kaya'08
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,363
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Location
- British Turk
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Russia's foreign minister said Thursday he was surprised by Poland's call for more U.S. troops on Polish soil in response to Moscow's assertiveness, a news agency reported.
RIA Novosti quoted minister Sergei Lavrov as saying that the request by his Polish counterpart, Radek Sikorski, contradicted Moscow's and Warsaw's understanding of security issues in Europe. "If he did say that, it makes me deeply astonished," Lavrov said.
Sikorski said Wednesday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington that "we need some strategic reassurance," and that the U.S. could provide it by sending more than the six American troops it now has based in Poland. The minister said that need became clear when Russia and Belarus conducted a military exercise with hundreds of tanks near Poland's border last month.
Sikorski said that when Poland joined NATO 10 years ago, Russia was assured that no substantial NATO forces would be sent to the region. But, the minister said, the security situation has since changed.
Poland also raised concerns about its security when the Obama administration decided in September to scrap a plan to deploy long-range missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic.
I seriously doubt Poland will get any additional anything from our current President in the U.S. Secondly, they will definately get zero under NATO. Poland is being frozen out and until Obama leaves, that I think will continue.
Russia obviously still has a nact for being undemocratic and hostile towards its neighbours. That country deserves every bit of NATO expansion.
Long it remain undemocratic!
As for the rest, never mistaken interests of kept elites for that of the people of the countries. And time of the US expansion into Russia's European backyard without Russia's consent is pretty much over.
I believe its no less a threat now then it was in the cold war days.
Russia needs to be isolated not legitimized. It hands over nucleur know-how's and weaponaries to nations that have a history of being anti-US and opressive. It has basically funded the biggest threats to the Westen World.
The biggest crime that one can think of is being anti-US! How dare they! :lamo
The biggest threat to the "Western world" is the "Western world" itself. Btw, do you know that anti-US moods are growing in the "Western world" also? Maybe it has something to do with the way the US conducts itself around that same world?
I said anti-US and opressive.
That goes without saying, anything anti-US is automatically "opressive"! :lol:
When i say anti-US AND opressive it usually means it contains both traits.
:shock:
You do surprise me! Can there be pro-US and at the same time opressive regime?
Look at S-Arabia for example, no talk of it being opressive! Look at Georgia, -- same thing. Israel -- yet another example. Afghanistan under Taliban too was very freedom-loving and non-opressive until Talibs forgot they were expected to be pro-US...
Meanwhile President Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday praised a bill that permits the use of military force beyond Russia's borders but said that troops would only be deployed in extreme cases. "Today we don't have any problems on this issue from a legal point of view," Medvedev told parliament members. Earlier this year Medvedev submitted to parliament a bill aimed at giving the president a freer hand in deciding when to use troops outside the national borders.
Both chambers of the Russian parliament voted in favor of the bill last month. "As our recent experience shows, a legal mechanism should be in place," he said in apparent reference to Russia's five-day war with Georgia last year.
Russia criticizes Poland's call for US troops - Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review
Italics: Do you have a link to this bill because, quite frankly, that's a bit alarming.
I seriously doubt Poland will get any additional anything from our current President in the U.S. Secondly, they will definately get zero under NATO. Poland is being frozen out and until Obama leaves, that I think will continue.
I was referring to the missile shield that was removed by Obama's administration. i think that has a little something to do with Obama.Obama has nothing to do with anything.
And what usefulness are you referring to?Simply, Poland as well as Baltic states outlived their usefulness in the current set of circumstances. Their elites can jump up and down as much as they want, and they will be thrown an occasional bone, but they will not be anywhere near the US list of priorities for a foreseeable future.
omg you have totally missed the point.
And opressive regimes like Saudi Arabia cannot be considered pro-American per-se.
Italics: Do you have a link to this bill because, quite frankly, that's a bit alarming.
Yes, it's true, and the old news.
Why do you find this allarming? The US does it, why not Russia?
I was referring to the missile shield that was removed by Obama's administration. i think that has a little something to do with Obama.
And what usefulness are you referring to?
We don't have a habit of conquering nations and then taking them over.
.
:shock: :lamo :2rofll: :clap:
Can I have a ticket to your performance?
And with your shaky logic, the Iranians should have nukes.
.
Then you must not understand how decisions in the White House are made if you do not believe such a decision was made without President Obama's approval.I know what you were refering to.
What usefulness?
Since 1945 Europe was tied to the US economy and financial system by the rules of repaying war-time and post-war debts with interests. Also, the US positioned itself as Europe's protector against the USSR.
But the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the fact that most European countries finished paying or were on the final stages of paying off the debt, as well as Europe's ever strengthening economies lead to European countries pulling away from the US that was now viewed as more of a competitor and thus US control was no longer welcomed.
The US found itself in a position where although it won the Cold War and broke down the USSR, it was now in danger of loosing its "vassals" -- Europe! A declaration of a new common "enemy" -- Muslims failed to generate enough hysteria among Europeans for them to keep clinging to the US skirts. Meanwhile, Russia was getting off its knees and establishing economic and political ties with Europe. In addition, Europe was becoming increasingly dependent on Russia for energy sources, which in turn led to European countries drifting from US towards Russia and China.
As Zbigniew Brzezinski pointed out, "it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America...
To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together. Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power."
The first steps taken by US were to build a "wall" between Europe and Russia out of the former Soviet Block countries that German papers were referring to as "US Trojan donkeys in Europe". Also the old-time bogyman -- the USSR-- was wheeled out and the mass media started a campaign to instil in the minds of Europeans the notion that the modern day Russian Federation is the same thing as the Soviet Union and therefore it must be equally feared, and the only protection against it is America (Cold War 2).
While the propaganda campaign was quite successful (it’s not uncommon to read the comments like "Russians are commies" (even though Russia's communist party was out of power for many years now)); the "wall" was far less successful. Now it looks like Obama is trying to ditch his "Trojan donkeys" altogether, they are too expencive to feed and for most part useless.
The other aspect influencing the US change of tactics is that wars in Afghanistan and Iraq proved to be not as successful as the US corporations hoped (remember how many times Bush was declaring "victories"?); the US had to go to Russia for assistance. In such circumstances to continue NEEDLESSLY pissing off Russia is counter-productive...
1. Then you must not understand how decisions in the White House are made if you do not believe such a decision was made without President Obama's approval.
2. While very interesting, and at times, creative revisionism - you could have simply said that the U.S. was using Poland as a wedge between Europe and Russia. To which I would again have to ask --- what Usefulness did Poland provide? You gave a very nice dissertation that didn't answer the question. I know my history - so specifically, what role has Poland played?
Poland has not been a major player in European politics since the fall of Russia, as a former Warsaw Pact controlled country, it played little in international affairs between 1955 and 1991, until the Solidarity movement and post martial law periods during 1981 and throughout the 80's were over. Lech Wałęsa for example was one of the members who were instrumental in breaking Communist leadership in Poland specifically and drove the wedge between Poland and Russia and which allowed Poland to become a NATO alliance partner.
So what specific usefulness did Poland provide?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?