Georgia and Ukraine NATO MAP stalls; Russia glad

[Kane Starkiller]

That's bullshit. Do you see Ukraine dominated by a Russian stooge, even though it doesn't have a US security guarantee? Georgia (which still has Saakashvili, and is rearming)?

Fight over Ukraine is currently underway, if NATO backs down Ukraine will have no choice but to do as Moscow says whether the president is a stooge or not.

And define "dominated". If we're going by indirect measures, like economic size and influence, then the US, for example, more or less dominates Mexico economically - a majority of Mexican trade goes to the US.

Of course it does. It dominates both Canada and Mexico.

Why would Poland feel threatened? The combined weight of NATO would have swarmed Russia, aside from burnt out atomised cities. But hey, when you choose sides, you are letting someone else use you as a pawn, to be sacrificed. I'm not sure if Poland's situation has changed much, except Russia is now holding onto the nuclear trigger. I won't be surprised the United States was aiming in the opposite direction during the Cold War.

1. The issue was whether Poland should've been accepted into NATO to begin with.
2. Are you certain that NATO countries would be willing to risk New York, Paris and Berlin to save Krakow? If I were a polish president I sure as hell wouldn't, not unless they actually show something tangible like basing their troops in the country.
3. What changed for Poland is that it now has a security agreement with US, a country which didn't historically try to dismember and conquer it. It is targeted either way but US has no interest in dominating Poland as completely as Russia did so they are more attractive option. US serves as counterbalance to both Russian and German domination of Poland.

If I recall correctly, that was supposed to be the lesson of World War I; you don't kick the enemy when he's down, out of the fight, and willing to change, because that generally leads to more unpleasant ramifications later on. We basically had an opportunity where Russia was weak and poor in which we probably could have re-defined the relationship, and instead we basically said "Try our economics" while heading eastward with NATO.

And no, I don't think Russia wouldn't be trying to extend it's influence back into Eastern Europe if NATO wasn't there. But it depends on what "influence" we're talking about; all countries try to indirectly influence those around them.

Who was willing to change at the end of WW1? Germany? They lost their bid to eliminate France and Russia as threats. In WW2 as Germany was again on the rise, they knew France and Russia would never tolerate it's continued growth and will strike sooner or later so they again decided for a preemptive strike.
In Russia's case "influence" over Eastern Europe historically meant total domination of their foreign policies and practically occupation. They withdrew because their economy was broken not because they realized the true meaning of Christmas.
Should the West use Eastern Europe as a guinea pig to see whether Russia truly "changed" and leave it dangling without any security guarantees? Traditionally leaving Eastern Europe to the wolves to "secure peace for our times" tends to backfire. Badly.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

1. The issue was whether Poland should've been accepted into NATO to begin with.

I don't think Stas objects to Poland going to Nato. The part that pisses him probably is the fact that the US is trying to gobble up countries that were integral to the Russian Empire for centuries. A country like Poland was conquered some time rather late and Poland has never had too much inclination to bow to Moscow for most of its history.

2. Are you certain that NATO countries would be willing to risk New York, Paris and Berlin to save Krakow? If I were a polish president I sure as hell wouldn't, not unless they actually show something tangible like basing their troops in the country.

ER... the American ABM Radar? No doubt manned by Americans?

3. What changed for Poland is that it now has a security agreement with US, a country which didn't historically try to dismember and conquer it. It is targeted either way but US has no interest in dominating Poland as completely as Russia did so they are more attractive option. US serves as counterbalance to both Russian and German domination of Poland.

How does the US act as a counterbalance to German domination? I don't see the US telling the Germans what not to do with Poland. If anything, the current Polish President has a habit of making enemies out of shadows.

[K. A. Pital]

First of all, I never objected to Poland or WARPAC nations being in the NATO. In fact, Russia was not that concerned with WARPAC nations becoming a part of NATO. Of course, you could not expect NATO to play like it's some sort of a 'gentleman's duel'

Until you actually took over former Soviet republics. And it's not the fact that they are "former Soviet republics", more like "DIRECT LAND BORDER WITH RUSSIA, MINUTES OF FLIGHT TO MOSCOW" banner that is screaming in the eyes of every politician on earth except those in Elfland; but we aren't talking bout fairies.

Why the fuss? Well, you are placing shit on the border of Russia. Face it, NATO, regardless of it's official "position" on Georgia, armed it as a proxy nation. Armed it, and it attacked a Russian enclave. After undergoing unprecended militarization with US and NATO help, it killed Russian soldiers.

That goes far beyond "kicking the ball out of court". That goes with "hey, we arm the people who murder your soldiers and propose to protect them". That's fucked up shit.

And tell me now, if you say NATO had every right to take every advantage in a "brutal game of world domination" or something, why are you even asking me why I'm glad NATO didn't expand further? The very debate started when people wondered about my opinion and the interests of Russia.

If it's a "global game of world domination", then cheers for my nation scoring better than it did when it was dicked around.

[Kane Starkiller]

I don't think Stas objects to Poland going to Nato. The part that pisses him probably is the fact that the US is trying to gobble up countries that were integral to the Russian Empire for centuries. A country like Poland was conquered some time rather late and Poland has never had too much inclination to bow to Moscow for most of its history.

Providing them with a security agreement that makes them more independent of Moscow is not exactly gobbling them up. Of course that doesn't make Moscow any happier but it does show why many former USSR members like the Baltic republics see US as a far more preferable partner than Russia which actually did try to gobble them up historically.
Also I have to say that US moving into countries that were previously part of another empire doesn't exactly fill me with sympathy for the previous owner of the empire.

ER... the American ABM Radar? No doubt manned by Americans?

Exactly. This is something tangible that actually makes Russia think thrice before attacking Poland and gives Poland a far greater leeway in external policy throughout Europe.

How does the US act as a counterbalance to German domination? I don't see the US telling the Germans what not to do with Poland. If anything, the current Polish President has a habit of making enemies out of shadows.

Germany is currently economically dominating Eastern Europe, US alliance ensures that Poland doesn't have to rely on Germany militarily on top of that. Then, of course, there is always the fact that Germany did try to conquer Poland throughout history or cut it apart with Russian help. We all hope that won't happen again but Poland would probably like to have more than a hope.

Until you actually took over former Soviet republics. And it's not the fact that they are "former Soviet republics", more like "DIRECT LAND BORDER WITH RUSSIA, MINUTES OF FLIGHT TO MOSCOW" banner that is screaming in the eyes of every politician on earth except those in Elfland; but we aren't talking bout fairies.

Why the fuss? Well, you are placing shit on the border of Russia. Face it, NATO, regardless of it's official "position" on Georgia, armed it as a proxy nation. Armed it, and it attacked a Russian enclave. After undergoing unprecended militarization with US and NATO help, it killed Russian soldiers.

Do you think anyone in their right mind would believe US will fight Russia over Estonia or Lithuania? If Russia suddenly attacked them that would be it, no one would risk their cities over those countries. The only way to make the pledge to provide security for Baltic countries believable to either the leadership of the Baltics or Russians is to stage troops there. The point being that NATO didn't put troops there just because they are assholes but because there are clear security and credibility concerns.
As for Georgia, are you calling Abkhazia and South Ossetia Russian enclaves even though they weren't recognized as such under any international or even Russian position. Georgia seceded from USSR and then those two regions tried to secede from it. Did they have the right or was Georgia in the right for trying to retake control over it's region? Certainly Russia feels that Serbia was in the right in, legally, almost identical situation.

That goes far beyond "kicking the ball out of court". That goes with "hey, we arm the people who murder your soldiers and propose to protect them". That's fucked up shit.

Selling weapons to ones enemies and proxy wars were hardly invented by Georgian-Russian conflict.

And tell me now, if you say NATO had every right to take every advantage in a "brutal game of world domination" or something, why are you even asking me why I'm glad NATO didn't expand further? The very debate started when people wondered about my opinion and the interests of Russia.

If it's a "global game of world domination", then cheers for my nation scoring better than it did when it was dicked around.

I didn't say the NATO has "every right" nor was I one of the people questioning your feelings about NATO. I actually responded to your claim Poland has nothing to fear from Russia which is certainly more unbelievable than the claim that Russia has nothing to fear from NATO.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Providing them with a security agreement that makes them more independent of Moscow is not exactly gobbling them up. Of course that doesn't make Moscow any happier but it does show why many former USSR members like the Baltic republics see US as a far more preferable partner than Russia which actually did try to gobble them up historically.
Also I have to say that US moving into countries that were previously part of another empire doesn't exactly fill me with sympathy for the previous owner of the empire.

Did Russia even so much as squeak over them? Beyond the need for your own feel good factor?

Exactly. This is something tangible that actually makes Russia think thrice before attacking Poland and gives Poland a far greater leeway in external policy throughout Europe.

Erm... are you out of touch with reality? If anything, more nukes got pointed in the way of Poland than before. I hardly find that even giving any more leeway than before, beyond the fact that the Americans decided to designate Poland as one of their few nuclear sponges. Yeah, they saved American citizens, but hey, they traded their lives for more dead Poles. Yay for the Poles? Yay! I am saving the lives of Americans!

Germany is currently economically dominating Eastern Europe, US alliance ensures that Poland doesn't have to rely on Germany militarily on top of that. Then, of course, there is always the fact that Germany did try to conquer Poland throughout history or cut it apart with Russian help. We all hope that won't happen again but Poland would probably like to have more than a hope.

You are kidding me. Germany even try conquering Poland again? Bullshit. Germany would never dare go on the martial path again. Are you too deeply steeped in the paranoia of the past?

[Illuminatus Primus]

NATO is a giant sponge for the United States. Do we think Europe's leaders are suicidal? No, we don't... as for US leaders, ask yourself - when someone says he is loved by the angels and god told him to attack Al-Quaeda, is it not reasonable to at least be wary of the nation which is helmed by that man?

Yeah, and Putin doesn't love him some Orthodox bullshit, nope, nosiree.

[Ender]

All this stuff about "Europe is just a sponge for America", "European leaders know America won't commit for them" stuff is taking on a measure of the surreal when you consider that our European NATO allies are trying every trick possible to minimize their involvement in or get out of Afghanistan. Who is hanging who out to dry again?

[K. A. Pital]

As for Georgia, are you calling Abkhazia and South Ossetia Russian enclaves even though they weren't recognized as such under any international or even Russian position.

The Russian soldiers were there on a legal mission, one of the signatories under that mission was Georgia. Then it killed those soldiers, who were legally present in the designated zones. Note, they were not running around Tbilisi - they were in the zones which were designated by the peacekeeper mandate.

Selling weapons to ones enemies and proxy wars were hardly invented by Georgian-Russian conflict.

I'm merely showing that Russia has all the right and reason to hate NATO guts, and put pins under it's wheels whenever possible. Just as you are showing Poland has something to fear from Russia (although you have not even specified what reason exactly would even drive Russia to a war with a large former WARPAC nation - economic reasons hardly factor here at all).

I actually responded to your claim Poland has nothing to fear from Russia

If we are speaking about a direct large military conflict, I believe this is indeed not something feasible or reasonable; even in crookworld, Poland has all the pre-requisites of a massive military fuckup and really, zero necessary resources for which one could wage war.

A valid point is that in a sufficiently large Europe-Russia, or US-Russia war, Poland would get more thoroughly razed thanks to the fact it houses critical war equipment and strategic assets of the USA and by extension NATO.

Poland would probably like to have more than a hope

Poland's leaders are more than insane if they seriously even consider Germany capable of invading Poland. Hell, that sounds even more ridiculous than any other war scenario proposed in this thread. If they require "more than hope" for an event which is almost totally implausible, with Poland and Germany being members of the same super-state (!!!), they are paranoic lunatics.

Yeah, and Putin doesn't love him some Orthodox bullshit

I would be glad if you'd show me where Putin claimed that he was doing something because God told him so, or due to his belief in God. Like, going to war, or prohibiting stem cell research, saying creationism should be taught. Those are direct actions which the US president tied to his personal faith. I haven't seen Putin tie even his fart to his personal faith. And he also doesn't claim to hear God, or be in fellowship with God.

Of course, that doesn't mean he's incapable of going to war; I merely noted that invoking God beliefs as justification for actions is a dangerous indicator for a leader, especially for a nation as powerful as the US. God beliefs are totally delusional, and that's why they are best kept to one's own self. Making huge political actions on them is an indicator that the person may not be mentally fit to rule a nation.

[Kane Starkiller]

Did Russia even so much as squeak over them? Beyond the need for your own feel good factor?

They didn't because they had security arrangements with the West. Before that they were constantly under Russian control.

Erm... are you out of touch with reality? If anything, more nukes got pointed in the way of Poland than before. I hardly find that even giving any more leeway than before, beyond the fact that the Americans decided to designate Poland as one of their few nuclear sponges. Yeah, they saved American citizens, but hey, they traded their lives for more dead Poles. Yay for the Poles? Yay! I am saving the lives of Americans!

Non nuclear country always has to deal with a possibility of a nuclear attack when dealing with a nuclear power. If you have troops from a nuclear power yourself then that changes the equation and the aforementioned nuclear power won't be so eaqer to escalate the situation. Finally risking yourself for an enemy of your ally is what military alliances are all about aren't they?

You are kidding me. Germany even try conquering Poland again? Bullshit. Germany would never dare go on the martial path again. Are you too deeply steeped in the paranoia of the past?

It certainly seems unthinkable now. But it really doesn't hurt to have something besides hope right?

All this stuff about "Europe is just a sponge for America", "European leaders know America won't commit for them" stuff is taking on a measure of the surreal when you consider that our European NATO allies are trying every trick possible to minimize their involvement in or get out of Afghanistan. Who is hanging who out to dry again?

Europe provides US with a beached in Eurasia and US provides Europe with defense allowing European countries their 1-2% GDP spending on military. Europe seems to be concentrating merely on the former part of the deal and forgetting about the benefits of the latter.
But it is certainly true that the probability of US intervention in case of Russian attack decreases starting from UK, Germany, France and by the time it reaches country like Estonia there is a strong doubt US would go into a slugfest with Russia over it's fate.

The Russian soldiers were there on a legal mission, one of the signatories under that mission was Georgia. Then it killed those soldiers, who were legally present in the designated zones. Note, they were not running around Tbilisi - they were in the zones which were designated by the peacekeeper mandate.

Yes but that still doesn't make them Russian enclaves and Georgia was still not a NATO member. Again it's not as straightforward as NATO member invades Russia.

I'm merely showing that Russia has all the right and reason to hate NATO guts, and put pins under it's wheels whenever possible. Just as you are showing Poland has something to fear from Russia (although you have not even specified what reason exactly would even drive Russia to a war with a large former WARPAC nation - economic reasons hardly factor here at all).

Just because there is no specific reason now doesn't negate the history between Russia and Poland or the current balance of strength. There is no specific reason why US would attack Russia either yet Russia seems very concerned about any US moves into Eastern Europe.

Poland's leaders are more than insane if they seriously even consider Germany capable of invading Poland. Hell, that sounds even more ridiculous than any other war scenario proposed in this thread. If they require "more than hope" for an event which is almost totally implausible, with Poland and Germany being members of the same super-state (!!!), they are paranoic lunatics.

It is very easy not to be paranoid sitting behind 5,000 nuclear warheads although I note Russia has been pretty loud (dare I say paranoid) about even the prospect of any erosion of it's nuclear deterrent due to ABM shield. Imagine then you are in a non nuclear country sandwiched by two huge powers which fairly recently tried to dismember your country. Furthermore EU can hardly be called a super state since it routinely fragments on various issues and while the prospect of German invasion is very, very far fetched Germany is still very, very powerful and very near.
Finally even without any invasion an alliance between Germany and Russia would put Poland into a hopeless situation where it could do nothing but obey Moscow and Berlin. Alliance with US gives it more options.

[K. A. Pital]

Before that they were constantly under Russian control.

That's why Russia moved it's tanks into the Baltic nations when they created what essentially amounts to racial separation between Russian immigrants from the Soviet era and Baltic nationals... wait, it didn't - it just screamed a lot but no one heard. Or that's why Russia controlled their foreign policy after they left the USSR, right? Wrong. They entered NATO very recently and Russia controlled them at no point after 1991.

Finally risking yourself for an enemy of your ally is what military alliances are all about aren't they?

Yeah, except that other person is 10000 km away on what is basically an island and is diminishing the threat to himself by using sponge bob nations. I'm not saying Russia didn't use that; the WARPAC was a giant sponge for NATO nukes and/or conventional forces. But you can't say leaders aren't short-sighted when they trade being the sponge of A to being sponge of B.

Again it's not as straightforward as NATO member invades Russia.

Yes, but undeniably there is potential for war even without peacekeeping forces. For example, let's consider Georgia is a NATO member and it resolved disputes earlier; no Russian peacekeepers are present. However, in 200x, Chechen and other islamic terrorists stage operations into Chechnya and Dagestan basing in Pankissi Gorge. Russia fires the "first shots" by attacking their bases inside Georgia; Georgia promtly responds. We have a fullscale war between NATO member and Russia.

Another situation: Ukraine's economy continues to deteriorate and Yushenko is even more nationalistic, outlawing Russian language in schools and making Ukrainian obligatory everywhere. Peninsula of Crimea (Crimean S.A.R.) opts for independence and tries to forcefully separate itself from Ukraine; knowing that it's territorial position is nothing than a result of Khrushev's good mood and the majority of population supports it. Russia is expected to act upon it. Ukraine may or may not be a NATO member; but there is again war.

There is no specific reason why US would attack Russia either yet Russia seems very concerned about any US moves into Eastern Europe.

The US-Russia war is a global strategic war. It's unfeasible as a small war. But the installations for such a war are placed in E.Europe. That's one source of concern. Another is the US using proxies to war with Russia. That is certainly a concern.

[Guardsman Bass]

How strong is Germany's current military? It's not like a German military build-up would go unnoticed, and it's not as if the Poles are weak sitting ducks like they used to be between the World Wars and before Russia, Prussia, and the Habsburgs carved them in the late 18th century. Hell, if you were really that worried about it, you could just sell the Poles some nuclear deterrent.

[Sidewinder]

Maybe I'm full of shit, but I just can't see NATO hitting you people unless you hit them first, even if you had no nuclear deterrent.

Stas Bush is probably remembering NATO intervention in Kosova during the late 90s. Russia was not the only nation to feel nervous about NATO attacking one (Serbia) that wasn't a direct threat to its members; China was worried it set a precedent for NATO intervention in Tibet, and IIRC, got really close to Russia afterwards.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Non nuclear country always has to deal with a possibility of a nuclear attack when dealing with a nuclear power. If you have troops from a nuclear power yourself then that changes the equation and the aforementioned nuclear power won't be so eaqer to escalate the situation. Finally risking yourself for an enemy of your ally is what military alliances are all about aren't they?

And who gains? Do the Poles gain anything beyond getting nuked to death? The Poles at the losing end of the stick. What sacrifice? They don't gain anything beyond making themselves a larger target on the crosshairs. What? [sarcasm]Wow, that's really heroic.[/sarcasm]

It certainly seems unthinkable now. But it really doesn't hurt to have something besides hope right?

Ok, this is just fucking plain paranoia.

[Kane Starkiller]

That's why Russia moved it's tanks into the Baltic nations when they created what essentially amounts to racial separation between Russian immigrants from the Soviet era and Baltic nationals... wait, it didn't - it just screamed a lot but no one heard. Or that's why Russia controlled their foreign policy after they left the USSR, right? Wrong. They entered NATO very recently and Russia controlled them at no point after 1991.

During the 90s Russia was too weak, Baltic countries entered NATO just as Russia was starting to recover. If Baltic countries didn't enter NATO it is likely we would see the same situation as in Ukraine: Russian ethnic population being strongly for unification or military alignment with Russia.

Yeah, except that other person is 10000 km away on what is basically an island and is diminishing the threat to himself by using sponge bob nations. I'm not saying Russia didn't use that; the WARPAC was a giant sponge for NATO nukes and/or conventional forces. But you can't say leaders aren't short-sighted when they trade being the sponge of A to being sponge of B.

Obviously not all members of an alliance will be in equal need. US doesn't need Poland as much as Poland needs US. Being a potential target for Russian missiles goes with confronting Russia, Poland could certainly avoid that by bending over to Russian wishes. Poland doesn't want that so it must look to ways of reducing the threat. It does that by an alliance with US which won't make Russia suddenly increase the number of warheads going to Poland by an order of magnitude but it will be far more reluctant to try and strongarm Poland every time there is a disagreement.

Yes, but undeniably there is potential for war even without peacekeeping forces. For example, let's consider Georgia is a NATO member and it resolved disputes earlier; no Russian peacekeepers are present. However, in 200x, Chechen and other islamic terrorists stage operations into Chechnya and Dagestan basing in Pankissi Gorge. Russia fires the "first shots" by attacking their bases inside Georgia; Georgia promtly responds. We have a fullscale war between NATO member and Russia.

Another situation: Ukraine's economy continues to deteriorate and Yushenko is even more nationalistic, outlawing Russian language in schools and making Ukrainian obligatory everywhere. Peninsula of Crimea (Crimean S.A.R.) opts for independence and tries to forcefully separate itself from Ukraine; knowing that it's territorial position is nothing than a result of Khrushev's good mood and the majority of population supports it. Russia is expected to act upon it. Ukraine may or may not be a NATO member; but there is again war.

Would Russia dare attack terrorist bases in Georgia if NATO forces were there? It would more likely try to pressure NATO to pressure Georgia to deal with the terrorists. The same goes for Ukraine. You can be sure that Russian government wouldn't have such an inflammatory rhetoric if Ukraine was a part of NATO and NATO forces were present in Donetsk or Kharkov.

How strong is Germany's current military? It's not like a German military build-up would go unnoticed, and it's not as if the Poles are weak sitting ducks like they used to be between the World Wars and before Russia, Prussia, and the Habsburgs carved them in the late 18th century. Hell, if you were really that worried about it, you could just sell the Poles some nuclear deterrent.

It's not like German rearming went unnoticed in 1930s and I don't see Poland being able to do anything about it looking at the size of their economy and technological base. Selling nuclear weapons to Poland creates only more problems and it doesn't really do anything for US. This way Poland gets security from US and US gets to have a presence in Eastern Europe.

And who gains? Do the Poles gain anything beyond getting nuked to death? The Poles at the losing end of the stick. What sacrifice? They don't gain anything beyond making themselves a larger target on the crosshairs. What? [sarcasm]Wow, that's really heroic.[/sarcasm]

They gain more freedom to oppose Russians. If Americans are not there Russian nukes remain and this time Poland has nothing going for itself. Obviously Poland could eliminate the threat of Russian nukes by never confronting or disagreeing with Russia but that is called defeat.

Ok, this is just fucking plain paranoia.

It happened before, Germany is still here and it is still interested in expanding it's influence over Eastern Europe. Again, it is not likely but as the saying goes hope for the best plan for the worst.

[Shroom Man 777]

They gain more freedom to oppose Russians. If Americans are not there Russian nukes remain and this time Poland has nothing going for itself. Obviously Poland could eliminate the threat of Russian nukes by never confronting or disagreeing with Russia but that is called defeat.

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.

It makes one wonder. Is America/NATO deliberately doing these things because they want to antagonize Russia, and thus legitimizing their existence by re-creating a similar situation to the Cold War? Except, this time, Russia isn't the Soviet Union, so it will be at an even bigger disadvantage back then. So America and NATO can LOL all they want.

Russia was out of the game in the 90s, while NATO continued to play. So, in this round, NATO and America made the first move. Russia's actions are reactions to the acts of NATO and America because NATO and America had the initiative. They started it.

[TheKwas]

It happened before, Germany is still here and it is still interested in expanding it's influence over Eastern Europe. Again, it is not likely but as the saying goes hope for the best plan for the worst.

In Kane Starkiller world, Quebec should be stocking up on weapons since once apon a time the English in Canada would oppress the french by force of arms. Sure, it's not likely to happen, considering that both Quebec and English Canada belong to the same democratic organization and both have nothing to gain from invasion, but hope for the best, plan for the worst, right?

[K. A. Pital]

During the 90s Russia was too weak, Baltic countries entered NATO just as Russia was starting to recover. If Baltic countries didn't enter NATO it is likely we would see the same situation as in Ukraine: Russian ethnic population being strongly for unification or military alignment with Russia.

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.

Obviously not all members of an alliance will be in equal need.

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.

Would Russia dare attack terrorist bases in Georgia if NATO forces were there?

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.

It would more likely try to pressure NATO to pressure Georgia to deal with the terrorists.

"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.

Obviously Poland could eliminate the threat of Russian nukes by never confronting or disagreeing with Russia but that is called defeat.

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.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

They gain more freedom to oppose Russians. If Americans are not there Russian nukes remain and this time Poland has nothing going for itself. Obviously Poland could eliminate the threat of Russian nukes by never confronting or disagreeing with Russia but that is called defeat.

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.

It happened before, Germany is still here and it is still interested in expanding it's influence over Eastern Europe. Again, it is not likely but as the saying goes hope for the best plan for the worst.

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.

[K. A. Pital]

Selling nuclear weapons to Poland creates only more problems and it doesn't really do anything for US.

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.

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.

[Samuel]

The Germans... wil invade Poland. The same Germany that has NATO military bases inside of it and that's military is slated only for defensive purposes and is only 101,00 soldiers. Poland has 124,000 active and 234,000 reservists.

Not to mention Germany is currently a democracy and is unlikely to switch back to Nazism again (it worked so well for them last time).

[That NOS Guy]

I think the lot of you calling Kane paranoid really don't grasp the historic Polish experience. You get used as a battleground between the Russians and Germans for a couple of centuries and try to forget it. Seriously, old habits die hard and we're not even two decades removed from the last time one of those powers was evicted from Poland.

While I certaintly don't think there are frenzied hordes on either side of the Polish border waiting to invade, it's not like he's crying wolf historically speaking.

[Shroom Man 777]

When America and NATO influence Eastern European states to stymie Russia and put assets right on its borders, good.

When Russia influences Eastern European states to stymie America and NATO and stop them from putting assets on its borders, evil.

It's even MORE evil when Russia is influencing Eastern european states to stymie America and NATO to stop them from putting assets on its borders AFTER America and NATO have influenced Eastern European states to put assets on Russia's borders in a time period where Russia was effectively incapable of posing a threat.

The double-standard is appalling. Particularly when America itself is an ocean away, with no threats to its borders, and it is - for some reason - trying to put its crappy military assets right on Russia's back door.

It would be poetic justice if the Russians put assets in some place very close to the USA and some American spyplane got shot down over it and stuff, and there would be a huge fracas where the unwarranted provocations and territorial enroachments would nearly lead to outright conflict and something. Oh wait!

[K. A. Pital]

The same Germany that has NATO military bases inside of it and that's military is slated only for defensive purposes and is only 101,00 soldiers. Poland has 124,000 active and 234,000 reservists.

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

[Samuel]

The same Germany that has NATO military bases inside of it and that's military is slated only for defensive purposes and is only 101,00 soldiers. Poland has 124,000 active and 234,000 reservists.

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

I got it from wiki... so it might not be so accurate. This list disagrees:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... med_forces

I think the problem is how they are counting the conscripts.

However, the US does have military bases in Germany from the cold war.

Can anyone who reads German get the official numbers off the militaries website?

[Thanas]

According to the official bundeswehrplan, the number for Germany are as follows:

2008:

Artillery:
153 PzH 2000
60 MARS (modified MLRS)

AA:
85 Gepard
65 Wiesel 2 Ozelot
29 PATRIOT

IFV:
1003 Fuchs
555 M113
521 Marder
undetermined number of Puma IFV

reconnaissance:
68 Luchs

Tanks:
393 Leopard 2, with several hundred in stock

*snip numbers for jeeps, trucks etc.*

Aircraft:
52 Eurofighter 2000
53 F4F Phantom
193 PA200 Tornado
8 P3C Orion

*snip numbers about helicopters and transport aircraft.

Currently, there are 250.831 active soldiers and 90.000 reservists, with about half a million more who have not kept up with active training. The complete manpower pool is 15.258.931 germans.