Georgia and Ukraine NATO MAP stalls; Russia glad

[Colonel Olrik]

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.

They've been doing more than that (or their moronic leadership has). Besides pissing off public's opinion in other EU countries by insisting on putting Jesus everywhere and whining about the lack of pro-life laws (read anti-abortion) in the EU, etc etc, they have effectively demanded more than their respective share of power in the EU parliament, which is proportional to the number of inhabitants of the country. All the while taking hundreds of millions in EU funds. Jeez, I wonder why people in the other countries are pissed of at them, including smaller countries who also have the right of not having Poland with more power than their proportional share.

[Thanas]

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.

Are you freaking retarded or just that ignorant? Neither the political spectrum nor the geographical situation is remotely similar to the Third Reich, less even to the Kaiserreich.

What are they then?

Are you honestly claiming taking diplomatic action which pisses off your neighbours is on the same level as having normal relations with them?

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.

Well, yeah, they can act against the wishes of member countries. And btw, Schulz did not just speak of german grievances, he talked about general grievances almost everybody had with the french proposal.

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.

They get exactly as much influence as their population numbers get them. Wanting more makes them greedy and ungrateful, not smart diplomats.

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.

No, it is symptomatic about the way in which they decide to pursue their aims. Like Olrik already said, they are loosing any sympathy Europe may have towards them. Do I need to quote their insane argument of "Poland should receive more votes because so many people died in WWII"?

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?

The problem with your argument is that it is one from paranoia that automatically assumes bad faith on behalf of the whole EU. Which is unlikely. Furthermore, the only reason the EU might have to dominate Poland is if Poland keeps up with this idiocy. Don't you get it? By trying to gain security, they make themselves more insecure - the neighbours now know they are not to be trusted, that they are ungrateful and that they are now the No.1 target in a nuclear war.

Yeah, great choice.

[Kane Starkiller]

Are you freaking retarded or just that ignorant? Neither the political spectrum nor the geographical situation is remotely similar to the Third Reich, less even to the Kaiserreich.

How is geographical situation not similar? Germany lost territory to the east but the bulk of territory and it's geographical location are still nearly identical as are relative locations of other powers: France to the west, Italy to the south, Poland to the east and Russia behind it.
Political situation wasn't the same in 1871, 1914 or 1939 yet the years saw Germany make similar moves dictated by it's geopolitical situation.

Are you honestly claiming taking diplomatic action which pisses off your neighbours is on the same level as having normal relations with them?

If Germany or Russia are pissed at seeing more assertive Poland or Poland which isn't as vulnerable to their influence then that is their problem.

Well, yeah, they can act against the wishes of member countries. And btw, Schulz did not just speak of german grievances, he talked about general grievances almost everybody had with the french proposal.

They can do it on the paper but ultimately whenever there is a major issue like economic crisis, or Mediterranean union or Georgia-Russia war things are settled through meetings between heads of individual states and ones that are most powerful.
Obviously Shulz won't say outright that Germany is pissed because France didn't take German interests into account but something more general which still sends a clear message about German position on the issue.

They get exactly as much influence as their population numbers get them. Wanting more makes them greedy and ungrateful, not smart diplomats.

I was talking more of a geopolitical influence rather than seats in the parliament which is a separate issue from this discussion. However as far as I know Poland did manage to get it's seats revised upwards so they were actually successful.

No, it is symptomatic about the way in which they decide to pursue their aims. Like Olrik already said, they are loosing any sympathy Europe may have towards them. Do I need to quote their insane argument of "Poland should receive more votes because so many people died in WWII"?

I suspect that particular argument was aimed more for domestic consumption than out of any real belief it will make the rest of EU countries more receptive to their demands. Poland has pretty serious ambitions about becoming a major player in the EU so they are not really interested in sympathies.

The problem with your argument is that it is one from paranoia that automatically assumes bad faith on behalf of the whole EU. Which is unlikely. Furthermore, the only reason the EU might have to dominate Poland is if Poland keeps up with this idiocy. Don't you get it? By trying to gain security, they make themselves more insecure - the neighbours now know they are not to be trusted, that they are ungrateful and that they are now the No.1 target in a nuclear war.

Yeah, great choice.

Why should Poland assume anything? Poland is trying to become a major player and as such it needs to have either indigenous military capability or multiple alliances like the one with US. If that causes Poland to loose "trust" then trust is another word for obedience.
How is Poland No.1 target in a nuclear war? In a war with NATO targets in UK, France or Germany would have higher priority but as I already said the presence of stronger Poland with ABM shield reduces the chances Russians would dare to attack their posturing notwithstanding.
I repeat again: moving higher on target list is a price any country pays when it tries to play in the big league.

[Samuel]

How is geographical situation not similar? Germany lost territory to the east but the bulk of territory and it's geographical location are still nearly identical as are relative locations of other powers: France to the west, Italy to the south, Poland to the east and Russia behind it.
Political situation wasn't the same in 1871, 1914 or 1939 yet the years saw Germany make similar moves dictated by it's geopolitical situation.

In 1871 Poland was part of the Russian Empire, as in 1914.

In 1939, Germany had Poland covered on three sides.

In 1871, Bismark attacked France to unify Germany- the situation is not aplicable now that Germany is unified.

In 1914, Germany attacked France and then Russia because of WW1, which is extremely complicated but was heavily helped along by an arms race, extreme nationalism, colonialism and an oppsoing web of alliances... which do not exist now.

In 1939 Germany invaded Poland to get reunite with the Germans who were living there and to attack the Soviet Union, destroy communism and get more land for the volk. Most ethnic germans are gone from Poland, the Soviet Union is gone and people are smart enough to realize farm land is not necesarily power.

None of these apply now. In fact, there is NO political rationale to invade poland that outweighs the cost and political capital- not to mention worlds hate and fear. Germany only managed to pull off the last two under a monarchy and a facist dictatorship. The German electorate does not want a return to WW2.

Why should Poland assume anything? Poland is trying to become a major player and as such it needs to have either indigenous military capability or multiple alliances like the one with US. If that causes Poland to loose "trust" then trust is another word for obedience.
How is Poland No.1 target in a nuclear war? In a war with NATO targets in UK, France or Germany would have higher priority but as I already said the presence of stronger Poland with ABM shield reduces the chances Russians would dare to attack their posturing notwithstanding.
I repeat again: moving higher on target list is a price any country pays when it tries to play in the big league.

My home state has more people than Poland! Forget your delusions of grandeur and realize that not everyone can be big.

[Kane Starkiller]

In 1871 Poland was part of the Russian Empire, as in 1914.

In 1939, Germany had Poland covered on three sides.

In 1871, Bismark attacked France to unify Germany- the situation is not aplicable now that Germany is unified.

In 1914, Germany attacked France and then Russia because of WW1, which is extremely complicated but was heavily helped along by an arms race, extreme nationalism, colonialism and an oppsoing web of alliances... which do not exist now.

In 1939 Germany invaded Poland to get reunite with the Germans who were living there and to attack the Soviet Union, destroy communism and get more land for the volk. Most ethnic germans are gone from Poland, the Soviet Union is gone and people are smart enough to realize farm land is not necesarily power.

None of these apply now. In fact, there is NO political rationale to invade poland that outweighs the cost and political capital- not to mention worlds hate and fear. Germany only managed to pull off the last two under a monarchy and a facist dictatorship. The German electorate does not want a return to WW2.

How does the fact that Poland was already under occupation when another power attempt to make a grab for it change the Polish situation? As I said many times there is a clear history of Russia and Germany fighting over domination of Eastern Europe.
Furthermore by listing various differences between 1871, 1914 and 1939 you only prove my point: despite these differences the main power struggle dictated by geography remained the same. France and Russia were always seen as major threats to Germany.
Also I must note that Germany hardly attacked Poland merely to unite all Germans living there. It was merely one step towards drang nach osten.
Obviously situation now is changed and as I said the possibility of any German attack is extremely remote, Poland certainly has no problem in integrating with it economically. I'm afraid that when I mentioned Germany and Russia as reasons for Polish alliance with US I may have given the impression that Poland considers threats from Germany and Russia to be in the same league. With Germany no one expects any aggressive moves but, as Poles see it, it doesn't hurt to find ways to be more independent from it. Russia is where Poland sees an actual threat.

My home state has more people than Poland! Forget your delusions of grandeur and realize that not everyone can be big.

Why do people assume I'm from Poland? I'm not nor have I ever been there. In any case while demographics is certainly one important dimension of power it is not everything. After all India has almost 4 times greater population than US and no one considers Indian power to be out of US reach. When I say "major player" I don't mean rivaling US or anything outlandish as that but being more of a first tier European country along with Germany or Italy.

[Samuel]

Why do people assume I'm from Poland? I'm not nor have I ever been there. In any case while demographics is certainly one important dimension of power it is not everything. After all India has almost 4 times greater population than US and no one considers Indian power to be out of US reach. When I say "major player" I don't mean rivaling US or anything outlandish as that but being more of a first tier European country along with Germany or Italy.

The foreigners are always the ones who dream the biggest.

India is rapidly industrializing and is attempting to catch up with the US- they plan on having 2 carriers by 2020. They are a world power due to their population and growing industrial might.

As for being "first tier" with Italy and Germany...

Germany- 82 million, 40315 per capita
Italy- 58 million, 36201 per capita
Poland- 38 million, 10912 per capita

Poland is poor and small.

[Kane Starkiller]

The foreigners are always the ones who dream the biggest.

What?

India is rapidly industrializing and is attempting to catch up with the US- they plan on having 2 carriers by 2020. They are a world power due to their population and growing industrial might.

As for being "first tier" with Italy and Germany...

Germany- 82 million, 40315 per capita
Italy- 58 million, 36201 per capita
Poland- 38 million, 10912 per capita

Poland is poor and small.

As you say India is attempting and so is Poland. No one ever said either reached their objective as of now, that either has a guaranteed success, or that both have equal chances or equal potential. India was merely an example of how a large population alone doesn't equate to being a larger power.

[Samuel]

What?

People who don't live in the country they are expousing tend to have some what larger expectations than those who do. I think Duchess and Axis Kast are two good examples, although Armenian emigrants are another case.

As you say India is attempting and so is Poland.

Not really. India is a regional power now. It is also a global power, although that string is tenuous.

India was merely an example of how a large population alone doesn't equate to being a larger power.

Except if you have a small population you can't be a large power, or even a regional one, unless you have some rare and limited resource, Like oil.

[K. A. Pital]

If Germany or Russia are pissed at seeing more assertive Poland or Poland which isn't as vulnerable to their influence then that is their problem.

Wow, that's a gigantic argument! "If Poland sees a more assertive Russia, that's it's problem" "If Russia sees a more assertive Georgia, that's it's problem". You cant trot the same sentence out in any international dispute. Doesn't even require any analysis of the situation.

The problem is that you work with all your neighbors in diplomacy, not just tell people to stuff it. And relying on a remote power like the US for militarization has it's own problems that have already been stressed - the US is remote and cares little about the tensions it's dealings in Poland create. Yeah, pissing off Russia is one thing. But pissing off the EU, an entire european confederation which you're a part of, due to some sort of ... I don't know.. delusions of grandeur? Militancy? Pride? That's reckless, and this political line would hurt the Polish relations a lot, not just now but in the future as well.

[Kane Starkiller]

People who don't live in the country they are expousing tend to have some what larger expectations than those who do. I think Duchess and Axis Kast are two good examples, although Armenian emigrants are another case.

Well I don't have any emotional investment into whether Poland becomes a German rivaling power or not but since neither you or I can prove my inner thoughts I don't see any point in continuing on this line of discussion.

Not really. India is a regional power now. It is also a global power, although that string is tenuous.

I wasn't getting into what kind of power India has today. My only purpose in bringing in India was to show a much larger population doesn't necessarily mean greater power. There are of course much more extreme examples.

Except if you have a small population you can't be a large power, or even a regional one, unless you have some rare and limited resource, Like oil.

Or you team up with a superpower. Case in point: Israel.

Wow, that's a gigantic argument! "If Poland sees a more assertive Russia, that's it's problem" "If Russia sees a more assertive Georgia, that's it's problem". You cant trot the same sentence out in any international dispute. Doesn't even require any analysis of the situation.

My point is that Polish bid for greater influence and security and assertiveness doesn't make them bad guys any more than it makes Russia or US.

The problem is that you work with all your neighbors in diplomacy, not just tell people to stuff it. And relying on a remote power like the US for militarization has it's own problems that have already been stressed - the US is remote and cares little about the tensions it's dealings in Poland create. Yeah, pissing off Russia is one thing. But pissing off the EU, an entire european confederation which you're a part of, due to some sort of ... I don't know.. delusions of grandeur? Militancy? Pride? That's reckless, and this political line would hurt the Polish relations a lot, not just now but in the future as well.

Again I say maybe it's my fault I brought up German and Russian perceived threat in the same sentence. Poland in no way considers Germany as imminent threat like it does Russia and US ABM shield in no way angers Europe the same way it does Russia. Germany is nervous since it doesn't want to be caught in the middle of East and West like it was during the Cold War and because it isn't sure US can back up it's talk with actual force in Eastern Europe but I certainly didn't hear UK for example was angered by the ABM nor the rest of Eastern Europe. So it's not like Poland is alone against the entire EU.
Relying on distant country for protection is nothing new for Poland: it did so in 1939 when London and Paris failed to give it any protection but then again that's all Poland had. Today it's seeking more than just assurances from Washington.

[K. A. Pital]

Or you team up with a superpower. Case in point: Israel.

Yeah, but isn't that a bad example? Israel is in a state of war economy (just look at it's military expenses as a portion of GDP) that would see it's military crash it's state budget if it's foreign relations with the USA suddenly have the military aid cut off... that's dependency, and one close to a narcotic addiction in terms of magnitude.

I certainly didn't hear UK for example was angered by the ABM nor the rest of Eastern Europe.

Well, the UK isn't a European Union member last I saw, and it's a largely US satellite nation. Quite a few European nations, or their officials, voiced a disagreement with the US decision to place ABM facilities in Europe. Of course, I might be giving verbal statements too much value, but then, why should they do more than just voice their dislike of the idea? It's not like this isn't Poland's own business after all.

[Ryan Thunder]

Of course, I might be giving verbal statements too much value,

You may be. If I'm not mistaken, its politically expedient to publicly hate on the US over there.

[TC Pilot]

Well, the UK isn't a European Union member last I saw, and it's a largely US satellite nation.

Check again.

[Samuel]

I wasn't getting into what kind of power India has today. My only purpose in bringing in India was to show a much larger population doesn't necessarily mean greater power. There are of course much more extreme examples.

Yeah, because they are poor. If you don't have money/capital , resources or people you can't do much.

Or you team up with a superpower. Case in point: Israel.

That only works because the American electorate is 25% insane, uses a winner take all election system, has safe districts, etc. Most countries do not support other countries due to religious prophecy or extensive lobbying.

If you want, you can become a US puppet and get the stuffings nuked out of youcome Judgement Day.

Well, the UK isn't a European Union member last I saw, and it's a largely US satellite nation.

Check again.

They are a member state that doesn't use the Euro and they aren't a satillite nation. They are an ally, not a puppet state. The US has about zero control over British internal policies.

[Kane Starkiller]

Yeah, but isn't that a bad example? Israel is in a state of war economy (just look at it's military expenses as a portion of GDP) that would see it's military crash it's state budget if it's foreign relations with the USA suddenly have the military aid cut off... that's dependency, and one close to a narcotic addiction in terms of magnitude.

Israel's course was pretty much set when Jews decided to found a Jewish state in the middle of Muslim world and on what they considered to be Muslim land. They had no choice but to get extensively dependent on US. I only used them as an example of how it is possible for a 7 million country to be a rival of 70 million Iran and Egypt. The size difference between Poland and countries surrounding it are not as great nor is the Poland completely surrounded by adversarial countries.

Well, the UK isn't a European Union member last I saw, and it's a largely US satellite nation. Quite a few European nations, or their officials, voiced a disagreement with the US decision to place ABM facilities in Europe. Of course, I might be giving verbal statements too much value, but then, why should they do more than just voice their dislike of the idea? It's not like this isn't Poland's own business after all.

I don't remember hearing anything from EU countries certainly nothing close to Russian reaction to the shield.

That only works because the American electorate is 25% insane, uses a winner take all election system, has safe districts, etc. Most countries do not support other countries due to religious prophecy or extensive lobbying.

If you want, you can become a US puppet and get the stuffings nuked out of youcome Judgement Day.

Motives of US help aren't really relevant to the point that Israel, small as it is, can rival countries such as Iran or Egypt although I doubt fundamentalist protestant electorate couldn't be convinced to accept ditching of Israel if US would benefit from it.
The more powerful economically and militarily you are the more you climb on the "to nuke" list. That is true for any country in the world.

[Samuel]

One in ten Israelis are in the military or could be called up in the event of an emergency.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... l/army.htm

If you want a country that is more militarized than Sparta, go ahead, but I don't think that is what you have in mind.

The surrounding countries are extremely poor.

Also, countries can be strong economically without being major targets- who would nuke Dubai, Singapore, South Africa, Botswana, Costa Rica and Australia.

[Ace Pace]

One in ten Israelis are in the military or could be called up in the event of an emergency.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... l/army.htm

I don't have english sources, but these numbers are so far disconnected from reality. Most reservists never get called up, making them paper soldiers. Others are brought in for administrative tasks (read the full page), or for temp duty. The amount of reservists is far smaller than what you make it out to be.

[Samuel]

One in ten Israelis are in the military or could be called up in the event of an emergency.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... l/army.htm

I don't have english sources, but these numbers are so far disconnected from reality. Most reservists never get called up, making them paper soldiers. Others are brought in for administrative tasks (read the full page), or for temp duty. The amount of reservists is far smaller than what you make it out to be.

And the number of conscripts in service is counted with active military... opps.

Given the full active numbers, they still have a higher portion of their population in the military than the US- 1 in 56 versus 1 in 100. Or am I getting this wrong too?

[Thanas]

Are you freaking retarded or just that ignorant? Neither the political spectrum nor the geographical situation is remotely similar to the Third Reich, less even to the Kaiserreich.

How is geographical situation not similar? Germany lost territory to the east but the bulk of territory and it's geographical location are still nearly identical as are relative locations of other powers: France to the west, Italy to the south, Poland to the east and Russia behind it.
Political situation wasn't the same in 1871, 1914 or 1939 yet the years saw Germany make similar moves dictated by it's geopolitical situation.

If you honestly think the situations are comparable, which is quite ludicrous to say the least (last time I checked, Poland was not allied with Germany in any of these scenarios), then I don't think how I can debate with your massive wall of ignorance.

Are you honestly claiming taking diplomatic action which pisses off your neighbours is on the same level as having normal relations with them?

If Germany or Russia are pissed at seeing more assertive Poland or Poland which isn't as vulnerable to their influence then that is their problem.

Thank you for conceding the argument right there.

They can do it on the paper but ultimately whenever there is a major issue like economic crisis, or Mediterranean union or Georgia-Russia war things are settled through meetings between heads of individual states and ones that are most powerful.

Yes. If only Poland would take such meetings and actually talk....

Obviously Shulz won't say outright that Germany is pissed because France didn't take German interests into account but something more general which still sends a clear message about German position on the issue.

Still doesn't back up your claim of him acting as a puppet of the german government.

They get exactly as much influence as their population numbers get them. Wanting more makes them greedy and ungrateful, not smart diplomats.

I was talking more of a geopolitical influence rather than seats in the parliament which is a separate issue from this discussion.

When talking about the EU, they are the same.

However as far as I know Poland did manage to get it's seats revised upwards so they were actually successful.

Really? All I know is that after Merkel intervened, all they got were an additional Attorney General seat at the ECJ.

I suspect that particular argument was aimed more for domestic consumption than out of any real belief it will make the rest of EU countries more receptive to their demands.

Source?

Poland has pretty serious ambitions about becoming a major player in the EU so they are not really interested in sympathies.

That makes them stupid and arrogant. Sympathy is the most precious commodity in the EU and pretty much your only real bargaining power you have as a small nation.

The problem with your argument is that it is one from paranoia that automatically assumes bad faith on behalf of the whole EU. Which is unlikely. Furthermore, the only reason the EU might have to dominate Poland is if Poland keeps up with this idiocy. Don't you get it? By trying to gain security, they make themselves more insecure - the neighbours now know they are not to be trusted, that they are ungrateful and that they are now the No.1 target in a nuclear war.

Yeah, great choice.

Why should Poland assume anything? Poland is trying to become a major player and as such it needs to have either indigenous military capability or multiple alliances like the one with US. If that causes Poland to loose "trust" then trust is another word for obedience.

So in other words: "Screw our allies as long as it benefits us". As I said: ungrateful, arrogant and stupid. Poland will never be a major player on the level of Germany and France and it does not have the means to truly have an indigenous military capability, as you phrased it. Multiple Alliances are a huge "screw you" to the allies within the EU. Real allies do not behave that way.

How is Poland No.1 target in a nuclear war? In a war with NATO targets in UK, France or Germany would have higher priority but as I already said the presence of stronger Poland with ABM shield reduces the chances Russians would dare to attack their posturing notwithstanding.

No. In a nuclear war with the USA, trying to knock out the ABM shield would take precedence over Germany, France or the UK.

I repeat again: moving higher on target list is a price any country pays when it tries to play in the big league.

You have not yet succesfully argued why such a move would be beneficiary for Poland. Why do you think the gains outweigh the costs?

[Kane Starkiller]

If you honestly think the situations are comparable, which is quite ludicrous to say the least (last time I checked, Poland was not allied with Germany in any of these scenarios), then I don't think how I can debate with your massive wall of ignorance.

I said geographical situation is similar while acknowledging that political was not. The fact that geographical situation caused similar moves by major powers over 100 years even while political situation changed helps my point.

If Germany or Russia are pissed at seeing more assertive Poland or Poland which isn't as vulnerable to their influence then that is their problem.

Thank you for conceding the argument right there.

I don't think I ever argued Polish moves won't anger other countries. After all if France, Germany, UK, Russia or US always chose their moves by whether they'll anger other powers they would never become one in the first place.

Yes. If only Poland would take such meetings and actually talk....

But they did talk. They talked with US about missile shield, with EU about joining and influence etc. Just because they are "talks" doesn't mean they'll always be pleasant.

Still doesn't back up your claim of him acting as a puppet of the german government.

If you are asking whether Shulz was also concerned about Denmark or Sweden being left out in addition to Germany it's entirely possible I don't read minds. The point remains that it's speech was clearly matched with German position. But we have completely sidetracked from the original point: individual member states of EU fight each other over influence.

I was talking more of a geopolitical influence rather than seats in the parliament which is a separate issue from this discussion.

When talking about the EU, they are the same.

No they are not since parliament doesn't have nearly as many powers as individual countries. No one waited for vote in the parliament to decide whether to side with US over Iraq, whether to oppose Russia over Georgia or even how to deal with the economic crisis.

Really? All I know is that after Merkel intervened, all they got were an additional Attorney General seat at the ECJ.

I'm not sure. As far as I know they have 54 seats in the parliament compared to 99 of Germany so that gives them more seats per capita. Then again the smaller the country the more seats they have. However after French and German banks buy out the entire banking sectors of smaller countries I do wonder who is screwed over in the end.

I suspect that particular argument was aimed more for domestic consumption than out of any real belief it will make the rest of EU countries more receptive to their demands.

Source?

Like I said it is a suspicion I doubt the government actually issued an official statement explaining it was only a ploy to boost public approval. Seeing the argument was purely emotional I find it far more likely it was intended for Polish public rather than foreign officials.

That makes them stupid and arrogant. Sympathy is the most precious commodity in the EU and pretty much your only real bargaining power you have as a small nation.

So they are arrogant because they refuse to accept they are a "small country" which should rely on "sympathy" as a "bargaining power"? And you honestly don't understand why this is unacceptable to any country?

So in other words: "Screw our allies as long as it benefits us". As I said: ungrateful, arrogant and stupid. Poland will never be a major player on the level of Germany and France and it does not have the means to truly have an indigenous military capability, as you phrased it. Multiple Alliances are a huge "screw you" to the allies within the EU. Real allies do not behave that way.

Last I checked US is in NATO as well as Germany and most of EU. Poland is hardly screwing over it's allies, these are simply more subtle power plays within NATO. It's not as if Poland made a deal with enemy of the EU.
Secondly you make it sound as if only Poland benefited from joining EU so it should be grateful to other countries for graciously allowing it to enter. If it wasn't beneficial to them they wouldn't have let it in.
Thirdly how can you possibly know Poland will never rival France or Germany?

No. In a nuclear war with the USA, trying to knock out the ABM shield would take precedence over Germany, France or the UK.

That is just one installation. Generally targets within Western Europe would still take precedence.

You have not yet succesfully argued why such a move would be beneficiary for Poland. Why do you think the gains outweigh the costs?

It would be beneficiary since it would expand Polish independence and freedom to act. It would also make any Russian attack more unlikely now with missile shield and US troops present. It would however increase the damage in case war does happen. Is it worth it? Countries like France, UK, US, Russia decided that increasing the potential damage of an attack is worth the price of expanding their power and influence as well as decreasing the likelihood of an attack happening.

[K. A. Pital]

I only used them as an example of how it is possible for a 7 million country to be a rival of 70 million Iran and Egypt. The size difference between Poland and countries surrounding it are not as great nor is the Poland completely surrounded by adversarial countries.

Are you really sure that Israel's extremely antagonistic position vs. the arab world is not a result of it's own conduct as well, just of "hatred of Jews" by arabs?

I don't remember hearing anything from EU countries certainly nothing close to Russian reaction to the shield.

Russia is a nuclear power for which the ABM (and general C&C facilities for missile launch) is a direct threat. EU nations aren't nuclear powers. EU nations have much less to worry from the ABM deployment, and yet they did speak out against it. Of course they should not be as harsh as Russia. For Russia, it's a strategic defense issue. For others, not so.

Generally targets within Western Europe would still take precedence.

Targets in Poland for example took precedence over targets in USSR proper by quite a few NATO plans, during the NATO-WARPAC rivalry times. The USSR likewise oriented it's missiles according to the level of strategic installations posessed by a nation. Britain, for example, grew from nothing into a major target, surpassing other nations rather quickly.

[Kane Starkiller]

Are you really sure that Israel's extremely antagonistic position vs. the arab world is not a result of it's own conduct as well, just of "hatred of Jews" by arabs?

I doubt it. The situation in which you declare a Jewish state in the middle of what Muslims perceive as rightfully Muslim land has you pretty much set in your course. That is not to say that Israel shouldn't try to be nicer for purely humanitarian reasons but it wouldn't really change the hatred. Muslims today feel slighted by every major group: Christians starting from Crusade, to colonial domination by UK and France to current Christian domination in the form of US. Then there are Hindus squatting on Muslim lands in Pakistan, atheists from Soviet Union which dominated Muslims in central asia and of course Jews occupying Palestine.

Russia is a nuclear power for which the ABM (and general C&C facilities for missile launch) is a direct threat. EU nations aren't nuclear powers. EU nations have much less to worry from the ABM deployment, and yet they did speak out against it. Of course they should not be as harsh as Russia. For Russia, it's a strategic defense issue. For others, not so.

It's mostly because EU countries don't see US as a military threat nor do they have the ambition to rival the US to the same degree Russia has.
I'm certainly not blaming Russia for wanting do obstruct US in it's plans but then again I can't blame the US.
Since relation between Germany and Poland was already discussed in the thread and some claimed Poland was stupid for even trying to rival Germany I thought it would be interesting to compare their power relation with that of US and Russia.
According to CIA factbook Germany has 2.14 times greater population than Poland, 7.9 times bigger economy in nominal GDP terms but 94% of Poland's arable land.
In comparison US has 2.13 times greater population than Russia, 10.7 times bigger economy and 1.35 times more arable land.
By 2030, according to census.gov, Germany will have 79.5 million people while Poland will have 36.53 million people making the population ratio 2.18 in favor of Germany.
US population is expected to increase to 363.8 million people while Russia is projected to have 124.1 million people, that is to say the population ratio will increase from 2.13 to 2.93. By 2050 populations are projected to be 439 million and 109 million for US and Russia respectively for a ratio of 4.
Looking at it from US perspective, since they are probably already planning for some confrontation with China down the line, they can't allow to be constrained by treaties designed to maintain parity with a country that has slipped so far in relative power.

Targets in Poland for example took precedence over targets in USSR proper by quite a few NATO plans, during the NATO-WARPAC rivalry times. The USSR likewise oriented it's missiles according to the level of strategic installations posessed by a nation. Britain, for example, grew from nothing into a major target, surpassing other nations rather quickly.

I'm sure certain targets in Poland will have greater priority than certain targets in other countries. And, as I already acknowledged, the more powerful the country the more nukes it receives.

[K. A. Pital]

Russia is projected to have 124.1 million people

If the demographic crisis (which essentialy was a low-intensity democide in the 1990s) persists, indeed our population would decline.

However, who is to say population determines power absolutely? Smaller population but larger economy, and smaller economy but larger military are certainly possible.

The USSR had at best made 30-40% of US economy, but maintained a rough military parity. Someone might say this is unfeasible in the long run - what is the long run? Another 50 years of an arms race? What if Russia gets powerful sponsors for it's militarization, like Israel has the USA?

You are playing the "population equals power" game. How about considering the fact that Russia is re-absorbing some territories of the USSR into a new confederation? Belarus + Russia, Abkhazia and Ossetia may be absorbed and Kazakhstan has expressed interest.

[Pelranius]

Aren't most of the other CIS states also experiencing demographic decline as well though?

And what's the news on Kazakhstan? Haven't bothered to keep up much with that part of the world.

I agree with Stas on population's correlation with power. France in the early twentieth century underwent a demographic decline relative to Germany (I use relative as France's population growth stagnated while the Germans kept on breeding like rabbits) but it was still a major player in world affairs.

I can easily see other nations sponsoring Russia as a counterweight to us Americans *cough* China *cough*. The proposed $25 billion loan to the Russian oil industry could be a harbringer of things to come.

[Kane Starkiller]

If the demographic crisis (which essentialy was a low-intensity democide in the 1990s) persists, indeed our population would decline.

However, who is to say population determines power absolutely? Smaller population but larger economy, and smaller economy but larger military are certainly possible.

The USSR had at best made 30-40% of US economy, but maintained a rough military parity. Someone might say this is unfeasible in the long run - what is the long run? Another 50 years of an arms race? What if Russia gets powerful sponsors for it's militarization, like Israel has the USA?

You are playing the "population equals power" game. How about considering the fact that Russia is re-absorbing some territories of the USSR into a new confederation? Belarus + Russia, Abkhazia and Ossetia may be absorbed and Kazakhstan has expressed interest.

I didn't say that population equals power. In fact in one of my replies to Thanas in this thread I already stated that while population is one important dimension of power it is not everything. However the fact remains it is important and since US already has a large advantage in technological base, GDP per capita and military greater population only adds up to the advantage and increases overall US lead.
After all in 1990 USSR had 288 million people and US had 250 million meaning that USSR would require a GDP per capita to be 86% of US in order to match it economically. If USSR was to unite today it would have 284 million people while US has 303 million so now USSR would require it's GDP per capita to be 106% of US.
By 2030 USSR countries are projected to have 273 million people and US 363.8 million which would require USSR to have 133% of US per capita GDP.
It is easy to see how growing population disparity makes catching up more difficult for even hypothetical reunited USSR let alone Russia.
As for whether there will be reunification in any form this is just a speculation at this point. Kazakhstan seems to be more interested in developing relationships with both Russia and China, I never heard any serious intention to join Russia. What they did talk about are various economic integration projects like Eurasian Union or Central Asian union. Abkhazia and South Ossetia have population numbering in hundreds of thousands so they won't make any real difference.
Only with Belarus there is a more tangible union but even that is far from something you can call a united country and there are no guarantees that it will ever amount to anything more. Either way population of Belarus is less than 10 million and decreasing at a similar rate as that of Russia so you'd have 133 million population by 2030 instead of 124.

I agree with Stas on population's correlation with power. France in the early twentieth century underwent a demographic decline relative to Germany (I use relative as France's population growth stagnated while the Germans kept on breeding like rabbits) but it was still a major player in world affairs.

France, however, also had large colonies which were the source of manpower and resources so I don't think that is a fair comparison. Germany was a bigger economic power for almost a century. But like I said, population alone doesn't mean everything but it is one of the factors.

I can easily see other nations sponsoring Russia as a counterweight to us Americans *cough* China *cough*. The proposed $25 billion loan to the Russian oil industry could be a harbringer of things to come.

Perhaps but that only means Russia itself is no longer a superpower but a client state or a junior partner of other superpowers.