Poland offers to pay $2 billion for a US military base in Poland

Trump said he agreed with Duda that Moscow had “acted aggressively” in the region and said the request for a US military base in Poland was under consideration. Trump appreciated Duda’s offer to put more than $2 billion into the project.

Poland joined NATO in 1999 along with Hungary and the Czech Republic, and since then other former communist states, including Baltic republics bordering Russia, have joined despite Moscow’s strong opposition.

Poland has repeatedly requested a permanent U.S. military presence on its soil. The United States currently rotates troops through Poland temporarily but permanently stationing forces there would be expensive because of costs that can include housing for families, schools and hospitals.

The plan would deploy 15,000 US troops and 250 tanks and armored vehicles in Poland.

Any decision to base such a force in Poland would be seen in Moscow as a serious breach of the 1997 Nato Russia Founding Act, through which Nato agreed not to deploy permanent forces in eastern Europe as part of its expansion plans.

243 thoughts on “Poland offers to pay $2 billion for a US military base in Poland”

  1. I do not see Russia and China as the enemy. With nuclear weapons you do no have to drop them on your enemies country, you just drop them in the ocean. The whole eastern seeboard of the United States would be flooded. With nuclear weapons world wars have become impossible.

    Reply
  2. An interesting way of formulating “It is an important insurance policy for Poland that USA would be involved directly a Russian invasion started.” 🙂 Since both Poland and USA are already NATO members, they would be entangled anyway if a war zone was started in Poland. This would e.g. make it less likely that Russian nuclear weapons ends up being used against Poland, which is an increase in all our chances of living a long life.

    Reply
  3. stationing forces there would be expensive because of costs that can include housing for families, schools and hospitals.” ->thats not the reason for US reluctance. US doesnt want to be entangled in area of possible war zone, they dont want to be held hostage by Poles in their conflict with Russia.

    Reply
  4. I do not see Russia and China as the enemy. With nuclear weapons you do no have to drop them on your enemies country you just drop them in the ocean. The whole eastern seeboard of the United States would be flooded. With nuclear weapons world wars have become impossible.

    Reply
  5. An interesting way of formulating It is an important insurance policy for Poland that USA would be involved directly a Russian invasion started.”” :-)Since both Poland and USA are already NATO members”” they would be entangled anyway if a war zone was started in Poland.This would e.g. make it less likely that Russian nuclear weapons ends up being used against Poland”” which is an increase in all our chances of living a long life.”””

    Reply
  6. stationing forces there would be expensive because of costs that can include housing for families” schools and hospitals.”” ->thats not the reason for US reluctance. US doesnt want to be entangled in area of possible war zone”””” they dont want to be held hostage by Poles in their conflict with Russia.”””

    Reply
  7. Best location to deter Russian aggression paid for by the host country. RAND study states we need to have 35,000 troops in Easter Europe to deter Russian from mass incursion into Europe. This would be another small step towards that goal.

    Reply
  8. Nonsense. Your average tropical storm has vastly more energy. You would have to use hundreds to thousands of nuclear weapons to generate a massive wave capable of doing what you imagine. And the effects would not be limited to the US. The waves would hit Europe, Africa, many islands… Certainly only Russia or China could mount such an attack. Nuclear wars are not impossible, just stupid.

    Reply
  9. The issue is that Poles in general prefer stronger USA and less militant Russia and China. So we’re trying to save the world balance of force which – as in 1939 in hinged in our region, Unfortunately,

    Reply
  10. US can live without Poland. Poland cannot live without US. -> Bunch of bullsnort poland can live without the US , they would just need to enter the Russia/China sphere of influence If the US becomes weaker and the US IS becoming and getting weaker Poland would immediatey switch sides like all Europe

    Reply
  11. Point is that the US would withheld their agreements only if and only if it is in their interests If they have much too lose from an intervention they will find excuses and drop out duh!

    Reply
  12. Thats not true. Article 5 of NATO states: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” Notice this here: “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force,” They can do whatever. They can for instance protest act of violence very vividly, and deem this action as appropriate response-case closed. Secondly so what? paper will accept everything, what matters is reality. If you dont have will to fight, you see no gains in that, risk seems unnacceptable, your focus is elsewhere and generally you dont seem to see any reason to engage: you will not. Thats secret behind Russia provocations in Europe-to show NATO members,t hat US guarantees are worhtless, because US has no capability to enter Baltic sea area, and before Washington will act, Russia will steamroll trough Central-Eastern Europe. Trough act accompli it will force NATO to accept that fact, since for the rest of memebrs those eastern countries are not worth the risk. Yes, this would destroy existing security architecture and possibly lead to dismantling of NATO, but so what? Are you REALLY trying to say that France, America or Spain will go to nuclear war with Russia over some

    Reply
  13. Best location to deter Russian aggression paid for by the host country. RAND study states we need to have 35000 troops in Easter Europe to deter Russian from mass incursion into Europe. This would be another small step towards that goal.

    Reply
  14. Nonsense. Your average tropical storm has vastly more energy. You would have to use hundreds to thousands of nuclear weapons to generate a massive wave capable of doing what you imagine. And the effects would not be limited to the US. The waves would hit Europe Africa many islands… Certainly only Russia or China could mount such an attack. Nuclear wars are not impossible just stupid.

    Reply
  15. The issue is that Poles in general prefer stronger USA and less militant Russia and China. So we’re trying to save the world balance of force which – as in 1939 in hinged in our region Unfortunately

    Reply
  16. US can live without Poland. Poland cannot live without US. -> Bunch of bullsnort poland can live without the US they would just need to enter the Russia/China sphere of influence If the US becomes weaker and the US IS becoming and getting weaker Poland would immediatey switch sides like all Europe

    Reply
  17. Point is that the US would withheld their agreements only if and only if it is in their interests If they have much too lose from an intervention they will find excuses and drop out duh!

    Reply
  18. Thats not true. Article 5 of NATO states:The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or NorthAmerica shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that ifsuch an armed attack occurs each of them in exercise of the right of individual or collectiveself-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations will assist theParty or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith individually and in concert with the otherParties such action as it deems necessary including the use of armed force” to restore andmaintain the security of the North Atlantic area.Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately bereported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the SecurityCouncil has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peaceand security.””Notice this here: “”””such action as it deems necessary”” including the use of armed force”””””” They can do whatever. They can for instance protest act of violence very vividly”” and deem this action as appropriate response-case closed. Secondly so what? paper will accept everything what matters is reality. If you dont have will to fight you see no gains in that risk seems unnacceptable your focus is elsewhere and generally you dont seem to see any reason to engage: you will not. Thats secret behind Russia provocations in Europe-to show NATO memberst hat US guarantees are worhtless because US has no capability to enter Baltic sea area and before Washington will act Russia will steamroll trough Central-Eastern Europe. Trough act accompli it will force NATO to accept that fact since for the rest of memebrs those eastern countries are not worth the risk. Yes this would destroy existing security architecture and possibly lead to dismantling of NATO but so what? Are you REALLY trying to say that France America or Spain will go to nuclear war with Russia over so”

    Reply
  19. If you do not see Russia as an enemy directly harming US interests you haven’t been paying attention to your last election, Nordstream II, Russia’s role in Syria and it’s relationship with the likes of Iran, China and North Korea. And these are just a few issues, there’s many, many others. Virtually Russia’s entire foreign policy runs counter to America’s.

    Reply
  20. It’s important to add that the oft cited 1997 Nato Russia Founding Act has already been broken multiple times by Russia, during it’s incursion into Georgia and it’s continuing occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, therefore, the agreement is in fact null and void.

    Reply
  21. If you do not see Russia as an enemy directly harming US interests you haven’t been paying attention to your last election Nordstream II Russia’s role in Syria and it’s relationship with the likes of Iran China and North Korea. And these are just a few issues there’s many many others. Virtually Russia’s entire foreign policy runs counter to America’s.

    Reply
  22. It’s important to add that the oft cited 1997 Nato Russia Founding Act has already been broken multiple times by Russia during it’s incursion into Georgia and it’s continuing occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine therefore the agreement is in fact null and void.

    Reply
  23. To be honest, I think this is a much simpler calculus than everybody believes. The U.S. isn’t worried about pissing off Russia or starting a war with Russia. I don’t think Russia would chance an invasion of Poland: no reason to give the U.S. a valid excuse to go to war. I think the primary considerations of the U.S. are: 1. Are we better off reinvesting in our facilities in Germany or starting from scratch elsewhere? 2. Is now a good time to give Germany the finger or do we wait until we are in some sort of a trade negotiation with the E.U?

    Reply
  24. The myth of the Russian “nuclear tidal wave” has been debunked. As powerful as nuclear weapons are, they pale in comparison to the forces of nature. The number of warheads needed to achieve what you suggest would do far more damage if they targeted land-targets directly.

    Reply
  25. To be honest I think this is a much simpler calculus than everybody believes. The U.S. isn’t worried about pissing off Russia or starting a war with Russia. I don’t think Russia would chance an invasion of Poland: no reason to give the U.S. a valid excuse to go to war. I think the primary considerations of the U.S. are:1. Are we better off reinvesting in our facilities in Germany or starting from scratch elsewhere?2. Is now a good time to give Germany the finger or do we wait until we are in some sort of a trade negotiation with the E.U?

    Reply
  26. The myth of the Russian uclear tidal wave”” has been debunked. As powerful as nuclear weapons are”””” they pale in comparison to the forces of nature. The number of warheads needed to achieve what you suggest would do far more damage if they targeted land-targets directly.”””

    Reply
  27. I was thinking of the Canary Islands as a landslide there could cause a mega tsunami, but The “system six” if properly targeted could do a lot of damage.

    Reply
  28. No one in their right mind would attack a NATO country. You might win a war against one but not nineteen. It would not stop at nineteen countries, much of South America would defend Spain, and Australia and New Zealand would defend the UK, Canada, and US.

    Reply
  29. The “system six” system could be possible and produce a five hundred meter wave. I was thinking of the Canary Islands, if you can trigger a landslide there you could create a mega tsunami.

    Reply
  30. I was thinking of the Canary Islands as a landslide there could cause a mega tsunami but The system six”” if properly targeted could do a lot of damage.”””

    Reply
  31. No one in their right mind would attack a NATO country. You might win a war against one but not nineteen. It would not stop at nineteen countries much of South America would defend Spain and Australia and New Zealand would defend the UK Canada and US.

    Reply
  32. The system six”” system could be possible and produce a five hundred meter wave. I was thinking of the Canary Islands”””” if you can trigger a landslide there you could create a mega tsunami.”””

    Reply
  33. This, now Poland has two benefits, is an pretty cheap country compared to Germany this makes basing troops there pretty cheap. Anybody who read a bit of Polish history see that getting invaded and decimated is pretty common. it makes perfectly sense to want protection.

    Reply
  34. Yeah, Greece did really well so long as it was subsidized by the EU. Now, not so great. And by the way, the US military has left nations that asked them to do so. France, Iraq, the Philippines are a few examples, though some have changed their minds.

    Reply
  35. The Middle East has not changed since biblical times, psychopathic leaders engaged in endless conflict. Who can be sure of the best policy to deal with people that are locked in to endless tribal conflict.

    Reply
  36. This now Poland has two benefits is an pretty cheap country compared to Germany this makes basing troops there pretty cheap. Anybody who read a bit of Polish history see that getting invaded and decimated is pretty common. it makes perfectly sense to want protection.

    Reply
  37. Yeah Greece did really well so long as it was subsidized by the EU. Now not so great.And by the way the US military has left nations that asked them to do so. France Iraq the Philippines are a few examples though some have changed their minds.

    Reply
  38. The Middle East has not changed since biblical times psychopathic leaders engaged in endless conflict. Who can be sure of the best policy to deal with people that are locked in to endless tribal conflict.

    Reply
  39. having won most of the above battles – Assad still in power Russia 1 US 0 – Crimea now part of Russia Russia 2 US 0 Iran not baking down Russia 3 US 0 Nordstream II being done Russia 4 US 0 and so on..

    Reply
  40. having won most of the above battles – Assad still in power Russia 1 US 0 – Crimea now part of Russia Russia 2 US 0Iran not baking down Russia 3 US 0 Nordstream II being done Russia 4 US 0 and so on..

    Reply
  41. Yes and no. The statement that Poland “cannot live without US” is meant in the context (I would presume) of a liberal, democratic and prosperous nation. Yes, the US is becoming weaker, but it’s relative. USA is 20 times richer than Russia, and most of this wealth comes down to the mindsets of its people. Both nations have equivalent resources. The USA is “weaker” mostly in relation to the rising military power of China and its own imperial ambitions.

    Reply
  42. Yes and no.The statement that Poland cannot live without US”” is meant in the context(I would presume) of a liberal”” democratic and prosperous nation.Yes the US is becoming weaker but it’s relative. USA is 20 times richer thanRussia”” and most of this wealth comes down to the mindsets of its people.Both nations have equivalent resources.The USA is “”””weaker”””” mostly in relation to the rising military power of Chinaand its own imperial ambitions.”””

    Reply
  43. Yes, look to Greece, such an iconic example. Everyone thinks of Greece when they think economic and scientific power house! LOL – go back to living off your entitlements as you sit on you butt complaining about the nation that saved your butt from the Nazis.

    Reply
  44. Yes look to Greece such an iconic example. Everyone thinks of Greece when they think economic and scientific power house! LOL – go back to living off your entitlements as you sit on you butt complaining about the nation that saved your butt from the Nazis.

    Reply
  45. I see all this military spending a waste of money. They are just all targets for heavily armed drones. It would be better spent on providing free global internet. That means we would be too busy talking to each other than fighting each other. History shows us that China and Russia built walls. That tells me they want to defend themselves not attack anyone.

    Reply
  46. I see all this military spending a waste of money. They are just all targets for heavily armed drones. It would be better spent on providing free global internet. That means we would be too busy talking to each other than fighting each other. History shows us that China and Russia built walls. That tells me they want to defend themselves not attack anyone.

    Reply
  47. Poland joined NATO in 1999 along with Hungary and the Czech Republic and since then other former communist states including Baltic republics bordering Russia” have joined despite Moscow’s strong opposition.””The US has a huge ‘commitment insolvency’ issue regarding our alliance obligations. This expansion of NATO is one of the big reasons why.’commitment insolvency’ means we have commitments that can not be met if called upon. Either because we can not do so or will not (because the US public won’t tolerate it) do so. Committing to risking US cities to nuclear attack to deter Moscow from invading Western Europe during the Cold War was one thing”””” doing so now that the Cold War is over and Russia is not a viable competitor to threatening the US way of life (Russia is NOT the Soviet Union 2.0) will not be politically tolerated.Better to withdraw from those commitments now so we don’t pay the credibility damage with our other allies that we do want to/can keep our commitments with that will happen when we leave Europe high and dry should war actually break out between Russia and NATO.”””””””

    Reply
  48. Prototype comment of an arrogant american kid with a poor level of education. We lived 300 years under muslim rule and we are here in 2018. We did not need the help of the USA to survive against the Ottoman Empire. On contrary, the USA are doing everything they can to destroy our country and Europe today. If you want to take billions of foreigners into your contry to make it look like India, that’s your problem. If you are angry at Russia because this country keeps its civilised and traditionnal values. It’s your problem. Russia will protect Greece if needed. We don’t need your “peace” (rule) nor the world needs it ! Europe needs Russia to balance your hegemonic political and economical rule and your Gov. knows it perfectly, that’s why they punish any country who wants to be normal with Russia. For your information, Europe did not ask for your help against Germany. Only your English cultural brothers “cough” “cough” “dogs”. I know the only sources of information you have is your government controlled medias. But it’s not a reason to spray such bullsh** such as saying anyone in the world should be thankful to the USA. You country is like any country. It works for its interests, you dumbass. The world does not need your lessons of “democracy” when one gov. is not chosen with your approval. The world doesn’t need your degenerated cultural lessons. Why do the USA hate Russia ? Has Russia done anything different the USA are doing in the whole world every day ? Russia protects its european borders. So USA, abandon all your military conquest in the world and go back sitting inside your borders ; better for you and us. Thank you. By the way, with your logic, the USA should be infinitely greatful to Europe to exist and to have acquired such a powerful level because it was inhabitated by highly intelligent european people.

    Reply
  49. poland can live without the US , they would just need to enter the Russia/China sphere of influence” Matteo-speak for: “Get conquered

    Reply
  50. NATO is totally worthless and US alliances are secure only if US perceives them to be vital part of its national security. US can live without Poland. Poland cannot live without US. For Washington if Russia takes over thsi area its unfortunate, but one can accomodate to this quite easily. For Poland this is game over. Thats the difference and therefore no sane person expects both countries to react similarly to russian threats.” Yup. Most people don’t think things through. They just react “But…NATO…alliance!” without thinking anything about said alliance or why we are in it or even whether we should be. Lemmings.

    Reply
  51. If you do not see Russia as an enemy directly harming US interests you haven’t been paying attention to your last election,” Yeah…their collusion with the Democrats to make this fake dossier to try and nail Trump with. National Guard Fake Memos 2.0

    Reply
  52. No it isn’t. Best deal: Pull out of NATO completely and redirect the massive savings in military spending to another tax cut. Screw Europe!

    Reply
  53. And haven’t they deployed nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad? …and show me where Congress ratified this ‘act’? Oh, they didn’t? Then it’s just a scrap of ‘feel good’ paper and nothing else.

    Reply
  54. Anthony From Greece. The ONLY reason you didn’t grow up speaking Turkish and worshipping Allah is because of the peace the US imposed on Greece and Turkey via NATO during the Cold War. You want the US gone? Fine. No problem. The majority of Americans want it too. We’ll leave and have fun watching you get conquered by the Turks — all on TV!

    Reply
  55. Poland joined NATO in 1999 along with Hungary and the Czech Republic, and since then other former communist states, including Baltic republics bordering Russia, have joined despite Moscow’s strong opposition.” The US has a huge ‘commitment insolvency’ issue regarding our alliance obligations. This expansion of NATO is one of the big reasons why. ‘commitment insolvency’ means we have commitments that can not be met if called upon. Either because we can not do so or will not (because the US public won’t tolerate it) do so. Committing to risking US cities to nuclear attack to deter Moscow from invading Western Europe during the Cold War was one thing, doing so now that the Cold War is over and Russia is not a viable competitor to threatening the US way of life (Russia is NOT the Soviet Union 2.0) will not be politically tolerated. Better to withdraw from those commitments now so we don’t pay the credibility damage with our other allies that we do want to/can keep our commitments with that will happen when we leave Europe high and dry should war actually break out between Russia and NATO.

    Reply
  56. Prototype comment of an arrogant american kid with a poor level of education. We lived 300 years under muslim rule and we are here in 2018. We did not need the help of the USA to survive against the Ottoman Empire. On contrary the USA are doing everything they can to destroy our country and Europe today. If you want to take billions of foreigners into your contry to make it look like India that’s your problem. If you are angry at Russia because this country keeps its civilised and traditionnal values. It’s your problem. Russia will protect Greece if needed. We don’t need your peace”” (rule) nor the world needs it ! Europe needs Russia to balance your hegemonic political and economical rule and your Gov. knows it perfectly”” that’s why they punish any country who wants to be normal with Russia.For your information”” Europe did not ask for your help against Germany. Only your English cultural brothers “”””cough”””” “”””cough”””” “”””dogs””””.I know the only sources of information you have is your government controlled medias. But it’s not a reason to spray such bullsh** such as saying anyone in the world should be thankful to the USA. You country is like any country. It works for its interests”””” you dumbass. The world does not need your lessons of “”””democracy”””” when one gov. is not chosen with your approval. The world doesn’t need your degenerated cultural lessons.Why do the USA hate Russia ? Has Russia done anything different the USA are doing in the whole world every day ? Russia protects its european borders. So USA”” abandon all your military conquest in the world and go back sitting inside your borders ; better for you and us. Thank you.By the way with your logic”” the USA should be infinitely greatful to Europe to exist and to have acquired such a powerful level because it was inhabitated by highly intelligent european people.”””

    Reply
  57. poland can live without the US ” they would just need to enter the Russia/China sphere of influence””Matteo-speak for: “”””Get conquered”””””””

    Reply
  58. NATO is totally worthless and US alliances are secure only if US perceives them to be vital part of its national security. US can live without Poland. Poland cannot live without US. For Washington if Russia takes over thsi area its unfortunate” but one can accomodate to this quite easily. For Poland this is game over. Thats the difference and therefore no sane person expects both countries to react similarly to russian threats.””Yup. Most people don’t think things through. They just react “”””But…NATO…alliance!”””” without thinking anything about said alliance or why we are in it or even whether we should be. Lemmings.”””

    Reply
  59. If you do not see Russia as an enemy directly harming US interests you haven’t been paying attention to your last election”””Yeah…their collusion with the Democrats to make this fake dossier to try and nail Trump with.National Guard Fake Memos 2.0″””

    Reply
  60. No it isn’t. Best deal: Pull out of NATO completely and redirect the massive savings in military spending to another tax cut.Screw Europe!

    Reply
  61. And haven’t they deployed nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad? …and show me where Congress ratified this ‘act’? Oh they didn’t? Then it’s just a scrap of ‘feel good’ paper and nothing else.

    Reply
  62. Anthony From Greece. The ONLY reason you didn’t grow up speaking Turkish and worshipping Allah is because of the peace the US imposed on Greece and Turkey via NATO during the Cold War. You want the US gone? Fine. No problem. The majority of Americans want it too. We’ll leave and have fun watching you get conquered by the Turks — all on TV!

    Reply
  63. Withdrawing from commitments is a worse sin in international diplomacy than the hypothetical insolvency you describe” No. It is not. Not fulfilling them is. “because said insolvency is subjectively debatable” No, it isn’t. “Fuck those people, AMERICA FIRST” Live in your alternate reality. That is America today.

    Reply
  64. This is a volcanic island so dropping a nuke would trigger a volcanic eruption. This would cause a mega tsunami causing tremendous damage and loss of life. I do not believe Russia or China would do that, but if a terrorist group acquired a nuke then they would.

    Reply
  65. For your information” Europe did not ask for your help against Germany””Historical FACT says otherwise. They were begging for your help long before we entered the war.”””

    Reply
  66. Withdrawing from commitments is a worse sin in international diplomacy than the hypothetical insolvency you describe””No. It is not. Not fulfilling them is.””””because said insolvency is subjectively debatable””””No”””” it isn’t.””””Fuck those people”””” AMERICA FIRST””””Live in your alternate reality. That is America today.”””

    Reply
  67. This is a volcanic island so dropping a nuke would trigger a volcanic eruption. This would cause a mega tsunami causing tremendous damage and loss of life. I do not believe Russia or China would do that but if a terrorist group acquired a nuke then they would.

    Reply
  68. Sorry, I get confused by your messages sometimes, I’m so used to hearing it in German. Keep telling yourself that real world consequences are more commonly wrought by hypothetical outcomes than real ones. Good lord.

    Reply
  69. For your information, Europe did not ask for your help against Germany” Historical FACT says otherwise. They were begging for your help long before we entered the war.

    Reply
  70. Sorry I get confused by your messages sometimes I’m so used to hearing it in German.Keep telling yourself that real world consequences are more commonly wrought by hypothetical outcomes than real ones. Good lord.

    Reply
  71. That must be what Aegis Ashore means, “on its own”. Granted, its delayed, but it’s still going in. SM3 Block IIA is a mid course defense solution from Polish soil protecting mainland Europe. Now, granted, it won’t have the numbers without an enormous commitment. Even the Russians know it can do it. A Russian report leaked, being extremely worried Block IIA is a mid course solution.

    Reply
  72. That must be what Aegis Ashore means on its own””. Granted”” its delayed but it’s still going in. SM3 Block IIA is a mid course defense solution from Polish soil protecting mainland Europe. Now granted it won’t have the numbers without an enormous commitment. Even the Russians know it can do it. A Russian report leaked”” being extremely worried Block IIA is a mid course solution.”””

    Reply
  73. Hmmm “Commitment Insolvency” interesting… America derives it’s true Commitment Insolvency from the electoral process. As I recall, was it not Clinton in office in 1997 when that weak and thoughtless NATO deal was made? That was one in a long list of “deals” and information giveaways and technology transfers that weren’t in the best interests of America (or the people in foreign lands enduring Soviet oppression.) How bad was it for them? If my entire family fled Sicily because of the Socialist policies Rome was implementing, we can only imagine how horrible it must have been to live in occupied Latvia, Poland, or Estonia. Today, America has a strong president who is an expert at negotiation and economic coercion. In most cases, military prowess will prove unnecessary. And truth be told, the most effective American policy tool has always been economic, not military coercion. Trump understands that Russia is a paper tiger. Yes, a paper tiger with nuclear weapons, but nonetheless, a paper tiger tittering on the verge of economic collapse. We are in the process of diverting billions in oil and gas revenues from Putin, and eventually, he will not be able to afford to subvert even a small helpless country. And not to cast dispersion on Warrentheap’s assessment below; that “the U.S public won’t tolerate” our commitments, but truly, that was the Obama era. There are tens of millions of Americans who want our country to again “Lead from in Front” and we are. However, the new paradigm is an American Economic Powerhouse that can easily outspend (or isolate) any nation (or group of nations) on earth. The best practice is to cooperate with us, not foment ill will. To wit, America should lead; should hold it’s economic interests first; should fight tyrants; should destroy terrorists whenever and wherever necessary. The smart countries like Poland, China, Japan, and India will become our true economic allies and benefit greatly as such. And just perhaps – Russia w

    Reply
  74. Hmmm Commitment Insolvency”” interesting… America derives it’s true Commitment Insolvency from the electoral process. As I recall”””” was it not Clinton in office in 1997 when that weak and thoughtless NATO deal was made? That was one in a long list of “”””deals”””” and information giveaways and technology transfers that weren’t in the best interests of America (or the people in foreign lands enduring Soviet oppression.) How bad was it for them? If my entire family fled Sicily because of the Socialist policies Rome was implementing”” we can only imagine how horrible it must have been to live in occupied Latvia Poland or Estonia. Today America has a strong president who is an expert at negotiation and economic coercion. In most cases military prowess will prove unnecessary. And truth be told the most effective American policy tool has always been economic not military coercion. Trump understands that Russia is a paper tiger. Yes a paper tiger with nuclear weapons but nonetheless a paper tiger tittering on the verge of economic collapse. We are in the process of diverting billions in oil and gas revenues from Putin and eventually”” he will not be able to afford to subvert even a small helpless country. And not to cast dispersion on Warrentheap’s assessment below; that “”””the U.S public won’t tolerate”””” our commitments”” but truly”” that was the Obama era. There are tens of millions of Americans who want our country to again “”””Lead from in Front”””” and we are. However”” the new paradigm is an American Economic Powerhouse that can easily outspend (or isolate) any nation (or group of nations) on earth. The best practice is to cooperate with us not foment ill will. To wit America should lead; should hold it’s economic interests first; should fight tyrants; should destroy terrorists whenever and wherever necessary. The smart countries like Poland China Japan”” and India will become our true economic allies and benefit greatly as such. And just per”

    Reply
  75. Hmmm “Commitment Insolvency” interesting… America derives it’s true Commitment Insolvency from the electoral process. As I recall, was it not Clinton in office in 1997 when that weak and thoughtless NATO deal was made? That was one in a long list of “deals” and information giveaways and technology transfers that weren’t in the best interests of America (or the people in foreign lands enduring Soviet oppression.) How bad was it for them? If my entire family fled Sicily because of the Socialist policies Rome was implementing, we can only imagine how horrible it must have been to live in occupied Latvia, Poland, or Estonia. Today, America has a strong president who is an expert at negotiation and economic coercion. In most cases, military prowess will prove unnecessary. And truth be told, the most effective American policy tool has always been economic, not military coercion. Trump understands that Russia is a paper tiger. Yes, a paper tiger with nuclear weapons, but nonetheless, a paper tiger tittering on the verge of economic collapse. We are in the process of diverting billions in oil and gas revenues from Putin, and eventually, he will not be able to afford to subvert even a small helpless country. And not to cast dispersion on Warrentheap’s assessment below; that “the U.S public won’t tolerate” our commitments, but truly, that was the Obama era. There are tens of millions of Americans who want our country to again “Lead from in Front” and we are. However, the new paradigm is an American Economic Powerhouse that can easily outspend (or isolate) any nation (or group of nations) on earth. The best practice is to cooperate with us, not foment ill will. To wit, America should lead; should hold it’s economic interests first; should fight tyrants; should destroy terrorists whenever and wherever necessary. The smart countries like Poland, China, Japan, and India will become our true economic allies and benefit greatly as such. And just perhaps – Russia w

    Reply
  76. Hmmm Commitment Insolvency”” interesting… America derives it’s true Commitment Insolvency from the electoral process. As I recall”””” was it not Clinton in office in 1997 when that weak and thoughtless NATO deal was made? That was one in a long list of “”””deals”””” and information giveaways and technology transfers that weren’t in the best interests of America (or the people in foreign lands enduring Soviet oppression.) How bad was it for them? If my entire family fled Sicily because of the Socialist policies Rome was implementing”” we can only imagine how horrible it must have been to live in occupied Latvia Poland or Estonia. Today America has a strong president who is an expert at negotiation and economic coercion. In most cases military prowess will prove unnecessary. And truth be told the most effective American policy tool has always been economic not military coercion. Trump understands that Russia is a paper tiger. Yes a paper tiger with nuclear weapons but nonetheless a paper tiger tittering on the verge of economic collapse. We are in the process of diverting billions in oil and gas revenues from Putin and eventually”” he will not be able to afford to subvert even a small helpless country. And not to cast dispersion on Warrentheap’s assessment below; that “”””the U.S public won’t tolerate”””” our commitments”” but truly”” that was the Obama era. There are tens of millions of Americans who want our country to again “”””Lead from in Front”””” and we are. However”” the new paradigm is an American Economic Powerhouse that can easily outspend (or isolate) any nation (or group of nations) on earth. The best practice is to cooperate with us not foment ill will. To wit America should lead; should hold it’s economic interests first; should fight tyrants; should destroy terrorists whenever and wherever necessary. The smart countries like Poland China Japan”” and India will become our true economic allies and benefit greatly as such. And just per”

    Reply
  77. Hmmm “Commitment Insolvency” interesting… America derives it’s true Commitment Insolvency from the electoral process. As I recall, was it not Clinton in office in 1997 when that weak and thoughtless NATO deal was made? That was one in a long list of “deals” and information giveaways and technology transfers that weren’t in the best interests of America (or the people in foreign lands enduring Soviet oppression.)

    How bad was it for them? If my entire family fled Sicily because of the Socialist policies Rome was implementing, we can only imagine how horrible it must have been to live in occupied Latvia, Poland, or Estonia.

    Today, America has a strong president who is an expert at negotiation and economic coercion. In most cases, military prowess will prove unnecessary. And truth be told, the most effective American policy tool has always been economic, not military coercion. Trump understands that Russia is a paper tiger. Yes, a paper tiger with nuclear weapons, but nonetheless, a paper tiger tittering on the verge of economic collapse. We are in the process of diverting billions in oil and gas revenues from Putin, and eventually, he will not be able to afford to subvert even a small helpless country.

    And not to cast dispersion on Warrentheap’s assessment below; that “the U.S public won’t tolerate” our commitments, but truly, that was the Obama era. There are tens of millions of Americans who want our country to again “Lead from in Front” and we are.

    However, the new paradigm is an American Economic Powerhouse that can easily outspend (or isolate) any nation (or group of nations) on earth. The best practice is to cooperate with us, not foment ill will. To wit, America should lead; should hold it’s economic interests first; should fight tyrants; should destroy terrorists whenever and wherever necessary. The smart countries like Poland, China, Japan, and India will become our true economic allies and benefit greatly as such. And just perhaps – Russia will further implode under it’s own suffocating dead weight.

    Reply
  78. That must be what Aegis Ashore means, “on its own”. Granted, its delayed, but it’s still going in. SM3 Block IIA is a mid course defense solution from Polish soil protecting mainland Europe. Now, granted, it won’t have the numbers without an enormous commitment. Even the Russians know it can do it. A Russian report leaked, being extremely worried Block IIA is a mid course solution.

    Reply
  79. That must be what Aegis Ashore means on its own””. Granted”” its delayed but it’s still going in. SM3 Block IIA is a mid course defense solution from Polish soil protecting mainland Europe. Now granted it won’t have the numbers without an enormous commitment. Even the Russians know it can do it. A Russian report leaked”” being extremely worried Block IIA is a mid course solution.”””

    Reply
  80. Sorry, I get confused by your messages sometimes, I’m so used to hearing it in German. Keep telling yourself that real world consequences are more commonly wrought by hypothetical outcomes than real ones. Good lord.

    Reply
  81. Sorry I get confused by your messages sometimes I’m so used to hearing it in German.Keep telling yourself that real world consequences are more commonly wrought by hypothetical outcomes than real ones. Good lord.

    Reply
  82. For your information, Europe did not ask for your help against Germany” Historical FACT says otherwise. They were begging for your help long before we entered the war.

    Reply
  83. For your information” Europe did not ask for your help against Germany””Historical FACT says otherwise. They were begging for your help long before we entered the war.”””

    Reply
  84. Withdrawing from commitments is a worse sin in international diplomacy than the hypothetical insolvency you describe” No. It is not. Not fulfilling them is. “because said insolvency is subjectively debatable” No, it isn’t. “Fuck those people, AMERICA FIRST” Live in your alternate reality. That is America today.

    Reply
  85. Withdrawing from commitments is a worse sin in international diplomacy than the hypothetical insolvency you describe””No. It is not. Not fulfilling them is.””””because said insolvency is subjectively debatable””””No”””” it isn’t.””””Fuck those people”””” AMERICA FIRST””””Live in your alternate reality. That is America today.”””

    Reply
  86. This is a volcanic island so dropping a nuke would trigger a volcanic eruption. This would cause a mega tsunami causing tremendous damage and loss of life. I do not believe Russia or China would do that, but if a terrorist group acquired a nuke then they would.

    Reply
  87. This is a volcanic island so dropping a nuke would trigger a volcanic eruption. This would cause a mega tsunami causing tremendous damage and loss of life. I do not believe Russia or China would do that but if a terrorist group acquired a nuke then they would.

    Reply
  88. That must be what Aegis Ashore means, “on its own”. Granted, its delayed, but it’s still going in. SM3 Block IIA is a mid course defense solution from Polish soil protecting mainland Europe. Now, granted, it won’t have the numbers without an enormous commitment. Even the Russians know it can do it. A Russian report leaked, being extremely worried Block IIA is a mid course solution.

    Reply
  89. Prototype comment of an arrogant american kid with a poor level of education. We lived 300 years under muslim rule and we are here in 2018. We did not need the help of the USA to survive against the Ottoman Empire. On contrary, the USA are doing everything they can to destroy our country and Europe today. If you want to take billions of foreigners into your contry to make it look like India, that’s your problem. If you are angry at Russia because this country keeps its civilised and traditionnal values. It’s your problem. Russia will protect Greece if needed. We don’t need your “peace” (rule) nor the world needs it ! Europe needs Russia to balance your hegemonic political and economical rule and your Gov. knows it perfectly, that’s why they punish any country who wants to be normal with Russia. For your information, Europe did not ask for your help against Germany. Only your English cultural brothers “cough” “cough” “dogs”. I know the only sources of information you have is your government controlled medias. But it’s not a reason to spray such bullsh** such as saying anyone in the world should be thankful to the USA. You country is like any country. It works for its interests, you dumbass. The world does not need your lessons of “democracy” when one gov. is not chosen with your approval. The world doesn’t need your degenerated cultural lessons. Why do the USA hate Russia ? Has Russia done anything different the USA are doing in the whole world every day ? Russia protects its european borders. So USA, abandon all your military conquest in the world and go back sitting inside your borders ; better for you and us. Thank you. By the way, with your logic, the USA should be infinitely greatful to Europe to exist and to have acquired such a powerful level because it was inhabitated by highly intelligent european people.

    Reply
  90. Prototype comment of an arrogant american kid with a poor level of education. We lived 300 years under muslim rule and we are here in 2018. We did not need the help of the USA to survive against the Ottoman Empire. On contrary the USA are doing everything they can to destroy our country and Europe today. If you want to take billions of foreigners into your contry to make it look like India that’s your problem. If you are angry at Russia because this country keeps its civilised and traditionnal values. It’s your problem. Russia will protect Greece if needed. We don’t need your peace”” (rule) nor the world needs it ! Europe needs Russia to balance your hegemonic political and economical rule and your Gov. knows it perfectly”” that’s why they punish any country who wants to be normal with Russia.For your information”” Europe did not ask for your help against Germany. Only your English cultural brothers “”””cough”””” “”””cough”””” “”””dogs””””.I know the only sources of information you have is your government controlled medias. But it’s not a reason to spray such bullsh** such as saying anyone in the world should be thankful to the USA. You country is like any country. It works for its interests”””” you dumbass. The world does not need your lessons of “”””democracy”””” when one gov. is not chosen with your approval. The world doesn’t need your degenerated cultural lessons.Why do the USA hate Russia ? Has Russia done anything different the USA are doing in the whole world every day ? Russia protects its european borders. So USA”” abandon all your military conquest in the world and go back sitting inside your borders ; better for you and us. Thank you.By the way with your logic”” the USA should be infinitely greatful to Europe to exist and to have acquired such a powerful level because it was inhabitated by highly intelligent european people.”””

    Reply
  91. poland can live without the US , they would just need to enter the Russia/China sphere of influence” Matteo-speak for: “Get conquered

    Reply
  92. poland can live without the US ” they would just need to enter the Russia/China sphere of influence””Matteo-speak for: “”””Get conquered”””””””

    Reply
  93. NATO is totally worthless and US alliances are secure only if US perceives them to be vital part of its national security. US can live without Poland. Poland cannot live without US. For Washington if Russia takes over thsi area its unfortunate, but one can accomodate to this quite easily. For Poland this is game over. Thats the difference and therefore no sane person expects both countries to react similarly to russian threats.” Yup. Most people don’t think things through. They just react “But…NATO…alliance!” without thinking anything about said alliance or why we are in it or even whether we should be. Lemmings.

    Reply
  94. NATO is totally worthless and US alliances are secure only if US perceives them to be vital part of its national security. US can live without Poland. Poland cannot live without US. For Washington if Russia takes over thsi area its unfortunate” but one can accomodate to this quite easily. For Poland this is game over. Thats the difference and therefore no sane person expects both countries to react similarly to russian threats.””Yup. Most people don’t think things through. They just react “”””But…NATO…alliance!”””” without thinking anything about said alliance or why we are in it or even whether we should be. Lemmings.”””

    Reply
  95. If you do not see Russia as an enemy directly harming US interests you haven’t been paying attention to your last election,” Yeah…their collusion with the Democrats to make this fake dossier to try and nail Trump with. National Guard Fake Memos 2.0

    Reply
  96. If you do not see Russia as an enemy directly harming US interests you haven’t been paying attention to your last election”””Yeah…their collusion with the Democrats to make this fake dossier to try and nail Trump with.National Guard Fake Memos 2.0″””

    Reply
  97. No it isn’t. Best deal: Pull out of NATO completely and redirect the massive savings in military spending to another tax cut. Screw Europe!

    Reply
  98. No it isn’t. Best deal: Pull out of NATO completely and redirect the massive savings in military spending to another tax cut.Screw Europe!

    Reply
  99. And haven’t they deployed nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad? …and show me where Congress ratified this ‘act’? Oh, they didn’t? Then it’s just a scrap of ‘feel good’ paper and nothing else.

    Reply
  100. And haven’t they deployed nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad? …and show me where Congress ratified this ‘act’? Oh they didn’t? Then it’s just a scrap of ‘feel good’ paper and nothing else.

    Reply
  101. Anthony From Greece. The ONLY reason you didn’t grow up speaking Turkish and worshipping Allah is because of the peace the US imposed on Greece and Turkey via NATO during the Cold War. You want the US gone? Fine. No problem. The majority of Americans want it too. We’ll leave and have fun watching you get conquered by the Turks — all on TV!

    Reply
  102. Anthony From Greece. The ONLY reason you didn’t grow up speaking Turkish and worshipping Allah is because of the peace the US imposed on Greece and Turkey via NATO during the Cold War. You want the US gone? Fine. No problem. The majority of Americans want it too. We’ll leave and have fun watching you get conquered by the Turks — all on TV!

    Reply
  103. Poland joined NATO in 1999 along with Hungary and the Czech Republic, and since then other former communist states, including Baltic republics bordering Russia, have joined despite Moscow’s strong opposition.” The US has a huge ‘commitment insolvency’ issue regarding our alliance obligations. This expansion of NATO is one of the big reasons why. ‘commitment insolvency’ means we have commitments that can not be met if called upon. Either because we can not do so or will not (because the US public won’t tolerate it) do so. Committing to risking US cities to nuclear attack to deter Moscow from invading Western Europe during the Cold War was one thing, doing so now that the Cold War is over and Russia is not a viable competitor to threatening the US way of life (Russia is NOT the Soviet Union 2.0) will not be politically tolerated. Better to withdraw from those commitments now so we don’t pay the credibility damage with our other allies that we do want to/can keep our commitments with that will happen when we leave Europe high and dry should war actually break out between Russia and NATO.

    Reply
  104. Poland joined NATO in 1999 along with Hungary and the Czech Republic and since then other former communist states including Baltic republics bordering Russia” have joined despite Moscow’s strong opposition.””The US has a huge ‘commitment insolvency’ issue regarding our alliance obligations. This expansion of NATO is one of the big reasons why.’commitment insolvency’ means we have commitments that can not be met if called upon. Either because we can not do so or will not (because the US public won’t tolerate it) do so. Committing to risking US cities to nuclear attack to deter Moscow from invading Western Europe during the Cold War was one thing”””” doing so now that the Cold War is over and Russia is not a viable competitor to threatening the US way of life (Russia is NOT the Soviet Union 2.0) will not be politically tolerated.Better to withdraw from those commitments now so we don’t pay the credibility damage with our other allies that we do want to/can keep our commitments with that will happen when we leave Europe high and dry should war actually break out between Russia and NATO.”””””””

    Reply
  105. I see all this military spending a waste of money. They are just all targets for heavily armed drones. It would be better spent on providing free global internet. That means we would be too busy talking to each other than fighting each other. History shows us that China and Russia built walls. That tells me they want to defend themselves not attack anyone.

    Reply
  106. I see all this military spending a waste of money. They are just all targets for heavily armed drones. It would be better spent on providing free global internet. That means we would be too busy talking to each other than fighting each other. History shows us that China and Russia built walls. That tells me they want to defend themselves not attack anyone.

    Reply
  107. Sorry, I get confused by your messages sometimes, I’m so used to hearing it in German.

    Keep telling yourself that real world consequences are more commonly wrought by hypothetical outcomes than real ones. Good lord.

    Reply
  108. “Withdrawing from commitments is a worse sin in international diplomacy than the hypothetical insolvency you describe”

    No. It is not.

    Not fulfilling them is.

    “because said insolvency is subjectively debatable”

    No, it isn’t.

    “Fuck those people, AMERICA FIRST”

    Live in your alternate reality. That is America today.

    Reply
  109. This is a volcanic island so dropping a nuke would trigger a volcanic eruption. This would cause a mega tsunami causing tremendous damage and loss of life. I do not believe Russia or China would do that, but if a terrorist group acquired a nuke then they would.

    Reply
  110. Prototype comment of an arrogant american kid with a poor level of education. We lived 300 years under muslim rule and we are here in 2018. We did not need the help of the USA to survive against the Ottoman Empire. On contrary, the USA are doing everything they can to destroy our country and Europe today. If you want to take billions of foreigners into your contry to make it look like India, that’s your problem. If you are angry at Russia because this country keeps its civilised and traditionnal values. It’s your problem. Russia will protect Greece if needed. We don’t need your “peace” (rule) nor the world needs it ! Europe needs Russia to balance your hegemonic political and economical rule and your Gov. knows it perfectly, that’s why they punish any country who wants to be normal with Russia.
    For your information, Europe did not ask for your help against Germany. Only your English cultural brothers “cough” “cough” “dogs”.
    I know the only sources of information you have is your government controlled medias. But it’s not a reason to spray such bullsh** such as saying anyone in the world should be thankful to the USA. You country is like any country. It works for its interests, you dumbass. The world does not need your lessons of “democracy” when one gov. is not chosen with your approval. The world doesn’t need your degenerated cultural lessons.
    Why do the USA hate Russia ? Has Russia done anything different the USA are doing in the whole world every day ? Russia protects its european borders. So USA, abandon all your military conquest in the world and go back sitting inside your borders ; better for you and us. Thank you.
    By the way, with your logic, the USA should be infinitely greatful to Europe to exist and to have acquired such a powerful level because it was inhabitated by highly intelligent european people.

    Reply
  111. “NATO is totally worthless and US alliances are secure only if US perceives them to be vital part of its national security. US can live without Poland. Poland cannot live without US. For Washington if Russia takes over thsi area its unfortunate, but one can accomodate to this quite easily. For Poland this is game over. Thats the difference and therefore no sane person expects both countries to react similarly to russian threats.”

    Yup. Most people don’t think things through. They just react “But…NATO…alliance!” without thinking anything about said alliance or why we are in it or even whether we should be. Lemmings.

    Reply
  112. “If you do not see Russia as an enemy directly harming US interests you haven’t been paying attention to your last election,”

    Yeah…their collusion with the Democrats to make this fake dossier to try and nail Trump with.

    National Guard Fake Memos 2.0

    Reply
  113. And haven’t they deployed nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad?

    …and show me where Congress ratified this ‘act’?

    Oh, they didn’t? Then it’s just a scrap of ‘feel good’ paper and nothing else.

    Reply
  114. Anthony From Greece.

    The ONLY reason you didn’t grow up speaking Turkish and worshipping Allah is because of the peace the US imposed on Greece and Turkey via NATO during the Cold War.

    You want the US gone? Fine. No problem. The majority of Americans want it too.

    We’ll leave and have fun watching you get conquered by the Turks — all on TV!

    Reply
  115. “Poland joined NATO in 1999 along with Hungary and the Czech Republic, and since then other former communist states, including Baltic republics bordering Russia, have joined despite Moscow’s strong opposition.”

    The US has a huge ‘commitment insolvency’ issue regarding our alliance obligations. This expansion of NATO is one of the big reasons why.

    ‘commitment insolvency’ means we have commitments that can not be met if called upon. Either because we can not do so or will not (because the US public won’t tolerate it) do so.

    Committing to risking US cities to nuclear attack to deter Moscow from invading Western Europe during the Cold War was one thing, doing so now that the Cold War is over and Russia is not a viable competitor to threatening the US way of life (Russia is NOT the Soviet Union 2.0) will not be politically tolerated.

    Better to withdraw from those commitments now so we don’t pay the credibility damage with our other allies that we do want to/can keep our commitments with that will happen when we leave Europe high and dry should war actually break out between Russia and NATO.

    Reply
  116. I see all this military spending a waste of money. They are just all targets for heavily armed drones. It would be better spent on providing free global internet. That means we would be too busy talking to each other than fighting each other. History shows us that China and Russia built walls. That tells me they want to defend themselves not attack anyone.

    Reply
  117. Yes, look to Greece, such an iconic example. Everyone thinks of Greece when they think economic and scientific power house! LOL – go back to living off your entitlements as you sit on you butt complaining about the nation that saved your butt from the Nazis.

    Reply
  118. Yes look to Greece such an iconic example. Everyone thinks of Greece when they think economic and scientific power house! LOL – go back to living off your entitlements as you sit on you butt complaining about the nation that saved your butt from the Nazis.

    Reply
  119. Yes, look to Greece, such an iconic example. Everyone thinks of Greece when they think economic and scientific power house! LOL – go back to living off your entitlements as you sit on you butt complaining about the nation that saved your butt from the Nazis.

    Reply
  120. Yes and no. The statement that Poland “cannot live without US” is meant in the context (I would presume) of a liberal, democratic and prosperous nation. Yes, the US is becoming weaker, but it’s relative. USA is 20 times richer than Russia, and most of this wealth comes down to the mindsets of its people. Both nations have equivalent resources. The USA is “weaker” mostly in relation to the rising military power of China and its own imperial ambitions.

    Reply
  121. Yes and no.The statement that Poland cannot live without US”” is meant in the context(I would presume) of a liberal”” democratic and prosperous nation.Yes the US is becoming weaker but it’s relative. USA is 20 times richer thanRussia”” and most of this wealth comes down to the mindsets of its people.Both nations have equivalent resources.The USA is “”””weaker”””” mostly in relation to the rising military power of Chinaand its own imperial ambitions.”””

    Reply
  122. having won most of the above battles – Assad still in power Russia 1 US 0 – Crimea now part of Russia Russia 2 US 0 Iran not baking down Russia 3 US 0 Nordstream II being done Russia 4 US 0 and so on..

    Reply
  123. having won most of the above battles – Assad still in power Russia 1 US 0 – Crimea now part of Russia Russia 2 US 0Iran not baking down Russia 3 US 0 Nordstream II being done Russia 4 US 0 and so on..

    Reply
  124. This, now Poland has two benefits, is an pretty cheap country compared to Germany this makes basing troops there pretty cheap. Anybody who read a bit of Polish history see that getting invaded and decimated is pretty common. it makes perfectly sense to want protection.

    Reply
  125. This now Poland has two benefits is an pretty cheap country compared to Germany this makes basing troops there pretty cheap. Anybody who read a bit of Polish history see that getting invaded and decimated is pretty common. it makes perfectly sense to want protection.

    Reply
  126. Yeah, Greece did really well so long as it was subsidized by the EU. Now, not so great. And by the way, the US military has left nations that asked them to do so. France, Iraq, the Philippines are a few examples, though some have changed their minds.

    Reply
  127. Yeah Greece did really well so long as it was subsidized by the EU. Now not so great.And by the way the US military has left nations that asked them to do so. France Iraq the Philippines are a few examples though some have changed their minds.

    Reply
  128. The Middle East has not changed since biblical times, psychopathic leaders engaged in endless conflict. Who can be sure of the best policy to deal with people that are locked in to endless tribal conflict.

    Reply
  129. The Middle East has not changed since biblical times psychopathic leaders engaged in endless conflict. Who can be sure of the best policy to deal with people that are locked in to endless tribal conflict.

    Reply
  130. I was thinking of the Canary Islands as a landslide there could cause a mega tsunami, but The “system six” if properly targeted could do a lot of damage.

    Reply
  131. I was thinking of the Canary Islands as a landslide there could cause a mega tsunami but The system six”” if properly targeted could do a lot of damage.”””

    Reply
  132. No one in their right mind would attack a NATO country. You might win a war against one but not nineteen. It would not stop at nineteen countries, much of South America would defend Spain, and Australia and New Zealand would defend the UK, Canada, and US.

    Reply
  133. No one in their right mind would attack a NATO country. You might win a war against one but not nineteen. It would not stop at nineteen countries much of South America would defend Spain and Australia and New Zealand would defend the UK Canada and US.

    Reply
  134. The “system six” system could be possible and produce a five hundred meter wave. I was thinking of the Canary Islands, if you can trigger a landslide there you could create a mega tsunami.

    Reply
  135. The system six”” system could be possible and produce a five hundred meter wave. I was thinking of the Canary Islands”””” if you can trigger a landslide there you could create a mega tsunami.”””

    Reply
  136. Yes and no.
    The statement that Poland “cannot live without US” is meant in the context
    (I would presume) of a liberal, democratic and prosperous nation.
    Yes, the US is becoming weaker, but it’s relative. USA is 20 times richer than
    Russia, and most of this wealth comes down to the mindsets of its people.
    Both nations have equivalent resources.
    The USA is “weaker” mostly in relation to the rising military power of China
    and its own imperial ambitions.

    Reply
  137. To be honest, I think this is a much simpler calculus than everybody believes. The U.S. isn’t worried about pissing off Russia or starting a war with Russia. I don’t think Russia would chance an invasion of Poland: no reason to give the U.S. a valid excuse to go to war. I think the primary considerations of the U.S. are: 1. Are we better off reinvesting in our facilities in Germany or starting from scratch elsewhere? 2. Is now a good time to give Germany the finger or do we wait until we are in some sort of a trade negotiation with the E.U?

    Reply
  138. To be honest I think this is a much simpler calculus than everybody believes. The U.S. isn’t worried about pissing off Russia or starting a war with Russia. I don’t think Russia would chance an invasion of Poland: no reason to give the U.S. a valid excuse to go to war. I think the primary considerations of the U.S. are:1. Are we better off reinvesting in our facilities in Germany or starting from scratch elsewhere?2. Is now a good time to give Germany the finger or do we wait until we are in some sort of a trade negotiation with the E.U?

    Reply
  139. The myth of the Russian “nuclear tidal wave” has been debunked. As powerful as nuclear weapons are, they pale in comparison to the forces of nature. The number of warheads needed to achieve what you suggest would do far more damage if they targeted land-targets directly.

    Reply
  140. The myth of the Russian uclear tidal wave”” has been debunked. As powerful as nuclear weapons are”””” they pale in comparison to the forces of nature. The number of warheads needed to achieve what you suggest would do far more damage if they targeted land-targets directly.”””

    Reply
  141. If you do not see Russia as an enemy directly harming US interests you haven’t been paying attention to your last election, Nordstream II, Russia’s role in Syria and it’s relationship with the likes of Iran, China and North Korea. And these are just a few issues, there’s many, many others. Virtually Russia’s entire foreign policy runs counter to America’s.

    Reply
  142. If you do not see Russia as an enemy directly harming US interests you haven’t been paying attention to your last election Nordstream II Russia’s role in Syria and it’s relationship with the likes of Iran China and North Korea. And these are just a few issues there’s many many others. Virtually Russia’s entire foreign policy runs counter to America’s.

    Reply
  143. Best location to deter Russian aggression paid for by the host country. RAND study states we need to have 35,000 troops in Easter Europe to deter Russian from mass incursion into Europe. This would be another small step towards that goal.

    Reply
  144. Best location to deter Russian aggression paid for by the host country. RAND study states we need to have 35000 troops in Easter Europe to deter Russian from mass incursion into Europe. This would be another small step towards that goal.

    Reply
  145. Nonsense. Your average tropical storm has vastly more energy. You would have to use hundreds to thousands of nuclear weapons to generate a massive wave capable of doing what you imagine. And the effects would not be limited to the US. The waves would hit Europe, Africa, many islands… Certainly only Russia or China could mount such an attack. Nuclear wars are not impossible, just stupid.

    Reply
  146. Nonsense. Your average tropical storm has vastly more energy. You would have to use hundreds to thousands of nuclear weapons to generate a massive wave capable of doing what you imagine. And the effects would not be limited to the US. The waves would hit Europe Africa many islands… Certainly only Russia or China could mount such an attack. Nuclear wars are not impossible just stupid.

    Reply
  147. having won most of the above battles
    – Assad still in power Russia 1 US 0
    – Crimea now part of Russia Russia 2 US 0
    Iran not baking down Russia 3 US 0
    Nordstream II being done Russia 4 US 0
    and so on..

    Reply
  148. The issue is that Poles in general prefer stronger USA and less militant Russia and China. So we’re trying to save the world balance of force which – as in 1939 in hinged in our region, Unfortunately,

    Reply
  149. The issue is that Poles in general prefer stronger USA and less militant Russia and China. So we’re trying to save the world balance of force which – as in 1939 in hinged in our region Unfortunately

    Reply
  150. US can live without Poland. Poland cannot live without US. -> Bunch of bullsnort poland can live without the US , they would just need to enter the Russia/China sphere of influence If the US becomes weaker and the US IS becoming and getting weaker Poland would immediatey switch sides like all Europe

    Reply
  151. US can live without Poland. Poland cannot live without US. -> Bunch of bullsnort poland can live without the US they would just need to enter the Russia/China sphere of influence If the US becomes weaker and the US IS becoming and getting weaker Poland would immediatey switch sides like all Europe

    Reply
  152. Point is that the US would withheld their agreements only if and only if it is in their interests If they have much too lose from an intervention they will find excuses and drop out duh!

    Reply
  153. Point is that the US would withheld their agreements only if and only if it is in their interests If they have much too lose from an intervention they will find excuses and drop out duh!

    Reply
  154. Thats not true. Article 5 of NATO states: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” Notice this here: “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force,” They can do whatever. They can for instance protest act of violence very vividly, and deem this action as appropriate response-case closed. Secondly so what? paper will accept everything, what matters is reality. If you dont have will to fight, you see no gains in that, risk seems unnacceptable, your focus is elsewhere and generally you dont seem to see any reason to engage: you will not. Thats secret behind Russia provocations in Europe-to show NATO members,t hat US guarantees are worhtless, because US has no capability to enter Baltic sea area, and before Washington will act, Russia will steamroll trough Central-Eastern Europe. Trough act accompli it will force NATO to accept that fact, since for the rest of memebrs those eastern countries are not worth the risk. Yes, this would destroy existing security architecture and possibly lead to dismantling of NATO, but so what? Are you REALLY trying to say that France, America or Spain will go to nuclear war with Russia over some

    Reply
  155. Thats not true. Article 5 of NATO states:The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or NorthAmerica shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that ifsuch an armed attack occurs each of them in exercise of the right of individual or collectiveself-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations will assist theParty or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith individually and in concert with the otherParties such action as it deems necessary including the use of armed force” to restore andmaintain the security of the North Atlantic area.Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately bereported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the SecurityCouncil has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peaceand security.””Notice this here: “”””such action as it deems necessary”” including the use of armed force”””””” They can do whatever. They can for instance protest act of violence very vividly”” and deem this action as appropriate response-case closed. Secondly so what? paper will accept everything what matters is reality. If you dont have will to fight you see no gains in that risk seems unnacceptable your focus is elsewhere and generally you dont seem to see any reason to engage: you will not. Thats secret behind Russia provocations in Europe-to show NATO memberst hat US guarantees are worhtless because US has no capability to enter Baltic sea area and before Washington will act Russia will steamroll trough Central-Eastern Europe. Trough act accompli it will force NATO to accept that fact since for the rest of memebrs those eastern countries are not worth the risk. Yes this would destroy existing security architecture and possibly lead to dismantling of NATO but so what? Are you REALLY trying to say that France America or Spain will go to nuclear war with Russia over so”

    Reply
  156. This, now Poland has two benefits, is an pretty cheap country compared to Germany this makes basing troops there pretty cheap.
    Anybody who read a bit of Polish history see that getting invaded and decimated is pretty common.
    it makes perfectly sense to want protection.

    Reply
  157. Yeah, Greece did really well so long as it was subsidized by the EU. Now, not so great.

    And by the way, the US military has left nations that asked them to do so. France, Iraq, the Philippines are a few examples, though some have changed their minds.

    Reply
  158. The Middle East has not changed since biblical times, psychopathic leaders engaged in endless conflict. Who can be sure of the best policy to deal with people that are locked in to endless tribal conflict.

    Reply
  159. I do not see Russia and China as the enemy. With nuclear weapons you do no have to drop them on your enemies country, you just drop them in the ocean. The whole eastern seeboard of the United States would be flooded. With nuclear weapons world wars have become impossible.

    Reply
  160. I do not see Russia and China as the enemy. With nuclear weapons you do no have to drop them on your enemies country you just drop them in the ocean. The whole eastern seeboard of the United States would be flooded. With nuclear weapons world wars have become impossible.

    Reply
  161. No one in their right mind would attack a NATO country. You might win a war against one but not nineteen. It would not stop at nineteen countries, much of South America would defend Spain, and Australia and New Zealand would defend the UK, Canada, and US.

    Reply
  162. An interesting way of formulating “It is an important insurance policy for Poland that USA would be involved directly a Russian invasion started.” 🙂 Since both Poland and USA are already NATO members, they would be entangled anyway if a war zone was started in Poland. This would e.g. make it less likely that Russian nuclear weapons ends up being used against Poland, which is an increase in all our chances of living a long life.

    Reply
  163. An interesting way of formulating It is an important insurance policy for Poland that USA would be involved directly a Russian invasion started.”” :-)Since both Poland and USA are already NATO members”” they would be entangled anyway if a war zone was started in Poland.This would e.g. make it less likely that Russian nuclear weapons ends up being used against Poland”” which is an increase in all our chances of living a long life.”””

    Reply
  164. The “system six” system could be possible and produce a five hundred meter wave. I was thinking of the Canary Islands, if you can trigger a landslide there you could create a mega tsunami.

    Reply
  165. stationing forces there would be expensive because of costs that can include housing for families, schools and hospitals.” ->thats not the reason for US reluctance. US doesnt want to be entangled in area of possible war zone, they dont want to be held hostage by Poles in their conflict with Russia.

    Reply
  166. stationing forces there would be expensive because of costs that can include housing for families” schools and hospitals.”” ->thats not the reason for US reluctance. US doesnt want to be entangled in area of possible war zone”””” they dont want to be held hostage by Poles in their conflict with Russia.”””

    Reply
  167. To be honest, I think this is a much simpler calculus than everybody believes. The U.S. isn’t worried about pissing off Russia or starting a war with Russia. I don’t think Russia would chance an invasion of Poland: no reason to give the U.S. a valid excuse to go to war. I think the primary considerations of the U.S. are:
    1. Are we better off reinvesting in our facilities in Germany or starting from scratch elsewhere?
    2. Is now a good time to give Germany the finger or do we wait until we are in some sort of a trade negotiation with the E.U?

    Reply
  168. The myth of the Russian “nuclear tidal wave” has been debunked. As powerful as nuclear weapons are, they pale in comparison to the forces of nature. The number of warheads needed to achieve what you suggest would do far more damage if they targeted land-targets directly.

    Reply
  169. If you do not see Russia as an enemy directly harming US interests you haven’t been paying attention to your last election, Nordstream II, Russia’s role in Syria and it’s relationship with the likes of Iran, China and North Korea. And these are just a few issues, there’s many, many others. Virtually Russia’s entire foreign policy runs counter to America’s.

    Reply
  170. It’s important to add that the oft cited 1997 Nato Russia Founding Act has already been broken multiple times by Russia, during it’s incursion into Georgia and it’s continuing occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, therefore, the agreement is in fact null and void.

    Reply
  171. Best location to deter Russian aggression paid for by the host country. RAND study states we need to have 35,000 troops in Easter Europe to deter Russian from mass incursion into Europe. This would be another small step towards that goal.

    Reply
  172. Nonsense. Your average tropical storm has vastly more energy. You would have to use hundreds to thousands of nuclear weapons to generate a massive wave capable of doing what you imagine. And the effects would not be limited to the US. The waves would hit Europe, Africa, many islands… Certainly only Russia or China could mount such an attack.

    Nuclear wars are not impossible, just stupid.

    Reply
  173. US can live without Poland. Poland cannot live without US.
    -> Bunch of bullsnort
    poland can live without the US , they would just need to enter the Russia/China sphere of influence
    If the US becomes weaker and the US IS becoming and getting weaker Poland would immediatey switch sides like all Europe

    Reply
  174. Thats not true. Article 5 of NATO states:

    “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North
    America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if
    such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective
    self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the
    Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other
    Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and
    maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
    Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be
    reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security
    Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace
    and security.”

    Notice this here: “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force,” They can do whatever. They can for instance protest act of violence very vividly, and deem this action as appropriate response-case closed.

    Secondly so what? paper will accept everything, what matters is reality. If you dont have will to fight, you see no gains in that, risk seems unnacceptable, your focus is elsewhere and generally you dont seem to see any reason to engage: you will not. Thats secret behind Russia provocations in Europe-to show NATO members,t hat US guarantees are worhtless, because US has no capability to enter Baltic sea area, and before Washington will act, Russia will steamroll trough Central-Eastern Europe. Trough act accompli it will force NATO to accept that fact, since for the rest of memebrs those eastern countries are not worth the risk. Yes, this would destroy existing security architecture and possibly lead to dismantling of NATO, but so what? Are you REALLY trying to say that France, America or Spain will go to nuclear war with Russia over some 3rd rate middle tier economy on outskirts of their sphere of infleunce, once this country has been already takaken over and prospects of victory are small? Especially if Russia will allow their assets there to remain untouched and profitable? Stop joking, you believe in paper too much.

    NATO is totally worthless and US alliances are secure only if US perceives them to be vital part of its national security. US can live without Poland. Poland cannot live without US. For Washington if Russia takes over thsi area its unfortunate, but one can accomodate to this quite easily. For Poland this is game over. Thats the difference and therefore no sane person expects both countries to react similarly to russian threats.

    Countries of CEE know that pretty well, since all their allies constantly were betreying them precisely in this manner in past century. America, UK, France, Germany, Russia. All of them.

    Reply
  175. I do not see Russia and China as the enemy. With nuclear weapons you do no have to drop them on your enemies country, you just drop them in the ocean. The whole eastern seeboard of the United States would be flooded. With nuclear weapons world wars have become impossible.

    Reply
  176. An interesting way of formulating “It is an important insurance policy for Poland that USA would be involved directly a Russian invasion started.” 🙂

    Since both Poland and USA are already NATO members, they would be entangled anyway if a war zone was started in Poland.

    This would e.g. make it less likely that Russian nuclear weapons ends up being used against Poland, which is an increase in all our chances of living a long life.

    Reply
  177. ” stationing forces there would be expensive because of costs that can include housing for families, schools and hospitals.” ->thats not the reason for US reluctance. US doesnt want to be entangled in area of possible war zone, they dont want to be held hostage by Poles in their conflict with Russia.

    Reply

Leave a Comment