Poland wants NATO-Russia Deal Scrapped
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Poland wants NATO-Russia Deal Scrapped
Minister: Poland Wants NATO-Russia Deal Scrapped
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Only half a speed-brake
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.
#NotInterestedInBritishDeclarationsOfGuarantees,
FD.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South of the ex-North Devon flying club. North of Isca.
Age: 48
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
It operated in Afghanistan which is stretching remit a bit far.
It acted in Kosovo when no NATO member was involved.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by ShotOne; 26th Nov 2015 at 15:18.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
But that doesn't mean we're going to poke the bear with a stick just to please Mr Waszczykowski.
Appeasement of Putin only emboldens him.
NATO's reason for existence was Warsaw Pact, since that ceased it has been trying to find something to justify its existence.
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.
Appeasement of Putin only emboldens him.
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.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Only half a speed-brake
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 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.
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.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 27th Nov 2015 at 15:36.
Only half a speed-brake
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The treaty in question is about maintaining status-quo with reagards of nuclear warhead deployments.
And, of course, moving Iskander IRBMs to Kaliningrad, which blows it out of the water......