what they are trying to do is create a more secure situation.
Russia deals with Germany but at the end of the day Russians rely on their ICBMs and Tupolevs to ensure Operation Barbarossa won't repeat itself not on kind words from Merkel.
Interaction between countries goes way beyond who is the current leader. Germany and France, for example, were historically always afraid of each other and fighting over influence in Europe which led to war of 1871 and WW1 none of which had anything to do with Hitler or Nazis.

As much as it will be interesting, it will go no where. Kane Starkiller is pretty much an staunch anti-Russian, who would even go as far as advocate that Poland deliberate place itself between a rock and a hard place, which is fucking ridiculous as it is stupid.

Poland is between a rock and a hard place. It's called geography and there is nothing Poland can do about that part. It can either bend to German or Russian wishes or it can try and create a situation in which it can be more independent. I don't see why explaining this makes me staunchly anti-Russian.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Poland is between a rock and a hard place. It's called geography and there is nothing Poland can do about that part. It can either bend to German or Russian wishes or it can try and create a situation in which it can be more independent. I don't see why explaining this makes me staunchly anti-Russian.

Yeah sure, like Germany wants to deliberately go conquer Poland in your ridiculous fantasy, or even out jostle Poland. If anything, France and Germany have been fucking accommodating to Poland.

And yes, apparently, digging a deeper hole in the ground while being between a rock and a hard place apparently is a good idea. Yeah sure. Going the third way, like getting closer to Europe, apparently, is a Bad thing.

[Kane Starkiller]

Yeah sure, like Germany wants to deliberately go conquer Poland in your ridiculous fantasy, or even out jostle Poland. If anything, France and Germany have been fucking accommodating to Poland.

And yes, apparently, digging a deeper hole in the ground while being between a rock and a hard place apparently is a good idea. Yeah sure. Going the third way, like getting closer to Europe, apparently, is a Bad thing.

First I don't think a country can accidentally conquer another so if Germany does conquer Poland it will definitely be deliberate.
But seriously I never said Germany intends to conquer Poland. What I am saying is that it did try it and is still present in a very similar form as a nation.
Poland is getting closer to Europe by joining EU, opening it's borders through Schengen agreement etc. But it is also building independent alliance with the US to enhance it's security through deployment of US forces in Poland, US modernization of Polish air force and the like.