Egypt, Turkey send troops into Libya.

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3848
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Egypt, Turkey send troops into Libya.

Post by Sertorio » Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:12 am

Milo wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:36 am

I do like the admission that leaving NATO places a state under Russian dominance!
You would, wouldn't you?... :evil: But it doesn't make it true... :D

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2693
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Egypt, Turkey send troops into Libya.

Post by Milo » Thu Jul 23, 2020 9:06 am

Sertorio wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:12 am
Milo wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:36 am

I do like the admission that leaving NATO places a state under Russian dominance!
You would, wouldn't you?... :evil: But it doesn't make it true... :D
I didn't say it, you did.

neverfail
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Egypt, Turkey send troops into Libya.

Post by neverfail » Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:22 pm

Milo wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:36 am

I do like the admission that leaving NATO places a state under Russian dominance!
This may be a little off topic; but in an attempt (probasbly vain) to avert and pre-empt one of Sertorio's pet American conspiracy theories I did a little bit of Google research on the matter of why NATO expanded eastward.
https://www.dw.com/en/after-20-years-in ... a-47862839

After 20 years in NATO, Poland still eager to please.

Poland's NATO accession in 1999 was meant to provide protection from Russia. Two decades on, a fear of its eastern neighbor remains a decisive factor in Polish politics, especially when it comes to bolstering US ties.

"Poland is a very committed ally, an ally which is contributing to our shared security, to our collective defense in many different ways," Stoltenberg added. "And that's something which we really welcome."
What was true of Poland probably explains the apparent enthusiasm of other Warsaw Pact vassals of the Soviet Union for membership in NATO.

They take a very long view of history in those parts. In 1999 when Poland joined (the Warsaw pact dissolved 8 years earlier - why did it take so long?) Russia was still floundering on the ropes (Boris Yeltsin) so there would have been no immediate need to bolster NATO strength. But the leadership of Poland and neighbours understood that the Russian state was not going to go away and that eventually it would revive as a power. Regardless of guise, Tzarist, Soviet or Russian Federation the Russian state has a long history of monstering the smaller states within the orbit of its near abroad; inevitably to their detriment.

Succinctly, these eastern countries wanted to buy insurence against what they viewed as inevitable. Their perception of what was to come has since proven to be prophetic.
................................................................................................................

In a way the West has a moral debt to Poland and its neighbours to discharge. In Sept 1939 the western democracies failed to rally to the defence of Poland in time when this was invaded by Nazi German forces (abscent the United States in its cowardly isolationism the remaining powers, France anhd Britain, were in no fit state to assist beleagured Poland). SO to bind the same Western democracies to defend Poland today impresses me as being a belated but still highly appropriate atonement for 1939 and the approx. half century of abandonment that followed.

Ordinary Poles WANT to be incorporated into the West and not perpetually have to live in the shadow of the Russian state.
..................................................................................................................

So there you have it! Away with your American conspiracy theories Sertorio - you are as much a romantic in that regard as Cassowary is with his habit of placing "noble" America high up on a pedistal - you and he one another's inverse. The driving force behind the former Warsaw Pact member states of eastern Europe campaign for membership in Nato were these countries' own lobbying and solicitations for inclusion.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3848
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Egypt, Turkey send troops into Libya.

Post by Sertorio » Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:22 pm

neverfail wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:22 pm
Milo wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:36 am

I do like the admission that leaving NATO places a state under Russian dominance!
This may be a little off topic; but in an attempt (probasbly vain) to avert and pre-empt one of Sertorio's pet American conspiracy theories I did a little bit of Google research on the matter of why NATO expanded eastward.
https://www.dw.com/en/after-20-years-in ... a-47862839

After 20 years in NATO, Poland still eager to please.

Poland's NATO accession in 1999 was meant to provide protection from Russia. Two decades on, a fear of its eastern neighbor remains a decisive factor in Polish politics, especially when it comes to bolstering US ties.

"Poland is a very committed ally, an ally which is contributing to our shared security, to our collective defense in many different ways," Stoltenberg added. "And that's something which we really welcome."
What was true of Poland probably explains the apparent enthusiasm of other Warsaw Pact vassals of the Soviet Union for membership in NATO.

They take a very long view of history in those parts. In 1999 when Poland joined (the Warsaw pact dissolved 8 years earlier - why did it take so long?) Russia was still floundering on the ropes (Boris Yeltsin) so there would have been no immediate need to bolster NATO strength. But the leadership of Poland and neighbours understood that the Russian state was not going to go away and that eventually it would revive as a power. Regardless of guise, Tzarist, Soviet or Russian Federation the Russian state has a long history of monstering the smaller states within the orbit of its near abroad; inevitably to their detriment.

Succinctly, these eastern countries wanted to buy insurence against what they viewed as inevitable. Their perception of what was to come has since proven to be prophetic.
................................................................................................................

In a way the West has a moral debt to Poland and its neighbours to discharge. In Sept 1939 the western democracies failed to rally to the defence of Poland in time when this was invaded by Nazi German forces (abscent the United States in its cowardly isolationism the remaining powers, France anhd Britain, were in no fit state to assist beleagured Poland). SO to bind the same Western democracies to defend Poland today impresses me as being a belated but still highly appropriate atonement for 1939 and the approx. half century of abandonment that followed.

Ordinary Poles WANT to be incorporated into the West and not perpetually have to live in the shadow of the Russian state.
..................................................................................................................

So there you have it! Away with your American conspiracy theories Sertorio - you are as much a romantic in that regard as Cassowary is with his habit of placing "noble" America high up on a pedistal - you and he one another's inverse. The driving force behind the former Warsaw Pact member states of eastern Europe campaign for membership in Nato were these countries' own lobbying and solicitations for inclusion.
Neverfail,
You may have done some research on the matter of why NATO expanded eastward, but you didn't get it...

I accept that at least some Eastern European countries may have wished to join NATO, but that doesn't mean they needed to do it. Finland, which was once part of the Russian Empire, manages to live side by side with Russia without being a NATO member. In fact, Finland even managed to live side by side with the Soviet Union without needing NATO to remain free. All the Soviet Union wanted was a guarantee of neutrality by Finland. All Eastern European countries could have lived free and unconcerned after 1989 without belonging to NATO.

The fact is that Russia is not a threat to those countries. All Russia ever wanted was being partners with the European Union, and that wouldn't be possible if Russia was seen as a threat to the Eastern European countries. The funny ( :roll: ) thing was that by joining NATO those countries actually created the possibility of a threat which didn't exist before. By pushing NATO all the way to the vicinity of Russia, NATO became a threat to Russia and forced Russia to take steps to control such threat. Without the Eastern European countries joining NATO, probably Crimea would still be part of the Ukraine, and the Donbass wouldn't have separated from the Ukraine. And Russia wouldn't have felt the need to become virtual allies with China.

Of course the US knew very well that expanding NATO was a threat to Russia, which produced two things the US wanted to have: US control over Eastern Europe, and the guarantee that Russia and Europe wouldn't become partners. US power depends on keeping Europe dependent on them. Of course their eagerness to guarantee such dependency has gone so far that it may actually produce the opposite result. All the crazy sanctions against Europe and European firms on account of the Nord Stream 2, for instance, will finally drive Europe away from the US and push it into the arms of Russia.

The US is imperialist, which is bad, and it is dumb, which may become an advantage to us in Europe. Let's just see how it develops...

neverfail
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Egypt, Turkey send troops into Libya.

Post by neverfail » Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:39 am

Sertorio wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:22 pm

Neverfail,
You may have done some research on the matter of why NATO expanded eastward, but you didn't get it...

I accept that at least some Eastern European countries may have wished to join NATO, but that doesn't mean they needed to do it. Finland, which was once part of the Russian Empire, manages to live side by side with Russia without being a NATO member. In fact, Finland even managed to live side by side with the Soviet Union without needing NATO to remain free. All the Soviet Union wanted was a guarantee of neutrality by Finland. All Eastern European countries could have lived free and unconcerned after 1989 without belonging to NATO.
Hi Sertorio.

I have sometimes contemplated the strange fate of Finland (which during the Second World War was even an ally of Nazi Germany - though I believe not a willing one). Even Stalin was content to "forgive it it's sins" and let it go its own way having received his absolution. The contrast between this and the fate of Poland is stark.

The conclusion I have reached is that geography changes perceptions (and policy).

If you want to travel from the closest part of the USSR to reach Germany then crossing Poland is the obvious way to do it. After their horrid experience with fighting Nazi German forces mainly in their own country and having experienced great loss of lives and destruction of infrastructure in the process the top Soviet leadership must have been determined not to let the Germans off lightly afterward. Since their wartime army did not overrun the whole of Germany (the Allies got to the western regions before they could) Stalin must have decided to hang on to the eastern part that Soviet troops had overrun as a permanent occupation zone for the purpose of keeping Germany permanently divided just in case those Germans one day hankered for a return run at carving out a greater Germany again for themselves at cost to the USSR.

IN case their eastern German subjects rose in revolt the USSR needed to hang on to Poland at a "clearway" down which Soviet troop reinforcements could speed en route to crushing the disturbance in their occupied region of Germany.

(Of course it would have also been the crucial conduit to transport reinforcements and military supplies had a US led army invaded Moscow's eastern European Empire as well: but that was never likely to happen and in any case is another story).

The other Warsaw pact member states (all of them WW2 Soviet conquests) were merely reinforcements to help keep Poland in its place: sort of like a bunch of wooden prop beams placed up against a derelict outback "dunny" (country lavatory) here in Australia to prevent it from toppling over.

Finland? For the Poles the curse of their country's location is that it is like a bridge between Russia and Germany and has been tramped over for centuries by armys marching in both directions. While Poland leads from the USSR to Germany (and vice-versa) where does crossing Finland from Russia lead to? Only to netutral Sweded. Sweden is absolutlely harmless to the USSR.

The Soviet leadership let Finland go because it was safe for them to do so. They hung on to Poland because they could not afford to let it go.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3848
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Egypt, Turkey send troops into Libya.

Post by Sertorio » Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:43 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:39 am
Sertorio wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:22 pm

Neverfail,
You may have done some research on the matter of why NATO expanded eastward, but you didn't get it...

I accept that at least some Eastern European countries may have wished to join NATO, but that doesn't mean they needed to do it. Finland, which was once part of the Russian Empire, manages to live side by side with Russia without being a NATO member. In fact, Finland even managed to live side by side with the Soviet Union without needing NATO to remain free. All the Soviet Union wanted was a guarantee of neutrality by Finland. All Eastern European countries could have lived free and unconcerned after 1989 without belonging to NATO.
Hi Sertorio.

I have sometimes contemplated the strange fate of Finland (which during the Second World War was even an ally of Nazi Germany - though I believe not a willing one). Even Stalin was content to "forgive it it's sins" and let it go its own way having received his absolution. The contrast between this and the fate of Poland is stark.

The conclusion I have reached is that geography changes perceptions (and policy).

If you want to travel from the closest part of the USSR to reach Germany then crossing Poland is the obvious way to do it. After their horrid experience with fighting Nazi German forces mainly in their own country and having experienced great loss of lives and destruction of infrastructure in the process the top Soviet leadership must have been determined not to let the Germans off lightly afterward. Since their wartime army did not overrun the whole of Germany (the Allies got to the western regions before they could) Stalin must have decided to hang on to the eastern part that Soviet troops had overrun as a permanent occupation zone for the purpose of keeping Germany permanently divided just in case those Germans one day hankered for a return run at carving out a greater Germany again for themselves at cost to the USSR.

IN case their eastern German subjects rose in revolt the USSR needed to hang on to Poland at a "clearway" down which Soviet troop reinforcements could speed en route to crushing the disturbance in their occupied region of Germany.

(Of course it would have also been the crucial conduit to transport reinforcements and military supplies had a US led army invaded Moscow's eastern European Empire as well: but that was never likely to happen and in any case is another story).

The other Warsaw pact member states (all of them WW2 Soviet conquests) were merely reinforcements to help keep Poland in its place: sort of like a bunch of wooden prop beams placed up against a derelict outback "dunny" (country lavatory) here in Australia to prevent it from toppling over.

Finland? For the Poles the curse of their country's location is that it is like a bridge between Russia and Germany and has been tramped over for centuries by armys marching in both directions. While Poland leads from the USSR to Germany (and vice-versa) where does crossing Finland from Russia lead to? Only to netutral Sweded. Sweden is absolutlely harmless to the USSR.

The Soviet leadership let Finland go because it was safe for them to do so. They hung on to Poland because they could not afford to let it go.
Since presently Russia does not require a clear path to Germany, nor does it need a buffer against (non-existent) German designs on Russia, Poland's fears are totally baseless. In view of past experiences, I guess the last country Russia would want to be involved with is Poland. Besides Polish paranoia, I guess American pressure on Poland had a lot to do with Poland wanting to be in NATO. What is deplorable is Europa's willingness to accommodate American wish to use NATO in a non-defensive manner. Hopefully American excesses will finally lead European countries out of NATO.

neverfail
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Egypt, Turkey send troops into Libya.

Post by neverfail » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:16 am

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:43 am


Since presently Russia does not require a clear path to Germany, nor does it need a buffer against (non-existent) German designs on Russia, Poland's fears are totally baseless. In view of past experiences, I guess the last country Russia would want to be involved with is Poland. Besides Polish paranoia, I guess American pressure on Poland had a lot to do with Poland wanting to be in NATO. What is deplorable is Europa's willingness to accommodate American wish to use NATO in a non-defensive manner. Hopefully American excesses will finally lead European countries out of NATO.

You are only basing your judgement on present transitory circumstances. Who knows what unforeseen political changes in either Russia or Germany (especially the former) might place Poland once again in harm's way., It is not paranoia to take out fire insurence.

What American pressure on Poland? Back up your allegations with proof.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3848
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Egypt, Turkey send troops into Libya.

Post by Sertorio » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:25 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:16 am
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:43 am


Since presently Russia does not require a clear path to Germany, nor does it need a buffer against (non-existent) German designs on Russia, Poland's fears are totally baseless. In view of past experiences, I guess the last country Russia would want to be involved with is Poland. Besides Polish paranoia, I guess American pressure on Poland had a lot to do with Poland wanting to be in NATO. What is deplorable is Europa's willingness to accommodate American wish to use NATO in a non-defensive manner. Hopefully American excesses will finally lead European countries out of NATO.

You are only basing your judgement on present transitory circumstances. Who knows what unforeseen political changes in either Russia or Germany (especially the former) might place Poland once again in harm's way., It is not paranoia to take out fire insurence.

What American pressure on Poland? Back up your allegations with proof.
Transitory circumstances? When do you foresee the possibility of Germany becoming aggressive again towards Russia? Or vice-versa? In the 22nd century?... You might as well protect Poland against an alien invasion from outer space... That's not how international relations develop...

No proof. But I have no doubt that the US helped to convince Poland that Russia was a terrible threat and that the only way to escape Russia was by joining NATO... Maybe money even changed hands...

neverfail
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Egypt, Turkey send troops into Libya.

Post by neverfail » Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:46 am

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:25 am


Transitory circumstances? When do you foresee the possibility of Germany becoming aggressive again towards Russia?
God did not gift me with powers of prophecy so I cannot see when it might happen. However their country has lived next to the Russians for centuries: more than long enough for the Poles to get the measure of their neighbours and their disposition. Do they have reason to believe that the Russian leopard has shed his spots? No! Especially after the example of Putin's bullyboy treatment of Ukraine right before their eyes. Reason enough for the Poles to run for cover.
No proof.
I am pleased to see you admit it.
But I have no doubt that the US helped to convince Poland that Russia was a terrible threat...... {/quote}
:lol:

They needed no convincing by outsiders. If you only knew Polish people as well as I do you might realise what an asinine remark that is.

(Conversely, I get the impression that your view of Russia is steeped in romantic make-believe that you would do yourself a favour to get a reality check done.)

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3848
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Egypt, Turkey send troops into Libya.

Post by Sertorio » Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:53 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:46 am
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:25 am


Transitory circumstances? When do you foresee the possibility of Germany becoming aggressive again towards Russia?
God did not gift me with powers of prophecy so I cannot see when it might happen. However their country has lived next to the Russians for centuries: more than long enough for the Poles to get the measure of their neighbours and their disposition. Do they have reason to believe that the Russian leopard has shed his spots? No! Especially after the example of Putin's bullyboy treatment of Ukraine right before their eyes. Reason enough for the Poles to run for cover.
No proof.
I am pleased to see you admit it.
But I have no doubt that the US helped to convince Poland that Russia was a terrible threat...... {/quote}
:lol:

They needed no convincing by outsiders. If you only knew Polish people as well as I do you might realise what an asinine remark that is.

(Conversely, I get the impression that your view of Russia is steeped in romantic make-believe that you would do yourself a favour to get a reality check done.)
I am a realistic sort of fellow. I do not believe that a sophisticated country like Russia, which knows the limits of its power, would put its essential interests at risk by playing the old fashioned imperial power. Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe are irrelevant to Russia, as long as they don't become pawns in the hands of the true hegemon, the US. Those countries will only become target to Russian power if they decide to house American offensive weapons against Russia. Their joining NATO was a major blunder, since as members of the European Union they could have chosen to help the EU becoming self-sufficient as far as defence is concerned, dispensing with the US altogether. But that's exactly what the US has been striving to prevent, as it would make the US irrelevant on this side of the Atlantic.

Post Reply