• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poland calls for more US troops

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.


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
 
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 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.

Obama has nothing to do with anything. 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.
 
Russia obviously still has a nact for being undemocratic and hostile towards its neighbours. That country deserves every bit of NATO expansion.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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?

You might want re-read that. Put your convienient interpretation aside.

I said anti-US and opressive. That suits Iran perfectly, unless you believe no crimes are being commited by them on an international stage. Anti-US because funding such anti-US regimes suits Russia just fine. I dont care how anti-US a nation is, but if its an opressive regime, then yes, i think it is a crime and how dare they. ;)
 
That goes without saying, anything anti-US is automatically "opressive"! :lol:

:doh

When i say anti-US AND opressive it usually means it contains both traits. I said anti-US/West (as irrelevant as that is) to emphasize the fact that such regimes suit Russia to have nucleur weapons. Opressive has been placed (the actual part that matters) to refer to its undemocratic, hostile and human rights approach to politics, its need for the destruction of Israel amongst other things. Can such a nation be trusted with such powerful weapons? No. Therefore they are the biggest threat to the West and so are its suppliers (Russia).

:2wave:
 
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...

Careful with your definitions! If it's pro-US it can not be opressive!
 
:shock:

You do surprise me! Can there be pro-US and at the same time opressive regime?

Did i say there couldnt!!? I said Russia supplies the people who are anti-US/West and opressive so that they can arm America's/ West's enemies, hence making Russia one of the worst regimes against us too! This has nothing to do with the opressive regimes that are not paticularly anti-West because we are talking about the people who are an immediate threat to us, and this fear Russia likes to exploit.

When i say anti-US and opressive, it doesnt mean to say all anti-US nations are opressive. Im talking about countries which are anti-US AND opressive. They are two different things. Perhaps its a language barrier or something because im saying something which is very simple. :S

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...

omg you have totally missed the point.

And opressive regimes like Saudi Arabia cannot be considered pro-American per-se. They just do not do what the other Arab nations are doing because they need America to sell their oil too. As for Israel and Georgia, what the hell about them?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Italics: Do you have a link to this bill because, quite frankly, that's a bit alarming.

No sorry. :(

Why does a bill have to be passed to allow Russia to use military force beyond its boarders? Isnt that called "war". LOL. Russia is hardly pacifist and needs a bill. Plus, it wasnt a bill before the 5 day war.
 
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.

They got the middle finger from Obama and having been in the country when he pulled the rug from under them on the shield, I can tell you much of the Polish nation is pissed. Doing it on the anniversary of the Russian invasion was not just insulting but revealed a nonchalance and ignorance of history.

The Poles got a first hand taste of what "Change" is all about, and they're not Hoping for more.

.
 
Obama has nothing to do with anything.
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.

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.
And what usefulness are you referring to?
 
omg you have totally missed the point.

And opressive regimes like Saudi Arabia cannot be considered pro-American per-se.

No, kaya'08, it is you who are missing the point: since 1945 the US is CREATING and supporting opressive regimes on all continents, but you don't talk about them. The US controlled media either ignores their existance or hailes them as democratic. Who brought Saddam to power and supported him in his war against Iran? The US. The same US that later declared him "a threat to the Western World" and hung him. What country supported the warious war-lords who came to power in Afghanistan? The US, same US that is now fighting its own creation only because that creation stopped being pro-US. What country alongside Georgia took part in a slaughter of civilians in S.Ossetia and is still supporting and arming regime in Georgia? The US.

You like to regurgitate propaganda? It's your choice, enjoy.

O, and S-Arabian opressive regime is the US ally.
 
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?
 
Yes, it's true, and the old news.

Why do you find this allarming? The US does it, why not Russia?

We don't have a habit of conquering nations and then taking them over.
We don\t do it though we could have... often.

And with your shaky logic, the Iranians should have nukes.

.
 
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?

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...
 
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.

.

With my "shaky logic" the world would be a much safer place without nukes at all.

But put yourself in "Iranian shoes": do you think Iraq or Afghanistan would've been invaded if they had nukes? Why N.Korea escapes "democratisation"?

Iran is simply in a hurry to protect itself before the US will move in to "spread some democracy" there.
 
I know what you were refering to.
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.

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...

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?
 
Last edited:
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?

1. If you think Obama decides anything you delude yourself. He is a figure-head. Look at what clans are pulling his strings.

2. I already answered this question.
But if you want I will rephrase my answer.

Poland was meant to be part of a wall between Russia and Europe. As Poland is HISTORICALLY the most anti-Russian nation in existance it was meant to be the leader of an anti-Russian choir; and when I say "historically", I mean since the 13-th century when Polish-Lithuanian Empire concured Southern and Western Russia. That's all. Nothing special. The wall failed to materialise. That's why the US thought nothing of ditching it alongside with the Baltic states.

To the US Ukraine and Georgia are now more important.
 
Back
Top Bottom