The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 261

Visegrad Battle Group under the command of Poland


rock - | 460
21 May 2011 #61
In an alliance where 1-2 countries rule, others can develop as much as masters want. That is they can not show their optimum performance.

In our allance there will not be any dominant ruler. This will cause synergy and team work for the future success of it.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
21 May 2011 #62
In our allance there will not be any dominant ruler.

*cackle, cackle, snicker, snicker*

Good luck! :)
rock - | 460
21 May 2011 #63
Let's see the developments in EU until 2020. That is in our life time ( I hope )
OP boletus 30 | 1,366
21 May 2011 #64
I believe this is my responsibility, as the thread owner, to put some order here, dear hotheads. You just went too far with your fantasies: if the Visegrade Battle Group ever materializes it will never be directed against any western block. There is no reason for it. So please stop talking nukes and all this nonsense. And that applies to both sides of the recent discussion.

You may laugh at "rock's" fantasies but you cannot deny that Turkey is an emerging power in the region. It has plenty of internal problems, such as religious fundamentalism vs secularism, but it will overcome them with time, I hope. And it is not unlikely that some sort of economical cooperation between V4 and Turkey will be established some time in the future.

As George Friedman put it in his "Geopolitical Journey, part 5: Turkey"

..the Intermarium, the countries from the Baltic to the Black seas (...) have a common interest in limiting Russian power and the geopolitical position to do so if they act as a group.
One of the questions is what the southern anchor of this line will be. The most powerful anchor would be Turkey. Turkey is not normally considered part of the Intermarium, although during the Cold War it was the southeastern anchor of NATO's line of containment. The purpose of this trip is to get some sense of how the Turks think about Russia and where Russia fits into their strategic thinking. It is also about how the Turks now think of themselves as they undergo a profound shift that will affect the region.

Sokrates 8 | 3,346
21 May 2011 #66
Sorry Boletus, Friedman is not to be taken seriously...

Because you dont like what he writes?:)

Lets make it clear, Friedman observes some very true points but dresses them up in some utter bull, Poland rises when Germany and/or Russia weakens is for example absolutely true, that Germans and Russians are monsters despite not wanting to be them is anoher real assumption.

He does write a lot of bull and his book is funny but he does make a lot of things right.

Take everything he writes with a heavy grain of salt...

Thats also true, Friedman has a typically american view of Europe but he does get some things right, Visegrad group is just one initiative but it outlines a certain truth that Friedman pointed out, uniting smaller states in cental/eastern Europe is the road to power for Poland, its a rocky and unlikey road but if told Germans in the XVI century they'll be kicking France's arse soon enough they'd laugh at you.

See how far Prussia went from the p*ss sized state to a regional power.
OP boletus 30 | 1,366
21 May 2011 #67
Take everything he writes with a heavy grain of salt...

I do, and this is why I ignore his talk about Intermarium, Joe PiƂsudski, and so on. Yes, that's pure fantasy. But I see good logic in some of his statements about Turkey.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
21 May 2011 #68
But I see good logic in some of his statements about Turkey.

You know...when he is so wrong on so many counts I wouldn't believe him in other topics....but time will tell! ;)

See how far Prussia went from the p*ss sized state to a regional power.

Heh:)
Poland wants to become another Prussia?

Maybe, but it should avoid the same downfalls as Prussia/Germany experienced. To much agressive power and Europe will show you to that you will lose in the end.

I seriously think the time of Prussia's are over in Europe...no sense in mourning failed chances and possibilities. Poles in their majority won't go for that nor will most other Europeans. It's done and over!
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
21 May 2011 #69
Heh:)
Poland wants to become another Prussia?

Not really no, we pretty much know what every nation in Europe has within them (except maybe Ukraine and Belarus since they're still fledgling states) if you want to know how Poland is when powerfull just read a history book.

Maybe, but it should avoid the same downfalls as Prussia/Germany experienced. To much agressive power and Europe will show you to that you will lose in the end.

Germany believed and still believes itself to be superior which is why it f*cked its own chance at leading Europe.

I seriously think the time of Prussia's are over in Europe...no sense in mourning failed chances and possibilities. Poles in their majority won't go for that nor will most other Europeans. It's done and over!

Time for Prussia is never over, all it takes a solid pan-european crisis.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
21 May 2011 #70
Time for Prussia is never over, all it takes a solid pan-european crisis.

What would you call what we actually have to go through?

Germany believed and still believes itself to be superior which is why it f*cked its own chance at leading Europe.

Well...seriously...which self-respecting nationalist doesn't believe the sun shines out of his nation arse???

But now....even as Germany doesn't want to lead in this financial crisis, doesn't want to go to war...we can't do it right it seems :(
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
21 May 2011 #71
What would you call what we actually have to go through?

A prelude.

Well...seriously...which self-respecting nationalist doesn't believe the sun shines out of his nation arse???

I'm not a nationalist, i'm a realist. Nationalism is a luxury of the rich countries that got a large error margin, Poland has little.

But now....even as Germany doesn't want to lead in this financial crisis, doesn't want to go to war...we can't do it right it seems :(

Speaking of Friedman he got another thing correct, Germany is a soft power excersizing its influence via money, thats a smart thing to do but requires patience and a LOT of money, while rich i'm not certain Germany is that rich.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
21 May 2011 #72
Speaking of Friedman he got another thing correct, Germany is a soft power excersizing its influence via money, thats a smart thing to do but requires patience and a LOT of money, while rich i'm not certain Germany is that rich.

No it isn't! And as we are mainly concentrated on trading..meaning interested mainly in good relationships and a good image with potential trading partners there is only so much money needed.

The rest goes into the EU....
sascha 1 | 826
21 May 2011 #73
But now....even as Germany doesn't want to lead in this financial crisis, doesn't want to go to war...we can't do it right it seems :(

Yes we can. Silence in this situation is golden, though a lot of others are scared because of that. Silent Germany in their eyes is never good... ;)

Germany is a soft power excersizing its influence via money

Correct. What else is necessary now? ;)

thats a smart thing to do but requires patience and a LOT of money, while rich i'm not certain Germany is that rich.

I am not so sure about your doubts. In comparison to us f.e. Germany is rich.
rock - | 460
21 May 2011 #74
Turkey is interested in every development in Europe.

Just read: gpotcenter.org/conferences/621/
OP boletus 30 | 1,366
21 May 2011 #75
BYDOGOSZCZ, POLAND - Determined to work more closely together, the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Poland agreed on Friday to an ambitious program that included pushing for tougher sanctions against Belarus, and for the European Union to establish its own civil and military planning headquarters independent of NATO.

(...)

The three ministers also agreed that the European Union should have its own civil and military planning headquarters. When the idea was first presented by Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg in 2003, when all four countries opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, it was staunchly rejected, not only by the United States but also by Poland and other East European countries.
Opponents of the idea said at the time that an E.U. planning headquarters would be a competitor to NATO and eventually would lead to the loosening of the trans-Atlantic alliance. Now, however, Poland increasingly sees Europe in need of a stronger security and defense policy, with its own civil and military planning headquarters, as the United States expects it to pull its weight in defense and security matters.

nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/europe/21iht-poland21.html
sobieski 107 | 2,128
21 May 2011 #76
I'm not a nationalist, i'm a realist. Nationalism is a luxury of the rich countries that got a large error margin, Poland has little.

If there is a full-blooded nazi on this forum, it has to be you. I bet you adore the blue police.
Also understand you are a US Polack. I am as a EU citizen living in Poland, married with a Polish citizen, working here,paying my taxes here... Polacks should shut up - after all they all voted for the duck.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
21 May 2011 #77
If there is a full-blooded nazi on this forum, it has to be you. I bet you adore the blue police.

Of course.

I am not so sure about your doubts. In comparison to us f.e. Germany is rich.

Well Poland is p*ss poor so its not much of a comparison.

Correct. What else is necessary now? ;)

Pepsi.
Ironside 48 | 9,900
21 May 2011 #78
worth to remind :

A similar idea of including the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in a specific organism federation also introduced gen. W.Sikorski. The union formed during the tenure of his authority Prime Minister in the 20s of XX century. [8].

In the projected bloc of states gen. W.Sikorski founded to build Archfederation, binding countries from the Baltic to the Aegean Sea and forming a power of decisive in this part of the world power. The idea focused on the close cooperation of political and economic states, which was to guarantee its durability. Archfederation was going to cover Czechoslovakia, block of the Baltic countries (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia), Belarus, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece and Bulgaria. Ruled out Ukraine. The core of a future relationship had to be Poland, the largest of the bloc ISTHMUS

pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konfederacja_polsko-czechos%C5%82owacka#Federalizm_W.C5.82adys.C5.82awa_Sikorskiego
GrzegorzK
22 May 2011 #79
This is great news especially since Poland is surrounded by hostile countries like Germany, Belarus, and Russia. Hopefully czech, slovakia, and hungary we can all share our resources and icrease our trade between each other. We have much to benefit from each other... we can help each other. Now if Ukraine could join that would be really phenomenal.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
22 May 2011 #80
Well...alliances against them had been tried before, that hadn't quite worked...
sascha 1 | 826
22 May 2011 #81
Well...alliances against them had been tried before,

It doesn't have to be necessary an alliance 'against' someone. It's an alternative way, cause in nato noone wants to hear their voices and listen to them. So they make their own club. Smart move.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
22 May 2011 #82
Well...alliances against them had been tried before, that hadn't quite worked...

Against who? Last i checked when Poland allied itself with a weak Lithuania it dominated the region for more than 200 years, it took 2 field trips to Moscow and when Holy Roman Empire attempted to influence Poland internally orto partition it it got ************ to a point where it sat quietly for more than a century.

Alliances work, especially for Poland.

It doesn't have to be necessary an alliance 'against' someone.

Yes it does, Germany and Russia want a weak Poland at best, currently they're business partners but the potential for opposition remains strong so being honest its most definitely an alliance meant to secure welfare of Poland and targetted at Russia and Germany.

Essentially Poland being f*cked up by Germany and/or Russia is not the matter of if but a question of when.
sascha 1 | 826
22 May 2011 #83
Yes it does, Germany and Russia want a weak Poland at best, currently they're business partners but the potential for opposition remains strong so being honest its most definitely an alliance meant to secure welfare of Poland and targeted at Russia and Germany.
Essentially Poland being f*cked up by Germany and/or Russia is not the matter of if but a question of when.

Read my post #82 again.
I said: Smart move.

Honestly, regarding business whom doesn't want Germany, Russia or anyone else weak? OK here it happens to be Poland, what is unfortunate and in the long run maybe not productive considering that the threat is somewhere else...no, I don't mean China. ;)
Crow 137 | 7,756
22 May 2011 #84
all in all, it started. Poland moved to take position that belong to her.

Let it be remembered that Serbs were first who announced that and first who saluted that.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
22 May 2011 #85
Essentially Poland being f*cked up by Germany and/or Russia is not the matter of if but a question of when.

...that's for sure if you keep antagonizing them. Tusk is so much smarter...he "hugs Germany close"! Much better strategy for Polands welfare, believe it or not.
Nathan 18 | 1,363
23 May 2011 #86
I have no idea who G. Friedman is, but I agree on what he said in regards of Turkey. Any military cooperation within the Eastern Europe should definitely include Turkey. I support rock that the alliance should be a well-balanced alliance of the equal members, if any. It can't and shouldn't be devised against the West, but it should be more considerate to the problems of the region, which the West understandably doesn't give a damn about. Ukraine and Turkey have interests in improving their standing within the Black Sea basin and this is to be done by limiting the Russian presence. I bet Poland has its concerns in the Baltic. We might be of help to each other. Eventual expansion of the alliance should slowly move eastward (Georgia, Azerbajdzan, Armenia etc.) NATO is overexpanded and its interests are limited to the powerhouses' business. Local military or similar type of alliance might be of great value to the states of our region.
Natasa 1 | 580
23 May 2011 #87
I hate to be rude, but I have to ask where are the Slavic women in that story?

I mean.....what's in it for us? :)))
OP boletus 30 | 1,366
23 May 2011 #88
I mean.....what's in it for us? :)))

Do not worry, we think about you as well.





Sokrates 8 | 3,346
23 May 2011 #89
...that's for sure if you keep antagonizing them.

Well i want Poland to be strong enough that Germany is not able to mess us up whether we love you or sh*t on your head.

Tusk is so much smarter...he "hugs Germany close"!

He's not smart at all, he's a puppet of many people and parties, Germans among them.

Much better strategy for Polands welfare, believe it or not.

There's no strategy for Polands welfare currently, at all.
sascha 1 | 826
23 May 2011 #90
Well i want Poland to be strong enough that Germany is not able to mess us up whether we love you or sh*t on your head.

I mind the sh1t ;) but I am also for equality partnership. That would be ideal.

He's not smart at all, he's a puppet of many people and parties, Germans among them.

Salesman? ;)

There's no strategy for Polands welfare currently, at all.

Maybe out of this strategic group can grow sth else, economical partnership, because obviously they big 3 in Europe do not care much what the 'small or new' countries have to say.

Home / News / Visegrad Battle Group under the command of Poland
Discussion is closed.