QuoteEnd of an affair?
Sep 10th 2009
From The Economist print edition
The Atlantic alliance is waning in Europe's east
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fimages%2F20090912%2FD3709EU1.jpg&hash=2c5243b16c5a1aca0f53e8357f70ea2b3ad827f1)
AFTER two decades of sometimes fervent Atlanticism in the ex-communist world, disillusionment (some would call it realism) is growing. At its height the bond between eastern Europe and America was based, like the best marriages, on a mixture of emotion and mutual support. The romance dates from the cold war: when western Europe was sometimes squishy in dealing with the Soviet empire, America was robust. When the Iron Curtain fell, ex-dissidents and retired cold warriors found they had plenty in common. America pushed for the expansion of NATO, guaranteeing the east Europeans' security. In return, ex-communist countries loyally supported America, particularly in providing troops for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That relationship is now looking more wobbly. A new poll (see chart) by the German Marshall Fund, a think-tank, shows that western Europe is now much more pro-American and pro-NATO than the ex-communist east. Until last year, the eastern countries swallowed their misgivings about George Bush, while the west of the continent writhed in distaste at what many saw as his administration's incompetence and heavy-handedness.
The ascent of Barack Obama has boosted America's image in most countries, but only modestly in places like Poland and Romania. Among policymakers in the east, the dismay is tangible. In July, 22 senior figures from the region, including Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa, wrote a public letter bemoaning the decline in transatlantic ties.
One reason is that the Obama administration is rethinking a planned missile-defence system, which would have placed ten interceptor rockets in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic, in order to guard against Iranian missile attacks on America and much of Europe. That infuriated Russia, which saw the bases as a blatant push into its front yard. Changing the scheme—probably using seaborne interceptors—risks looking like a climb-down to suit Russian interests.
Poland is also worried that a promised battery of Patriot air-defence missiles, originally to protect the interceptors, may now be only a temporary loan of dummy rockets for training purposes—"just a sales exercise", says an official in Warsaw, crossly. America says it never intended to station real rockets there permanently.
The administration also botched its participation in Poland's 70th anniversary commemoration of the start of the second world war on September 1st. Other countries, including Russia and Germany, sent top people. America, initially, offered only a retired Clinton-era official. William Perry, who was a notable sceptic about NATO expansion. After squawks of dismay, Jim Jones, the national security adviser, went too. But Poles sensed a snub.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fimages%2F20090912%2FCEU158.gif&hash=4977b0b92d8872cabf3950f823af6c928d835481)
Another sore point concerns leaks from America suggesting that Poland, Romania and Lithuania hosted secret bases for the "rendition" and interrogation of terror suspects. All three strongly deny this, but in at least some voters' eyes, the American alliance is now tainted with connivance in kidnap and torture, followed by cover-ups. The next time American spooks want some secret help, they may find their allies less handy, an official notes.
NATO's credibility is under scrutiny too. New members say that their voters will not support out-of-area expeditions—the alliance's big focus just now—unless it is properly defending the home front against any threat from Russia. It does not help that Russia and its ally, Belarus, have just started a large joint military exercise, ostentatiously named "Zapad" (West).
At a big NATO advisory conference in Brussels in July, east Europeans were aghast to hear one prominent German academic describe Article V, the alliance's cornerstone collective-security guarantee, as a "fiction". In the event of a Russian threat, say to the Baltic states or Poland, would NATO act or merely consult? A worried easterner describes the alliance as "like an 18th-century Polish parliament, hostage to its most irresponsible member".
NATO is trying to soothe those fears. A committee that writes the threat assessment has rejigged its view on Russia. Contingency planning, once taboo, is taking shape. The Obama administration has been more vigorous on this front than its predecessor. But what Poland wants, especially if the missile-defence base is cancelled, is practical preparations, such as regular manoeuvres, and fuel and ammunition stockpiles.
Part of the problem is the much-publicised attempt by the Obama administration to "reset" relations with Russia. Few in eastern Europe object to that in principle. But many worry about how it will work in practice. Will Russia demand greater sway in the region in return for help, say, in squeezing Iran? The State Department has tried hard to reassure America's allies. But the official at the National Security Council directly responsible for Europe, Liz Sherwood-Randall, used to work for Mr Perry and shared his views on NATO expansion. East European officials flinch when her name is mentioned.
Admittedly, America has many other bigger problems than its relations with eastern Europe. Self-importance and public whingeing do not win arguments in Washington. The east Europeans may have been naive in their dealings with America in the Bush years. But for all that, even people inside the Obama administration agree that it could do better.
Is this because Obama is black? :(
I got so excited that at last someone had started a Graham Greene thread.
But no :(
Now I'll read the article <_<
Hope Poland has fun with Russia. :)
Weren't we assured that Eastern Europeans didn't want the missile shield? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2009, 05:17:30 PM
Hope Poland has fun with Russia. :)
We are not turning towards Russia, but towards the EU.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2009, 05:18:35 PM
Weren't we assured that Eastern Europeans didn't want the missile shield? :huh:
Assured by whom? :huh:
Also, the comment by the Kraut is a disgrace.
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2009, 05:18:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2009, 05:17:30 PM
Hope Poland has fun with Russia. :)
We are not turning towards Russia, but towards the EU.
Oh yeah, because you're so popular with them too. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2009, 05:18:45 PM
We are not turning towards Russia, but towards the EU.
What are they going to do to Russia? Shake an outraged fist? Print some cartoons?
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2009, 05:18:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2009, 05:17:30 PM
Hope Poland has fun with Russia. :)
We are not turning towards Russia
True. The technical term is bending over.
Even if Obama has become popular around here, it's clear that we won't be as important for the US as we were during the Bush years. Three different governments refused to allow any sizeable retreat from Afghanistan or Iraq just because it was the necessary price to pay for this position.
And yeah, we care about the american stance on Russia. Obama should grow some balls fast...
Has Obama ever even seen the world outside the US (except when he was born)?
I miss the Cold War. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2009, 05:19:32 PM
Also, the comment by the Kraut is a disgrace.
It was just an academic though, it wasn't a member of the German government.
NATO is pretty much dead. If the US gets out, there is no viable alliance to talk about. If only the US remains, it's still a power to be reckoned with.
I prefer talking directly to the american president than a host of european pencil-pushers, who would sell their mother for russian gas.
The US is leaving NATO?
Good riddance.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 12, 2009, 05:58:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2009, 05:19:32 PM
Also, the comment by the Kraut is a disgrace.
It was just an academic though, it wasn't a member of the German government.
I suspect he ain't the only Kraut who subscribes to that theory.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 12, 2009, 05:58:20 PM
It was just an academic though, it wasn't a member of the German government.
It's OK for academics to say that treaty obligations should not be honored?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2009, 06:11:04 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 12, 2009, 05:58:20 PM
It was just an academic though, it wasn't a member of the German government.
It's OK for academics to say that treaty obligations should not be honored?
No, but no one cares what they say unless it's known they have the ear of the government.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2009, 06:11:04 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 12, 2009, 05:58:20 PM
It was just an academic though, it wasn't a member of the German government.
It's OK for academics to say that treaty obligations should not be honored?
Did anyone say that? Where?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 12, 2009, 06:11:57 PM
No, but no one cares what they say unless it's known they have the ear of the government.
If the German government said Article V was a fiction, it would be a disgrace and a significant development in international relations. If someone outside government says it, it's just a disgrace.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2009, 05:11:41 PM
I got so excited that at last someone had started a Graham Greene thread.
But no :(
Now I'll read the article <_<
I love Graham Greene, though the book "The Heart of the Matter" that I had to present at school was one of the most depressing reads ever.
Without knowing who said it and what he actually said it's pretty pointless to discuss it, no?
Btw, I think the point the German "intellectual" tried to make that in case that an Article V situation occurs there'd be problems to determine NATO response and no one would know what to do. Janusz Onyszkiewicz, first non-commie leader of Poland recently said in an interview with Austrian Standard something similar (my translation):
QuoteEveryone knows NATO's Article 5. It contains a clear obligation to a certain automatic reaction of the NATO countries. The Americans pointed out early that this [an automatic response] isn't possible due to their contitution. War can only be declared by congress, not by previously entered obligations. It was a declaration of intent, but nothing absolutely certain. However, during the Cold War there was the perception that an act of aggresion would auotmatically lead to a military counterstrike. Why?
Because there were prepared plans for such a case, plans that were accepted by the governments. A whole machinery stood by that would have been put into motion by an act of aggression. That's how it was during the Cold Waar. Now there are no such contingency plans. Tha obligation of support is not clearly defined. I remember well how NATO declared that Article 5 had become active after the 9/11 attacks. When the NATO countries sent troops to Afghanistan on this basis the Canadian Prime Minister declared, "we play along, but when the shooting starts we'll pull them out." That was not very encouraging. In my part of the world, and certainly in Poland, no one is so paranoid to fear a breakout of World War III. But there are possible threats, like cyber attacks, for which reactions should be prepared. Russia didn't conquer Georgia, but there was a military conflict. Therefore it's necessary to prepare emergency plans. And that's what NATO is still lacking.
I think he has a point. NATO was founded as a defense against Soviet expansion. For 40 years its members prepared plans and contingencies for the case of defence. After the end of the Cold War there was - and is - a void as to what the alliance does/wants/should do. Personally, I guess there was never a better moment to attack the alliance than right now, because currently there'd be no quick, unified response to a major threat, because there's none planned. Governments would spend days if not weeks to determine what the Article V response should look like.
Quote from: Syt on September 13, 2009, 12:10:22 AM
Everyone knows NATO's Article 5. It contains a clear obligation to a certain automatic reaction of the NATO countries. The Americans pointed out early that this [an automatic response] isn't possible due to their contitution.
:lmfao:
The executive has totally taken over the war making powers of the legislature. If it responded with force, congress would without a doubt confirm the action.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 13, 2009, 12:17:49 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 13, 2009, 12:10:22 AM
Everyone knows NATO's Article 5. It contains a clear obligation to a certain automatic reaction of the NATO countries. The Americans pointed out early that this [an automatic response] isn't possible due to their contitution.
:lmfao:
The executive has totally taken over the war making powers of the legislature. If it responded with force, congress would without a doubt confirm the action.
Doesn't invalidate the rest of his point IMO.
Uhm, good morning, welcome to reality. General population in this part of the world looks at the USA with -at the very least- contempt. Usually it's hate. Why? Envy, of course, altough the people would cite stuff like "ignorance, obesity, agression" etc. all the stuff you can find aplenty in East Europe as well, but hey, you have to hate what you are not (citizen of an advanced country) to like what you are.
So, the rampant and unconditional love of the 'States have been always a government-only project here, showcasing a rare occassion when they don't succumb to populism.
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2009, 05:10:45 PM
Is this because Obama is black? :(
Sounds more like some Germans are trying to sow discord.
Quote from: Zanza on September 13, 2009, 12:02:33 AM
Without knowing who said it and what he actually said it's pretty pointless to discuss it, no?
We can discuss the facts as they were reported in the article. Which of course Yi found too constrictive and started making stuff up.
Quote from: Syt on September 13, 2009, 12:10:22 AM
Janusz Onyszkiewicz, first non-commie leader of Poland
Errr what?
He was just a minister of defense. The most recent post he had held was a Polish MEP, but he lost the last elections, and the party he is a member of is pretty much defunct (no MPs or MEPs). So in essence his voice is that of a "Polish academic" and shouldn't really be read as anything more than that. :P
Anyway he makes good points, but this in no way supports the thesis of the German retard that Article 5 is "fiction". I mean, by the same token you can declare the Treaty of Rome (for the Yanks - the foundation of the European Community) "fiction" because theoretically each country can pull out at any moment and the rest of the EU can't do anything about it.
Article 5 is a fiction in the same way any piece of international law is.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2009, 03:37:35 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 13, 2009, 12:10:22 AM
Janusz Onyszkiewicz, first non-commie leader of Poland
Errr what?
He was just a minister of defense. The most recent post he had held was a Polish MEP, but he lost the last elections, and the party he is a member of is pretty much defunct (no MPs or MEPs). So in essence his voice is that of a "Polish academic" and shouldn't really be read as anything more than that. :P
Yeah, I misread before my sunday morning coffee. He's introduced as Soldiarnosc's speaker when the first non-commie government took over.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2009, 03:47:52 AM
Anyway he makes good points, but this in no way supports the thesis of the German retard that Article 5 is "fiction". I mean, by the same token you can declare the Treaty of Rome (for the Yanks - the foundation of the European Community) "fiction" because theoretically each country can pull out at any moment and the rest of the EU can't do anything about it.
Article 5 is a fiction in the same way any piece of international law is.
I haven't seen Rumsbush dragged to The Hague so I guess he was right.
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2009, 01:33:36 AM
Uhm, good morning, welcome to reality. General population in this part of the world looks at the USA with -at the very least- contempt. Usually it's hate. Why? Envy, of course, altough the people would cite stuff like "ignorance, obesity, agression" etc. all the stuff you can find aplenty in East Europe as well, but hey, you have to hate what you are not (citizen of an advanced country) to like what you are.
So, the rampant and unconditional love of the 'States have been always a government-only project here, showcasing a rare occassion when they don't succumb to populism.
Maybe it's true for russophile countries. The Baltic states, Poland, Romania have sizeable majorities of pro-american conviction. For a decade after WW2, a large part of Romanian population was obsessed with the coming of the americans and the liberation of Eastern Europe. And this takes into account the bombing campaign of the US against the oil fields and rafineries.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2009, 03:47:52 AM
Anyway he makes good points, but this in no way supports the thesis of the German retard that Article 5 is "fiction". I mean, by the same token you can declare the Treaty of Rome (for the Yanks - the foundation of the European Community) "fiction" because theoretically each country can pull out at any moment and the rest of the EU can't do anything about it.
Article 5 is a fiction in the same way any piece of international law is.
Yes, and? Article V is presented in the general imagination as some kind of hard-and-fast weapon in and of itself, bringing the full might of the Western militaries to bear in an instant.
In fact, no one is quite sure what would really happen in the event of its use in a full-blown conflict. As one famous question during the Cold War posed, would America really sacrifice New York for Berlin?
So perhaps the academic was not actually questioning the letter in the North Atlantic Treaty, but rather he was questioning the belief held in it in and of itself as some kind of concrete security guarantee.
However, I agree with Zanza - without knowing who said and and what else he said, it's not really a useful quote. I suspect it may have come in the middle of a very dry, academic security/strategic studies speech. These NATO summits are not exactly thrilling.
Quote from: Warspite on September 13, 2009, 06:05:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2009, 03:47:52 AM
Anyway he makes good points, but this in no way supports the thesis of the German retard that Article 5 is "fiction". I mean, by the same token you can declare the Treaty of Rome (for the Yanks - the foundation of the European Community) "fiction" because theoretically each country can pull out at any moment and the rest of the EU can't do anything about it.
Article 5 is a fiction in the same way any piece of international law is.
Yes, and? Article V is presented in the general imagination as some kind of hard-and-fast weapon in and of itself, bringing the full might of the Western militaries to bear in an instant.
In fact, no one is quite sure what would really happen in the event of its use in a full-blown conflict. As one famous question during the Cold War posed, would America really sacrifice New York for Berlin?
So perhaps the academic was not actually questioning the letter in the North Atlantic Treaty, but rather he was questioning the belief held in it in and of itself as some kind of concrete security guarantee.
However, I agree with Zanza - without knowing who said and and what else he said, it's not really a useful quote. I suspect it may have come in the middle of a very dry, academic security/strategic studies speech. These NATO summits are not exactly thrilling.
Is this think like a retard day or something? Obviously he wasn't questioning the letter of the article. If he had done so he wouldn't have had to call it fiction. It was obvious from the information given in the OP what the anemic was saying, he was indeed "questioning the belief held in it in and of itself as some kind of concrete security guarantee".
Obviously this is based on the information in the OP which may or may not be correct. But it's all we got and I suspect all we need.
Yi and Mart are morons. It's OK to call a spade a spade, Warsprite.
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2009, 06:59:16 AM
Yi and Mart are morons. It's OK to call a spade a spade, Warsprite.
:cry:
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2009, 07:13:29 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2009, 06:59:16 AM
Yi and Mart are morons. It's OK to call a spade a spade, Warsprite.
:cry:
It is not the post that hurts other people. It is the hard heart!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fimages%2F20090912%2FCEU158.gif&hash=4977b0b92d8872cabf3950f823af6c928d835481)
Brits and Germans are a fickle bunch.
It just shows how shallow love or hate of the US is in Europe. I guess the average Fritz doesn't really give us much thought.
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2009, 07:28:33 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fimages%2F20090912%2FCEU158.gif&hash=4977b0b92d8872cabf3950f823af6c928d835481)
Brits and Germans are a fickle bunch.
It just shows how shallow love or hate of the US is in Europe. I guess the average Fritz doesn't really give us much thought.
You did see that the graph is showing approval ratings of the US President, not the overall opinion about the US in general, right? The 2008 Bush and 2009 Obama approval ratings aren't much different in Britian than they were in the US (though Obama's approval ratings have come down since the start of his administration).
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2009, 07:28:33 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fimages%2F20090912%2FCEU158.gif&hash=4977b0b92d8872cabf3950f823af6c928d835481)
Brits and Germans are a fickle bunch.
It just shows how shallow love or hate of the US is in Europe. I guess the average Fritz doesn't really give us much thought.
Really it just shows British and Germans are judging a man as opposed to a nation. If they hated the US it would be low for both of them.
Obama's politics fall within the mainstream in the UK whereas Bush is too "right wing" for most British tastes, hence the large disparity.
I put the right wing bit in quotes as I'm not at all sure that the vast majority of the British population know much about each president's policies. It can probably be summed-up as Bush wages pointless wars whereas Obama wants to set up a health service.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 14, 2009, 02:08:28 AM
It can probably be summed-up as Bush wages pointless wars whereas Obama wants to set up a health service.
Its convenient how we can forget about things that don't fit our worldviews.
I've lost my love for Languish.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 14, 2009, 06:28:56 PM
I've lost my love for Languish.
He hasn't posted here in ages. So no sweat.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2009, 01:50:59 AM
Really it just shows British and Germans are judging a man as opposed to a nation. If they hated the US it would be low for both of them.
Or it could be that they hate the US so much they're glad Obama is here to diminish our status as a world power :P