Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width 44

"Shafting the Poles"

Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
24 May 2009 /  #31
George Robertson, former Secretary-General of NATO, gave a speech outlining the role of NATO for the 21st century. I can assure you that he wasn't planning only for the next 10 years.

Ah speeches, speeches are good, sometimes they're even true!
Seanus 15 | 19,704  
24 May 2009 /  #32
It's not the content that was critical here, it was the fact that he was outlining a long-term vision for NATO. Don't forget how popular NATO was with Poles.
gumishu 13 | 6,144  
24 May 2009 /  #33
I don't get you Seanus - what popularity of NATO in Poland has to do with the future of the pact?

Well, people sometimes have visions, but it takes lot's of other people to follow the vision to make it true - at least as for political visions (or social)

This said I have no idea what was Mr's Robertson vision for NATO - (i.e. it didn't reach popular circulation in Poland)
Seanus 15 | 19,704  
24 May 2009 /  #34
The Poles may well seek to bolster it in the future. They have lended their support to various initiatives and will strive for its sustenance.

It was the fact that he was the top dog for 4 years, gumishu. Discussions may well be available from NATO's website or BBC archives.
gumishu 13 | 6,144  
24 May 2009 /  #35
Seanus - what can Poles do against wills of say France Germany if they are not interested in any significant role of the pact in the future

Polish initiatives for Georgia membership were played down easy by Germany and France to give you an example
Germany and France do not wish the pact to be a defence against possible Russian aggressive policies

and what I see is a steady decline of importance of NATO in the future cause it's in no interest of German and French elites and nowhere near their political vision

what is going on now is some desperate attempts at lending some new spirit to NATO
which are quite faint
Seanus 15 | 19,704  
24 May 2009 /  #36
Well, try telling that to your government. PO are decidedly pro-NATO and only 2.5 months ago were pressing new agendas for it.

There are bigger powers than those 2 in NATO ;)
gumishu 13 | 6,144  
24 May 2009 /  #37
I can imagine NATO without France and Germany

but not based on the attitudes presented so far

no ideas for NATO are viable without Germany's support at the moment (and they aligned themselves with the French on many issues)
Seanus 15 | 19,704  
24 May 2009 /  #38
Let's talk specifics then, gumishu. What specific NATO proposals do they take issue with and why? Nord Stream is relevant here as it encompasses the thread title.

Merkel and Sarkozy see Obama as a very reasonable man and a spirit of cooperation has been fostered. They are not as anti-NATO as you think.
gumishu 13 | 6,144  
24 May 2009 /  #39
Seanus - there is already no issues that hold the NATO countries together or the issues are far from being priorities for most European states - it does tell a thing or two

there are issues shared by some of NATO countries though
for example France and Germany

there are agendas shared by some parts of the elites of European countries which are not btw necesarily shared by the nations themselves
Seanus 15 | 19,704  
24 May 2009 /  #40
That's just a blanket statement, gumishu. The whole EU Vs Russia issue is central to NATO. There are many others but I agree that its role is becoming diluted slowly.

International layering is common :(

On your last point, I agree. Just look at the Bilderberger group and the presence of monarchs there. They go above governments.
lesser 4 | 1,311  
25 May 2009 /  #41
So you are telling me NATO is a "temporary cooperation based on common interest"? What's temporary about it?

Different subject have different perspective. A child plan in a very short perspective, adult person longer (depends also from intellectual quality of individual). Also human life is usually much shorter than standard existence of the state. Thus term temporary might mean much longer period of time if we talking about the state.

After collapse of the Soviet Union NATO redefined its principles. When there is no common enemy, such general concepts are less lasting. Your countryman Cyrill Parkinson wrote that political bodies are less and less important when more an more people is offered a membership/voting right. So enlargement is also test for NATO. It is very likely that the strongest members create some smaller bodies which hitjack most of competences of political structures of NATO .
Seanus 15 | 19,704  
25 May 2009 /  #42
Lesser, was it intended to be formed and ran as a temporary association? Straight question.

Again I ask, Lisbon Conference 1952. What was the central theme?
lesser 4 | 1,311  
25 May 2009 /  #43
Seanus, the answer is YES. No matter what politicians write or say. Nobody can predict the future, geopolitical reality might change and deciders must be aware of this even if they would wish to save status quo.
Seanus 15 | 19,704  
25 May 2009 /  #44
Oh, I don't deny that at all. For example, look at this, not adversaries with Russia, hmm...

Lesser, is defence a short or long-term goal? They even had long-term defence plans as early as 1952.

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / "Shafting the Poles"Archived