Officials in Poland are hailing an upcoming visit by Donald Trump

but well it is Germany who built Nord Stream and are bent on expandind it into Nord Stream 2 - against vital interests of Poland and Baltic States (Ukraine too)

Germany should look after their national interest nor Polands.Polands should stop whining about it,its embarrassing.
when we bough F-16 from USA,we cared little about European interests.same with helicopters that we want to buy from USA rather than Europe

Now after the G-20 formalities Merkel and Macron are becoming a little more confrontational with the U.S.
Trump not being a polished politician may have been a little to candid with them.
Merkel has said that Europe must "take our fate into our own hands" and stop "glossing over" clear differences.
I think she may have just caught on.

you hear about solidarity from Germany so you would guess they would show some themselves - also it is not against the interest of Germany to have a landbased pipeline through Poland and say Baltic Staes unless of course Germans view these countries as some 'neo-colonial sphere' and not as partners

btw the cost of laying Nord Stream pipeline on the bottom of Baltic was cautiously estimated to exceed the cost of the proposed land pipeline 5 times

It's amazing how six months of idiocy and inexperience can undo 80 years of world leadership, carefully built by both Republicans and Democrats. Trump thinks the rest of the world will listen to him when in fact they have no obligation to indulge his infantile ways.

There is no better way to gain favor with the MSM than to bash President Trump. The G-20 leaders are of course very upset that, under this president, the US will NO longer be paying everyone`s way in NATO or handing them billions of dollars to redistribute to third world countries under the guise of fighting climate change.


Its not too late to catch the early bird down at Czerwony Jablusko and whine with all the other old folks...lol


The Gravy Train from the USA has stopped, they can spend their own money now.


Other countries consider the US president a world leader if the US gives them free stuff (defense, socialist projects) or let them have a huge trade deficit at our expense. Trump for the first time in a long time, believes we did enough for the rest of the world and now they have to provide for themselves.

Merkel, cleverly spends less than half she's supposed to on defense, because she and others are just used to let the Yankees do it for them free of charge

The Era of freeloading is over. The same goes for the Obama freeloaders right here who get government checks and freeloading has become a way of life for over 40 million Americans

Trump is right - The EU will have the face reality and become self- reliant.

Thats if Poland doesn't pull a PoLExit. the EU will be doomed then!

She said that before the G-20 already.


The non-binding agreement says that NATO members should reach 2% GDP by 2024. It's 2017 now and the Germans are on their way. The Europeans will certainly not like it because once Germany reaches the targeted military expenditure, it will have an uncomfortably large military again. Welcome back to pre WW2. Bannon's wet dream.


Poland is the largest net recipient of subsidies. The EU is doomed if Poland leaves? Sure...

There is no better way for Trump to deflect attention from his failings and his inability to implement his policy agenda than to bash the"MSM".

What is the best way to get people to undertake a non binding and complicated but sensible commitment ? Is it to work with them on a range of issues and help them feel you are a trustworthy partner ? Or is it to berate them and insult them for the sake of your poorly educated voters in their Hollers and farmsteads ? This should be obvious to the self proclaimed king of the deal but he is not doing well so far.

This is not money that is owed to America, it is a commitment to spend on your own military. But if he is serious about it then the only real solution is to scrap the treaty on German reunification which reaffirmed restrictions on its military and especially on offensive capabilities. What would be the point of that ? How would that help Polish interests ? And what would Russia, a signatory of that treaty, have to say about it ? I have never heard either Trump or PiS address this question - probably because it involves words of more than one syllable.

@Tacitus

Tusks reelection is just one of many scenarios that played out. Comparing tusks support from eu leaders to migrant quotas to brexit and other things is a fallacy. It is not comparing apples to apples. If you want to know what kind of support poland for will have for a specific topic I.e. say whether its quotas or NATO defense countries you have to look at the precedents for that specific subject. For example what are the attitudes of Hungarian people and their leaders towards NATO defense, migrant quotas, etc. If the policies and decisions of the polish populace and Poland's leadership intersect with those of a specific country they will offer political support and increased ties - especially if its a very significant concern for both counties such as Russian aggression in the east, forced migrant quotas on the v4, gas pipelines etc.

What Germany can do to separate allies is basically bribe one of the countries with funds. Poland already received tons of cash, Europeans esp germans profited from the 8th largest economy and a 40 mil plus sized market and cheap labor. Poland in return got infrastructure and a boost to the economy. But that's it were not getting anymore hundreds or even tens of billions of dollars anymore. There s far too many problems in the eu for germany and the rich countries to keep investing like its 2008 2010 2013 when the economy stood well in poland but was collapsing in Greece and also Portugal and Italy aren't doing too well. Then the Syrian war Ukraine war and migrant crisis hit.. Its creating a bear market in poland and that's why all these people are grasping at what they already own because they fear uncertain times ahead

Similarly if another country and their allies enact a policy that hurts another country or countries, that country will enact a counter and seek others support especially if they are also being hurt.

That's how international relations work.

not necessarily, considering how inefficient Germany spends money on its military. In 2011, Germany media reportet that "German soldiers mostly don't know how to use their weapons." ( thedailybeast.com/german-soldiers-in-afghanistan-cant-shoot). Since then, it's only gotten worse. The latest failure was with a new transport plane, a lot of money was spent on, but it is not working: dw.com/en/german-air-force-investigates-latest-airbus-a400m-glitch/a-37464284

Currently, there are only 7,000 (!) Soldiers ready to fight (at least they can try). For every actual soldier, 50 personnel is employed in the bureaucracy. Compare this to France: there the ratio is 1:10.

They might well invest a couple of billions more but might end up as helpless as they are now.

The deliberate weakness of the German military is based on political decisions made in Berlin. If they want, they can change that rather quickly within a few months. Just reintroduce the draft, fire the current personnel except for the real achievers, withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and build a bunch of nukes. The latter would take the Germans maybe a year or two including delivery systems. Might scare their neighbors a "little", but isn't that what Orange 45 wants?


Good point!

Poland can go on without those 'subsidies'. I'm certain those money do more harm than good to Poland's economy. Germany and some other countries would be hit hard if Poland left the EU. Their citizens are used to an easy life and won't put up with a ANY downgrading of their standard or living.


That what those founds are for. Akin to the money of so called humanitarian help for some African countries.

The "non-binding agreement" is also called a "gentleman's agreement" which is most binding.
Trump told The New York Times that doing so would depend on whether those countries had "fulfilled their obligations to us" in terms of their financial contributions to the alliance.

"You can't forget the bills," Trump told the paper. "They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they're supposed to make. That's a big thing. You can't say forget that."


It should have stopped a very long time ago.
The U.S. has bailed their butts out twice now with our military superiority, plus the U.S. is the only thing standing in Russia's way to own the E.U. and all the E.U. does is bad mouth the U.S. while the U.S. is still protecting them and giving them their freedom.


I don't know how with their new "diverse" citizens that are to chicken to fight for their own country, women and dignity to expect them to fight for the E.U.

The United States could afford to have Free Health Care for every American citizen if we weren't paying to protect the E.U. with our military presence there.

Now there's a thought !

Oh, I'm sure Poland can. The question is, how the future for the country would look like in that case. Remember that once you leave the EU, you also lose (duty) free access to its markets. Five of Poland's top six trading partners are EU members (I count the UK as a non member now), so leaving might not be such a good idea after all.


Trump is talking BS. There are NO obligations to the US. The NATO members agreed to increase military expenditures to 2% of their GDP by 2024. No more, no less. If they don't reach that goal - sue them... ;)


No, they don't. At least not the 2% GDP. The only obligation the member states have is to shell out the agreed upon cash for the NATO budget. The USA pays 22%, Germany pays 15% - exactly what they are supposed to pay.

I guess we should believe you instead of the guy in charge then.


You are full of little green apples and better do some more googling.
There was a valid agreement to the cost-sharing formula from January of 2016 to December of 2017 also.
And this is what Trump told your queen Merkel this past March of this year.

"Many nations owe vast sums of money from past years, and it is very unfair to the United States," Trump said at the press conference, discussing the need for NATO allies to pay "their fair share" for defense. "These nations must pay what they owe."

He then thanked Merkel, who was standing beside him, for Germany's apparent commitment to increase defense spending and work toward contributing 2 percent of GDP to NATO.

According to a source with direct knowledge of the meeting, the comments came after Trump privately pressed Merkel during their discussion to increase NATO spending. While NATO already has asked members to invest 2 percent of their GDP, Germany has fallen under that line.

And it will continue to do so probably until 2023. And as everyone could tell Trump, Germany and other countries are thus fully living up to their commitment. The agreement was that Nato members should reach the 2% in 2024 not 2017.

Besides, I find it incredibly arrogant of the USA to accuse other NATO allies of freeloading. Nato has so far been involved in one war. When it came to the defence of the USA. Hundreds of Europeans died in Afghanistan. Dont their sacrifice count for anything?

@johnny reb
Go and educate yourself, Donald. Then we talk again.

@TheOther..........O.k., all educated........now your turn Beans for Brains.


No it was not, read this carefully.
They all agreed to 2% back in 2006.
The United States last year spent 3.6% of its GDP on defense, the highest ratio of any NATO member (and the highest total military budget in the world by a hefty margin).

That is almost double the target of 2% of GDP that NATO members all agreed to in 2006.
At the time six members reached the threshold and last year five did.
Such gripes are hardly new.
Since the 1970s American presidents have complained about military "free-riding" by the country′s European allies.
At a summit in 2014, NATO "reiterated" its commitment to the 2% target.
"Members that fell short" at the time "promised to meet their obligations by 2024."
Hope that clears it up for you two bone heads.


And I find it totally arrogant that the American tax payers should be expected to pay for our allies protection.


ABSOLUTELY they do !
Germany who fell short of their 2% commitment to NATO sacrificed 57 who died in Afghanistan.
Poland who met their 2% commitment to NATO sacrificed 44 who died in Afghanistan.
U.K. who met their 2% commitment to NATO sacrificed 453 who died in Afghanistan.
U.S.A. who met their commitment by almost double the 2% (3.6%) sacrificed 2271 who died in Afghanistan.

I know and the real pisser is that OhBrother lives on American soil as a guest immigrant sucking up our freedoms while bad mouthing our country.

We can only hope he runs his pie hole to a Vet some day that teaches the punk some serious manners....as in major medical.

Hopefully that will be enough to send him packing back to Kangaroo land where he belongs as he is most unwelcome here in the U.S.A.

Now can we please get back on topic, pleeze ?

So no problems here. We have to reach the target until 2024, not before. Why is it so difficult for some Americans to understand this? We have to reach the target by 2024, nor 2017!


Such demands were even more ridiculous back then. I mean would anyone suggest today that there were not enough soldiers in Europe during the Cold War?

Those European soldiers died in Afghanistan for the defense of the USA after 9/11. How many Americans have died on behalf of Europe?

You seem to forget the HUGE sacrifice that America made in Europe during WWII

A lot of our blood was spilled to save Europe and to listen to you degrade us is very insulting.

I would never do that, I have stood in the graveyard at Omaha beach, the scale of American losses in just that one campaign is overwhelming, thank you for your support in the fight for our freedom in Europe, don't pay any attention to the odd random marxist communist looney on this forum.

The USA wastes 3.6% of its GDP on the military because the country is a superpower and as such has global ambitions. America doesn't spend 3.6% GDP exclusively on NATO though, so a direct comparison with other NATO members is a bit like apples and oranges.

Not true so until you can post your source to back up your false claim they will remain just that, Fake News.


As I stated, 2271 U.S. soldiers died to stop ISIS in Afghanistan from spreading throughout the E.U.
Just to bad your leaders invited them into your back yard.
Nothing the U.S.A. can do to protect you from that stupidity.


America "is" NATO so you couldn't be further from the truth.

I don't forget them, but they are simply not relevant for the discussion at hand. We are talking about Nato here, and whether or not Europe has recently failed up to its' commitment.

The current argument by Trump is that Europe has been "freeloading" on American support. As pointed out however, there has been only one instance so far when Nato had to defend one of its' member states and in which the European allies fully lived up to their commitment. The war in question is btw. far from over, and will likely be a drain on ressources and lifes for quite some time. That the president of the USA dares to belittle European contribution while there are still Europeans stationed in Afghanistan is nothing short of insulting.

It also absurd that Trump claims that European countries "owe" money to the USA. Firstly, even if member states agree to spend more on defence, this money won't go to the USA, but will be spent on each country's own military. Secondly, even if Europeans spend more on defence, would this necessarily mean that American tax payers would have to pay less overall? Trump has after all announced to increase American defence budget, despite the fact that other Nato have also started to increase spending. Even if Nato allies would met the 2% aim already in 2017, the USA would still be paying more than before.

But folks, Trump DOESN'T THINK!! He has advisors to do that for him and if the rest are anything like Sean Spicer, White House Chief of Staff, you know we're in for a rough time, 'cuz the dude doesn't know SQUAT about much of anything, especially history (witness that wonderful Holocaust gaff round about the beginning of the yearLOL).

Indeed, Trump wants to belittle our European allies, while simultaneously taking credit for Europe's accomplishments:-)
Do you believe this guy?? Europe must be laughing their heads off over this one.

No surprise that the last time I was overseas, in Vienna to be exact, no one whom I met could believe either that I as a native-born American, spoke German, or that I had the vaguest idea of European geography and history. In fact, and this was years before Trump was even a gleam in the eye of the US presidential scene, I was typically introduced to people as "Herr Simspson from America.", so convinced were people that the average American is what we now would associate with a Donald Trump character.

Apparently though, Trump fared better in Poland than he is expected to in France. Go figure.

I wouldn't expect a Commie JAP to say anything less.


How did I know you were just posting your bias opinion that you can't substantiate with a source.
Did you miss a major FACT that I posted to save face or what ?


2% is what NATO members agreed to in 2006 are the keys words.
So in the last 10 years Germany has not paid what they agreed to in 2006 and again in 2014..

Rather than labeling, Johnny (and by the way, I'm neither of Japanese descent, nor a Jewish American PrinceSSLOL), try learning something for a change!

I find it strange that, like many a freeloader, Trump expects EUROPE to pay for US debts, similar to his demands that MEXICO pay the US for OUR border problems!!!

It's all so achingly tragic, how is it then I feel like laughing till I bust??

Come on, Johnny, I know that you are trying to provoke all of us here. Why don't you stop it? The USA is much more than only NATO.

As well as vice-versa, which was partially the whole point of Trump's visit:-) Johnny, didn't you even get THAT??