News / Does Poland benefit from an Eastern, Western, or individualistic alliedship? [40]

My question reflects the current situation and landlock that Poland finds itself in from the political and economic stance. We saw this with the missile guidance system withdrawal and economic trade factors of both government/military levels and domestic levels. Truth is, where does Poland benefit more? From structuring a more connected future with the East, with Russia. The West, with the EU stronghold and the U.S.? Or keeping to itself?

My contention for the East speaks for itself. Poland in modern times cannot be denied that it has been helped much by its Russian neighbors. Masses within the military arsenals contain Russian made vehicles, tanks, and aircraft. Nearly over a quarter of Poland's energy comes from Russia. Also with Russian mass industries providing to the east (e.g. Gazprom), you have the majority of Poland?s resources like gas, coal, steel, and so forth coming from Russia. All of which could be easily cut off if Poland chooses to make a move forth with the West which would be something like installing a missile defense system; something of which the Kremlin has already shown mass opposition to. It is also obvious that the West would most likely not make up for these resources would Poland be to lose them. Of course, these industrials would be cut off due to the fact that the vast majority of Russia's resources are state-owned. Surely, Russia is a hassle of a partner economic and political wise, however you cannot deny that their allied ship is a valid one. As for the missile defense system, it's obvious that Russia wants to keep the upper-hand in military advantage around the area, and Medvedev/Putin have noted that such a system would be opposed if it were to be installed in any Eastern country (Poland isn't being "picked on"). We see how hard other countries such as Ukraine are currently situated, that are paying nearly double for their gas/resources than the Poles are and that have an overall bad reputation in the Kremlin. However, Ukraine is also a fine example of how Russian dominance can turn faces and be used as a political leash of unresolving power.

My contention for the West is that the West is better trusted. However what they have to offer in terms of resource might not be the best. Up to now the EU has already put weights on the Polish government, which are hard and economically harrowing. Such as forcing the Euro or forcing all Polish central banks to merge with EU central banks. Something which Poland isn't ready for and that the EU only cares about its self-capitalizing interest. Also with such economics into play, would the EU and U.S. be able to sell Poland the economic and military resource it needs that it would lose from Russia? We have already seen instances where Poland hasn't taken it's deserved "piece of the cake" for what it has offered. With the Polish aid in Iraq, the mentioning of such aid has been forgotten. In both of President Bush?s speeches on foreign aid in Iraq he had completely forgotten to mention the Polish aid, and Polish soldiers were dying on the battlefield. Under NATO, there have been many operations upon which the Poles were under resourced and under represented. Under a NATO pact, France was to give Mirage planes, and Germany Leopard tanks and Poland (which has quite a large army) only received a mere fraction of what other nations received. However, on the contrary it is estimated that if Poland were to go into war, that the West and NATO/EU allied ships would do a better job of defending Poland than would the Russians whom have shown little interest in getting involved with military agendas that is other than their own. Also, with Poland?s increasing economy (due to the communist collapse) we can expect Poland's economy to be capitalized enough to support such resource and trade demands from the EU that now seem like strains.

My third contention is an individualistic Poland. According to all the news sources I have read on Poland and European economics, Poland's economy this year will be the only one in Europe, which hasn't been affected by the recession and will be increasing. (Both HDI and GDP wise.) The consumer rates are high and the position for employment is escalating with the unemployment rates having decreased from the 8% it was a couple years ago down to 6.5% as of this year. GDP growth for this year is a whole 5%, while for all other European countries it's a negative percentage of several points. (i.e. Italy is -7%). The export rates and import rates have increased substantially, and the poverty rate has gone from the 15% it was a couple years ago down to 10% (one of the lowest in Europe). All this has been done by Poland alone. So the final argument rests; is Poland best on it's own? Possible, the only ties it needs are economic ones based on industries and corporations and nothing more. Poland itself needs no outside help if so. If history has taught us anything, hasn't Poland benefited the most when other countries kept out of it's soil and business? Possibly a hypocritical statement in modern times, but the numbers do not lie.

So these are my three contentions, please discuss, add our own, and give me your full out opinion.

Thanks for reading!