Poland wants NATO-Russia Deal Scrapped

[ORAC]

Minister: Poland Wants NATO-Russia Deal Scrapped (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/11/25/minister-poland-wants-nato-russia-deal-scrapped/76395554/)

WARSAW — Poland wants a 1997 deal on NATO-Russia ties to be scrapped to let the alliance install permanent military bases in Polish soil, something that Moscow insists the agreement rules out. Poland's new right-wing Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski insisted in an interview published Wednesday that the deal must go because it causes "inequality" between new and older NATO members.

The 1997 document stipulates that older NATO members "have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members" like ex-communist Poland. Russia has long insisted this provision also rules out permanent bases and troop deployments.

Asked whether he wants the 1997 agreement annulled, Waszczykowski told the liberal Gazeta Wyborcza daily: "Yes. This agreement was political in character, it was not legally binding, and was concluded in a different international context. We demand an equal level of security" between older and new NATO members, he added. "NATO cannot have two levels of security, namely one for Western Europe with US troops, with military bases and defense installations and another for Poland, without these elements."

In 1999, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary became the first ex-communist states to join NATO as the Western defense alliance expanded into Warsaw Pact territory controlled by Moscow during the Soviet era. Subsequent waves of expansion saw 12 formerly communist states join NATO. Russia has long opposed the expansion in the area it still considers a backyard.

Waszczykowski is a key member of Poland's new euroskeptic Law and Justice (PiS) government. Led by former prime minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the PiS is also well known for its hardline stance on Russia. He said Poland was prepared to take Russia to court if it fails to promptly return the wreckage of the jet that crashed in Smolensk, western Russia, in 2010 killing then-president Lech Kaczynski — Jaroslaw's identical twin.

Waszczykowski however underscored Poland's strong economic ties with top EU trading partner Germany and vowed that "Warsaw won't do anything that could damage this relationship." But he said there were "certain issues on which we differ", namely security issues.

"The Germans think this (scrapping the 1997 deal) will cause tension with Russia. We ask: whose comfort are you more concerned about? A state that is your NATO and EU ally or a non-member that is engaged in its third war: with Georgia, Ukraine and now, Syria," Waszczykowski said.

[Buster Hyman]

Given their recent history, I think he has a point.

[DirtyProp]

True, but I think it's a very bad timing on their part...

[ShotOne]

He's entitled to that opinion but that would be a collective NATO decision not a Polish one. NATO is all about collective security. We guarantee to defend Poland if attacked. But taking decisions which provoke a response which makes us less secure is the reverse of what NATO is designed to do.

[FlightDetent]

He's entitled to that opinion but that would be a collective NATO decision not a Polish one. NATO is all about collective security. We guarantee to defend Poland if attacked. But taking decisions which provoke a response which makes us less secure is the reverse of what NATO is designed to do.Your post contradicts itself. Defense requires preparation. If you want not to prepare, well we had been there before. https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H12751,_Godesberg,_Vorbereitung_M%C3%BCnchener_Abkommen.jpg

#NotInterestedInBritishDeclarationsOfGuarantees,
FD.

[Fluffy Bunny]

It is also possible that Poland want the income and dollar of a major NATO establishment in their own backyard? Germany pretty much have the monopoly on US MOB in Europe and Poland offered (Poznan?) to the US when the expansion plans for Ramstein hit some tree-hugging issues a decade or so ago.

[racedo]

He's entitled to that opinion but that would be a collective NATO decision not a Polish one. NATO is all about collective security. We guarantee to defend Poland if attacked. But taking decisions which provoke a response which makes us less secure is the reverse of what NATO is designed to do.


Thing is what is NATO designed to do ?

It operated in Afghanistan which is stretching remit a bit far.
It acted in Kosovo when no NATO member was involved.

NATO's reason for existence was Warsaw Pact, since that ceased it has been trying to find something to justify its existence.

[minigundiplomat]

Thing is what is NATO designed to do ?

It operated in Afghanistan which is stretching remit a bit far.
It acted in Kosovo when no NATO member was involved.

Also acted in Bosnia when the UN, EU and international community wouldn't.....

[ShotOne]

It did, but it's still a valid question by racedo

What contradiction, flight detent? NATO absolutely guarantees Poland's security without qualification. How forces are deployed is a collective NATO decision. That doesn't necessarily mean deployments or installations being constructed in a particular location just satisfy the agenda of one member. Put simply, we'll fight to defend Poland. But that doesn't mean we're going to poke the bear with a stick just to please Mr Waszczykowski.

[Royalistflyer]

Poland's just realised that they're back to being a joint "buffer" state - they should be used to it by now - must've been invaded at least a dozen times over the centuries.

[West Coast]

But that doesn't mean we're going to poke the bear with a stick just to please Mr Waszczykowski.

Difference is you're worried about offending Putin's feelings. He's worried about becoming the next Ukraine or Georgia.

Appeasement of Putin only emboldens him.

[balsa model]

NATO's reason for existence was Warsaw Pact, since that ceased it has been trying to find something to justify its existence.
NATO was formed a few years before Warsaw Pact.
It was formed in the face of an inscrutable and sometimes belligerent power to the East. The name of that power has changed but its stance remains inscrutable and sometimes belligerent. So reasons for NATO to exist are exactly the same as before. IMHO.

[ORAC]

NATO April 1949, Warsaw Pact May 1954 - two weeks after West Germany joined NATO.

[minigundiplomat]

Appeasement of Putin only emboldens him.

That's very true.

However, Putin is no Joe Stalin; he's an opportunist who has been gifted a succession of opportunities by weak US and European leadership. A firm stance will stop him in his tracks.

[ShotOne]

There's another side to this which is that we agreed a deal. It was a crucially important one and the other side has kept its bargain. So now we're going to tear it up on the say so of someone who wasnt even a signatory?

[FlightDetent]

What contradiction, FlightDetent? NATO absolutely guarantees Poland's security without qualification. How forces are deployed is a collective NATO decision. That doesn't necessarily mean deployments or installations being constructed in a particular location just to satisfy the agenda of one member. The agenda of that member is the very guarantee of their security, that's the contradiction. Declaration of anything is not a guarantee, though this point may only be visible from Helsinki, Warsawa, Tallin, Riga, Vilnius.

The treaty in question is about maintaining status-quo with reagards of nuclear warhead deployments. This idea has full support and remains unchanged. At the same time, Russian politics interpret it precludes any permanent military bases of the "west" countries in the "new member" states. That's what is being disagreed with. Such base would be a real defence stone, exactly in a manner in which the UK bases in Cyprus serve stability in that region. And it is not a base they want, just a legal framework for it.

Put simply, we'll fight to defend Poland. Last time it was too late, i.e. after the invasion. Czechoslovakia was sold-off first to appease, which unfortuantely did not work.

Germany is firmly in bed with Russia these days with Nordstream and such. France's hands are effectively tied because of multiple alliances at all points of compass. Should push come to shove, the UK will secure themselves by turning a blind eye if needs to be. Geographical position as well as defence capabilities determine your best plan of survival. For some, it serves well to give up pieces of sovereginty to maintain freedom.

cheers, FD.

[Just This Once...]

Just remind me how the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances worked out for Ukraine?

[Herod]

About the same as the Tripartite agreement over Cyprus in '74.

[FlightDetent]

Just remind me how the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances worked out for Ukraine? Exactly my point.

[ORAC]

The treaty in question is about maintaining status-quo with reagards of nuclear warhead deployments. I believe that was supposed to be covered under the INF Treaty. Which has problems (http://www.nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Confirmation-of-Russian-Violations-of-the-INF-Treaty8.pdf)....

And, of course, moving Iskander IRBMs to Kaliningrad (http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-placing-state-of-the-art-missiles-in-kaliningrad-2015-3?r=US&IR=T), which blows it out of the water......

[Chugalug2]

racedo:-
Thing is what is NATO designed to do ?Good question which the NATO site,

http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/

http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/files/checklist_en.pdf

seems not to define, except in the broadest terms:-

To safeguard the freedom and security of its member countries by political and military means.The sort of vague gobbledegook that you can hang any adventure on, like Afghanistan, perhaps even Syria? There was me thinking it was all about defending Europe and North America from direct external threats...

[Rosevidney1]

I'm sure we all thought the same.....

[Lonewolf_50]

It is also possible that Poland want the income and dollar of a major NATO establishment in their own backyard?

Bingo. Not hard to sort out.

[skippedonce]

The agenda of that member is the very guarantee of their security, that's the contradiction. Declaration of anything is not a guarantee, though this point may only be visible from Helsinki, Warsawa, Tallin, Riga, Vilnius.

The treaty in question is about maintaining status-quo with reagards of nuclear warhead deployments.I don't think so!

Firstly, as Finland is not a signatory to the 1949 Washington Treaty, what Helsinki thinks is not strictly relevant to what happens between NATO and Russia, because Finland is not a NATO member.

Secondly, Poland's (and the Baltics) most pressing problem with the NATO-Russia Founding Act has nothing to do with nukes: 'NATO reiterates that in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces'.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm