Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / News  % width 26

Is Poland Provoking Economic Warfare With Russia?


joepilsudski 26 | 1,389  
16 Feb 2009 /  #1
I'm posting an article that originally appeared on the website'Global Research'...It seems that Poland, along with Sweden is pushing for a 'Eurasian' trade bloc/'Eastern Partnership' , including Poland, Sweden, EU with some nations that were formerly part of the USSR/CIS...While at first this may seem innocent, the question is this: Is it furher part of an 'encirclement' strategy of the West toeards Russia?...I post part of the article, and the link, and if interested, please give your opinion...

Eastern Partnership: The West's Final Assault On the Former Soviet Union

At a meeting of the European Union's General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels on May 26 of last year, Poland, seconded by Sweden, first proposed what has come to be known as the Eastern Partnership, a program to 'integrate' all the European and South Caucasus former Soviet nations - except for Russia - not already in the EU and NATO; that is, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

The above are half of the former Soviet republics in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) established as a sop to Russia immediately after the breakup of the Soviet Union in that year and in theory to be a post-Soviet equivalent of the then European Community, now European Union. (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania never joined and both were absorbed into the European Union and NATO in 2004.)

globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12299
celinski 31 | 1,258  
16 Feb 2009 /  #2
I would have hoped this was done in a quiet manner and not so open. But I think it's about time. I really don't think this is the encirclement of Russia, rather a protection from Russia.

What's that saying, "There's safety in numbers".

"[T]he Partnership would demonstrate the “power of soft power” and acknowledge that the conflict in Georgia in August had influenced the decision to launch the Partnership. " (PanArmenian. net, December 11, 2008)

sjam 2 | 541  
17 Feb 2009 /  #3
I am more interested in who actually runs this Global Research organisation?

The majority of articles are anti-USA (plus anti-Israel of course :-) and anti-EU. Articles and books seem very much pro-Russia and its global interersts... not much evidence of balance or independent research claimed by Global Research?

Might have missed the web page which highlights who the editorial board is made up of so one can make a personal judgement about the credibility of those making editorial decisions on the Global Research website and its publishing titles?
1jola 14 | 1,879  
17 Feb 2009 /  #4
Whoever they are, they are well known.

In 2008, Global Research was awarded The First National Prize of the Mexican Press Club, for the "best Research website" at the international level.

sjam 2 | 541  
17 Feb 2009 /  #5
First National Prize of the Mexican Press Club?????

Oh yes... very well known and highly acclaimed!
Sasha 2 | 1,083  
17 Feb 2009 /  #6
The majority of articles are anti-USA (plus anti-Israel of course :-) and anti-EU. Articles and books seem very much pro-Russia and its global interersts... not much evidence of balance or independent research claimed by Global Research?

Sjam, it's not an argument. It's all about one's personal preferences. The word anti-russian for many is an indicator of trustworthy. I want to believe you're not one of them.
pawian 176 | 15,402  
17 Feb 2009 /  #7
hile at first this may seem innocent, the question is this: Is it furher part of an 'encirclement' strategy of the West toeards Russia?

Winged riders are getting ready....
lesser 4 | 1,311  
17 Feb 2009 /  #8
Usually authors of that kind of analyses better hide their agenda, always use neutral language. It appears that Rick Rozzof tried to do the same but failed! He simply could not resist to hide his personal feelings and in some places used unprofessional terms (I find it very funny). He is a 100% of Russophile and this perspective blind him a bit.

Nevertheless the events that he mentioned deserve to be commented. Author give to much of credit to the US. Of course Americans are interested to have an access to oil fields in the region and this is the main reason of their military presence.

The structure that is much more interested in expansion closer to Russian boundaries is called the EU. Nobody can deny that the EU expands, eurocrats always openly admit that the EU is open for all European states. Many would wish even expansion in Northern Africa, ideas like Mediterranean Union might be just a prelude.

To some extend the US and the EU cooperate with each other, however people in Brussels are highly anti-American thus deeper partnership is excluded. Especially that eurocrats wish to kick out American troops from Europe, they oppose missile shield.

This is not the matter of reducing Russian sphere of influence, this is a matter of expanding of the EU.

As far as Poland is concentrated, this is interest of Central European states to abolish barriers on their eastern border. The fact that in this case this is boundary of the EU is unimportant. Of course one could argue whether joining to the EU is something that Ukraine or Belarus should do, whether there is not better alternative.
sjam 2 | 541  
17 Feb 2009 /  #9
Actually for me its not about personal preferences its about editorial group decision making and the motives of those behind making the editorial decisions that purport to be an independent alternative of trustworthy news rather than just more of the same anti-US (anti-Israel) and anti-EU propaganda.

That no names of the editorial board appear to be present on Global Research organisation website says something about that organisation.
lesser 4 | 1,311  
17 Feb 2009 /  #10
Actually for me its not about personal preferences

There are western journalists in Kremlin payroll. However I don't believe that Rozzof is one of them, he is too engaged emotionally. I have rich experience of discussing with American russophiles, most of them simply married Russian women and fallen in love with Russia. No rational argument convince them that Russia is not that perfect as they wish. This particular author appears to have Russian roots, his commitment seems to be very natural. Why would Kremlin pay such people if they are not professionals and beside of that would do it for free anyway?
sjam 2 | 541  
17 Feb 2009 /  #11
There are western journalists in Kremlin payroll.

So are there on Russia Today news channel. But at least there is transparency with Russia Today 'it does what it says on the label'. Not so with the backers of Global Research organisation website. Just because the Global Research website says it is well known (well in Mexico Press circles) doesn't give it credibility?
lesser 4 | 1,311  
17 Feb 2009 /  #12
Who said about credibility? Show me some source that you consider creditable? Wise reader just feel what is the agenda and check donation list. You give them some special importance that they don't have, because they are too primitive.

The question is how would you react if such article would be written by some Brussels propagandist? Would you rant over and over about credibility or perhaps make some comment on the topic?
OP joepilsudski 26 | 1,389  
17 Feb 2009 /  #13
I am more interested in who actually runs this Global Research organisation?

The majority of articles are anti-USA (plus anti-Israel of course :-) and anti-EU. Articles and books seem very much pro-Russia and its global interersts... not much evidence of balance or independent research claimed by Global Research?

Might have missed the web page which highlights who the editorial board is made up of so one can make a personal judgement about the credibility of those making editorial decisions on the Global Research website and its publishing titles?

It is run by a Canandian Jew named Michel Chussodovsky, whose parents left Rostov-on-Don, Russia, after the Bolshevik takeover...Balanced?...No, not balance, but it reports on trends and events, with analysis, that are given no play in American/Canadian medis...To get opposing & 'mainstream' viewpoints, go to CNN, FOX, BBC and the like.

The structure that is much more interested in expansion closer to Russian boundaries is called the EU. Nobody can deny that the EU expands, eurocrats always openly admit that the EU is open for all European states. Many would wish even expansion in Northern Africa, ideas like Mediterranean Union might be just a prelude.

This new 'program' is a child of the EU...EU is the apparatus for the Rothschilds and their European clients...Rothschilds have always, and still desire, control of Russia: witness the Yukos oil/Khordokovsky affair...They still have the Romanov money which their henchman stole.
sjam 2 | 541  
17 Feb 2009 /  #14
Who said about credibility?

I did.

Would you rant over and over about credibility or perhaps make some comment on the topic?

With respect I don't consider I am ranting, over and over about credibility. If it's not important to you that is your prerogative; however credibility it is important to me.

A source I would consider credible? Any particular subject?
Here is one example that should suffice which you can either take or leave: American Soldier by General Tommy Frank; his memoir account of as commander of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the early period war on terror in Afghanistan has for me greater credibility than some 'reporters' opinion on same subject.

The question is how would you react if such article would be written by some Brussels propagandist?

The same if I felt the source appeared to lack credibilty, in my view.

Global Research claims it is offers alternative and independent research however this doesn't appear to be the case as the majority of articles seem very much biased pro-Russian propaganda. That is my view and you will have yours. I have nothing more to add.

Canandian Jew named Michel Chussodovsky,

Michel Chossudovsky, he blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by "Islamic terrorists". Through meticulous research, he has uncovered a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

and the moon landings were a hoax also ;-)
OP joepilsudski 26 | 1,389  
17 Feb 2009 /  #15
A source I would consider credible? Any particular subject?
Here is one example that should suffice which you can either take or leave: American Soldier by General Tommy Frank; his memoir account of as commander of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the early period war on terror in Afghanistan has for me greater credibility than some 'reporters' opinion on same subject.

Tommy Frank is an American Jew who was put in by the 'neo-cons' because he could be 'trusted'...As was Bremer, the 'American' administrator in Iraq who presided over the disappearance of billions of US taxpayer monies.

Franks

Bremer
lesser 4 | 1,311  
17 Feb 2009 /  #16
With respect I don't consider I am ranting, over and over about credibility.

All your post in this thread this is questioning the source. I also made a comment about author but bothered to write something on the subject.

A source I would consider credible? Any particular subject?

I mean research group or even some certain media outlets devoted to politics.

The same if I felt the source appeared to lack credibilty, in my view.

Yeah, just I doubt that you ever felt such feeling before. :)
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
17 Feb 2009 /  #17
Is Poland provoking economic war with Russia? What garbage is this? This government is much more friendly with Russia than PiS were. The missile shield, well, a blip. It was more about cementing ties with the US, rather than snubbing Russia.
sjam 2 | 541  
18 Feb 2009 /  #18
American Jew who was put in by the 'neo-cons' because he could be 'trusted'.

Back on this 'Jew's control the world gibberish ... same old same old.

General Franks happened to be the best US commander of his day and yes he was trusted to do his job and that is what he did.

But you are entitled to your opinion?

I mean research group or even some certain media outlets devoted to politics.

Just a couple (or more) notable examples Russia Today, Al Jazeera and not forgetting my good friends CIA backed Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty ... you know exactly where they are all coming from no hidden agendas they don't pretend to be something they are not. I could go on?

I have nothing more to add.

See I just forgot I wrote this... my views are clear so are yours, now I really have nothing more to add. Over to you ;-)))
JohnP - | 210  
18 Feb 2009 /  #19
Is Poland provoking economic war with Russia? What garbage is this? This government is much more friendly with Russia than PiS were. The missile shield, well, a blip. It was more about cementing ties with the US, rather than snubbing Russia.

Basically agree although do believe I would argue if one dug deeper into the details...its in my nature...

Tommy Frank is an American Jew who was put in by the 'neo-cons' because he could be 'trusted'...

News to me. One's religion is seldom advertised in the armed forces, let alone is it a reason for promotion. The officer ranks seem to have a political basis of course, especially in the senior ranks, (from the outside looking in, of course) but my perception is it wouldn't have mattered if he were a scientologist. He was simply the general who was in place at the time, just as Colin Powell, Norman Schwartzkopf...were the generals in a different war.

Of course you did say "because he could be 'trusted'...." which, honestly...has NEVER been a bad trait in a top general.
To be honest, I trust the EU and the UN and Russia...all the same. Not at all. I think Russia should be strong, although I disagree with the mess in Georgia as I perceive it...and totally distrust any organization which seeks control of many nations with loyalty to none. UN, EU, all of them with their own "governments"...give me the creeps. What's wrong with a regular old alliance, and let British control British, Polish rule Poland, Americans America and so on... We IMHO do not need some "higher" government composed of self important, secretive people who are the "masters of the universe". If it isn't THEIR people they are governing, how can we expect them to be fair.

Dunno. Just doesn't make sense to me.

John P.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
18 Feb 2009 /  #20
For sure. The net has many 'revelations'. Still, warfare is just too blatant a word here.
lesser 4 | 1,311  
21 Feb 2009 /  #21
lesser:
I mean research group or even some certain media outlets devoted to politics.

Just a couple (or more) notable examples Russia Today, Al Jazeera and not forgetting my good friends CIA backed Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty ... you know exactly where they are all coming from no hidden agendas they don't pretend to be something they are not. I could go on?

You don't want to answer directly to my question. You cannot name one creditable source. Of course the fact that we officially know who is behind Russia Today doesn't make this source to be creditable.

The officer ranks seem to have a political basis of course, especially in the senior ranks, (from the outside looking in, of course) but my perception is it wouldn't have mattered if he were a scientologist.

I would not let people who are members of different strange sects to serve in military. There is something wrong about their mentality, this is not material for a soldier.
sjam 2 | 541  
22 Feb 2009 /  #22
You don't want to answer directly to my question. You cannot name one creditable source. Of course the fact that we officially know who is behind Russia Today doesn't make this source to be creditable.

I did answer your question. So here is my direct answer again:

... notable examples Russia Today, Al Jazeera and not forgetting my good friends CIA backed Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty ... you know exactly where they are all coming from no hidden agendas they don't pretend to be something they are not.

Whether you consider them creditable or not is entirely your perogative. And no I do not believe (as is my perogative) Global Research is a creditable source of independent news or analysis as they claim for the reasons I have previously given.

this is not material for a soldier.

The only ability a soldier needs is to be able to kill the enemy—as determined by that soldier's government—and Gen. Tommy Franks was dammed good at that!
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
22 Feb 2009 /  #23
youtube.com/watch?v=zKg2-ny7k8I&feature=related
Putin gives his thoughts on it.

However, there is some rare oversight on his part. He forgot about the environmental dimension of the NORD stream proposal.
lesser 4 | 1,311  
22 Feb 2009 /  #24
I did answer your question. So here is my direct answer again:

No, you did not. I repeat that this does not make them creditable. I asked about media outlets or research groups that you consider creditable, my opinion is not important. There is no sense to continue this discussion if you don't want to reply.

The only ability a soldier needs is to be able to kill the enemy—as determined by that soldier's government—and Gen. Tommy Franks was dammed good at that!

Judaism is an old religion and I was talking about scientology and similar ridiculous sects. People stuck in such sects are mentally weak and army doesn't need them.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
22 Feb 2009 /  #25
In my view, Russia Today and Al Jazeera produce some very interesting and impartial articles. I quite often refer to them for info.
sjam 2 | 541  
22 Feb 2009 /  #26
I repeat that this does not make them creditable.

As I have already said and in further repetition: This is your perogative.

Archives - 2005-2009 / News / Is Poland Provoking Economic Warfare With Russia?Archived