+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Poland's relationship with the US

  1. Link to Post #1
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    26th September 2019
    Language
    None
    Posts
    3,411
    Thanks
    10,548
    Thanked 27,828 times in 3,335 posts

    Default Poland's relationship with the US

    Here are the countries that are just about to throw away any alliances agreements with the US, figure it out yourselves, i'm only telling you so you look around

    El Salvador
    Guatemala
    Argentina
    France
    Ukraine
    Turkey
    Belorussia
    Poland

    And here the ones considering it still

    Spain
    Italy
    Mexico
    Germany

    Make of this, whatever you want, it won't change the outcome

    Watch the foreign news, specially the "not english" ones

    If you are smart, you know why and where. So you will know how this is "important"

    I also recently heard something tremendously hilarious, it was something like "The reason the Taliban raised to power so fast in Afghanistan, i'ts because they were always supported by the Russians!".

    Talk about ignorance of real history...

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mashika For This Post:

    bojancan (17th October 2021), Chris Gilbert (17th October 2021), TomKat (19th October 2021)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Romania Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    22nd November 2013
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    57
    Thanked 501 times in 122 posts

    Default Re: Poland's relationship with the US

    Quote Posted by Mashika (here)
    Here are the countries that are just about to throw away any alliances agreements with the US, figure it out yourselves, i'm only telling you so you look around

    El Salvador
    Guatemala
    Argentina
    France
    Ukraine
    Turkey
    Belorussia
    Poland

    And here the ones considering it still

    Spain
    Italy
    Mexico
    Germany

    Make of this, whatever you want, it won't change the outcome

    Watch the foreign news, specially the "not english" ones

    If you are smart, you know why and where. So you will know how this is "important"

    I also recently heard something tremendously hilarious, it was something like "The reason the Taliban raised to power so fast in Afghanistan, i'ts because they were always supported by the Russians!".

    Talk about ignorance of real history...
    Poland about to throw away alliance agreements with US?

    What makes you say that? Poland is one of the closest and most important allies of the US and this would go against the obvious.

    They always push for increased US military presence in Poland.

    Could you elaborate more on this, as it would be a shocker.


    Edit:

    Also, what alliances/agreements does Belarus even have with the US that it would "throw away"?
    Last edited by Zamolxe; 16th October 2021 at 11:33.

  4. Link to Post #3
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    26th September 2019
    Language
    None
    Posts
    3,411
    Thanks
    10,548
    Thanked 27,828 times in 3,335 posts

    Default Re: Poland's relationship with the US

    Quote Posted by Zamolxe (here)

    Poland about to throw away alliance agreements with US?

    What makes you say that? Poland is one of the closest and most important allies of the US and this would go against the obvious.

    They always push for increased US military presence in Poland.

    Could you elaborate more on this, as it would be a shocker.
    That relationship depends only on that single thing, the US giving and arming Poland, but some people in high gov levels are willing to isolate Poland, including breaking that relationship with the US only to keep themselves in power. There is a chance there will be some political turmoil in Poland in the near future, and some of the people involved may want to do a power grab. This would cause a side effect of killing the Poland/US relationship, or damaged it so bad that it may end up causing the US to pull out entirely. The relationship or alliance may seem solid and strong, but is not really at all, it's fragile

    Quote Edit:

    Also, what alliances/agreements does Belarus even have with the US that it would "throw away"?
    I think i wasn't very clear on that, i should have said "relationships" instead of "alliances"

    As for Ukraine, there are some people in the US government considering accepting or recognizing Donbas as a separate, independent region, which would mean the effort to reunify Ukraine with Donbas, Crimea and Donesk have failed. There may be no recovery from that, and then it would cause Ukraine to distance from the US. And remember that the government in Ukraine got there through a coup supported by the US, not through legal elections, so the gov may lose support from the people and someone may attempt to use the situation to take the coup government down and regain control of Ukraine

    In Latin America, several countries are working hard on eliminating the Organization of American States, and replace it with a 'Latino countries only' alternate organization, which doesn't include the US or Canada, these countries are considering distancing from any organization in which the US has influence, so it would mean breaking apart relationships. This has been happening for some time now, slowly but surely

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mashika For This Post:

    Gracy (16th October 2021), Pam (17th October 2021)

  6. Link to Post #4
    Romania Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    22nd November 2013
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    57
    Thanked 501 times in 122 posts

    Default Re: Poland's relationship with the US

    Quote Posted by Mashika (here)
    That relationship depends only on that single thing, the US giving and arming Poland, but some people in high gov levels are willing to isolate Poland, including breaking that relationship with the US only to keep themselves in power. There is a chance there will be some political turmoil in Poland in the near future, and some of the people involved may want to do a power grab. This would cause a side effect of killing the Poland/US relationship, or damaged it so bad that it may end up causing the US to pull out entirely. The relationship or alliance may seem solid and strong, but is not really at all, it's fragile
    I don't really see how that would happen. As you know, Poland's foreign policy is primarily built around the fact that Russia is the only threat to their territorial integrity and even existence as a state (and who can blame them after what happened in their long and turbulent history).

    In Europe, the only major NATO ally that takes a strong stance against Russia is the UK, so Poland cannot rely on Germany (Angela Merkel speaks russian, raised in East Germany, GDR, see North Stream 2, reliance on Russian gas...) or France (see Mistral deal). So their only choice is to have a strong relationship with the US.

    That fits perfectly with the US's anti-Russia rethoric, so the US considers them the closest ally on the eastern flank, relocating troops from Germany to Poland and even considering their assets in Turkey to do the same...

    Poland's entire defense strategy is centered around repelling an attack from the east. And the biggest military contracts in the past years have been with the US (Patriot batteries - $4.75 billion, F35s - $4.6 billion, 250 M1A1 Abrams - $6 billion). I don't really see them doing a total 180...

    Quote
    Quote Also, what alliances/agreements does Belarus even have with the US that it would "throw away"?
    I think i wasn't very clear on that, i should have said "relationships" instead of "alliances"

    As for Ukraine,
    I wasn't asking about Ukraine. You mentioned Belarus in your list. I don't really know of any relationship with the US that Belarus would "throw away"... They are almost a satellite state of Russia (part of CSTO, almost half of exports go to Russia, cheap oil and gas from Russia, RU imports goods from EU through Belarus, etc). From what I know, even before 2000 they had an agreement to become a union state.
    Add to that the rumors in the past years that they would create a union so that Putin could continue running for president (he reached his terms limit, but if they formed a new state, they would reset the limit as it would be a new country). But Putin fixed that issue earlier this year by changing the constitution, so that he can technically be president until 2036, which would be longer than Stalin's rule.



    Quote I also recently heard something tremendously hilarious, it was something like "The reason the Taliban raised to power so fast in Afghanistan, i'ts because they were always supported by the Russians!".

    Talk about ignorance of real history.
    I do agree that this sounds like (and probably is) western anti-russian propaganda, but what "real history" between the taliban and Russia? Are you refferring to the soviet-afghan war? The Taliban emerged in 1994, long after the war was finished, so they don't really have a "history" together.

    And if you consider that during the Taliban takeover of Kabul in August, while all western embassies were being evacuated and closed, only the Russian embassy continued its operations under the Taliban's protection, it would seem that they aren't exactly on hostile terms.
    Last edited by Zamolxe; 16th October 2021 at 23:36.

  7. Link to Post #5
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    26th September 2019
    Language
    None
    Posts
    3,411
    Thanks
    10,548
    Thanked 27,828 times in 3,335 posts

    Default Re: Poland's relationship with the US

    Quote Posted by Zamolxe (here)
    I don't really see how that would happen. As you know, Poland's foreign policy is primarily built around the fact that Russia is the only threat to their territorial integrity and even existence as a state (and who can blame them after what happened in their long and turbulent history).

    In Europe, the only major NATO ally that takes a strong stance against Russia is the UK, so Poland cannot rely on Germany (Angela Merkel speaks russian, raised in East Germany, GDR, see North Stream 2, reliance on Russian gas...) or France (see Mistral deal). So their only choice is to have a strong relationship with the US.

    That fits perfectly with the US's anti-Russia rethoric, so the US considers them the closest ally on the eastern flank, relocating troops from Germany to Poland and even considering their assets in Turkey to do the same...

    Poland's entire defense strategy is centered around repelling an attack from the east. And the biggest military contracts in the past years have been with the US (Patriot batteries - $4.75 billion, F35s - $4.6 billion, 250 M1A1 Abrams - $6 billion). I don't really see them doing a total 180...

    As for Ukraine,

    I wasn't asking about Ukraine. You mentioned Belarus in your list. I don't really know of any relationship with the US that Belarus would "throw away"... They are almost a satellite state of Russia (part of CSTO, almost half of exports go to Russia, cheap oil and gas from Russia, RU imports goods from EU through Belarus, etc). From what I know, even before 2000 they had an agreement to become a union state.
    Add to that the rumors in the past years that they would create a union so that Putin could continue running for president (he reached his terms limit, but if they formed a new state, they would reset the limit as it would be a new country). But Putin fixed that issue earlier this year by changing the constitution, so that he can technically be president until 2036, which would be longer than Stalin's rule.
    I added extra info so it would be more clear why i was saying the things i was saying, so to avoid any other misunderstanding for anyone else who may read that. I used the wrong word with "alliance" as i explained on last post

    There were some talks behind the scenes for some time "US and Belarus only", but recent events have changed this, so all communication, and any possible advance that was made in the recent past, may be thrown out entirely, this has bigger implications than you may think, but i'll wait for a bit to talk more about that

    Quote But Putin fixed that issue earlier this year by changing the constitution, so that he can technically be president until 2036
    This is not completely correct really, the constitution was changed so he, or any other president after, remains in the sphere of influence "Legally", but not as the actual president "officially" but he would remain in a position of power.

    I'm putting those words in double quotes for the next reason: . It can be called a trick of sorts, but we all know this was the same before, in the USSR presidents or primers retired but they kept working behind the scenes and being influential anyway, it just got the "it's official and legal now" treatment. This is how it has always been, nothing absolutely changed, except now it's "legal"

    Maybe this will help understand better what's going on behind the scenes (overall since it's complicated topic)

    Have you heard about the Norway/Poland gas agreement, due to become operational next year or so? Through Baltic pipeline?

    There is a very strategic reason behind it, Poland is looking to secure "a safe source of energy if the case comes where the country has to isolate from both Russia and the US"

    Norway, as it happens, remains "neutral" in ways, neither with the EU, the US, or anything in general, but they have gas, which is something most countries in Europe need urgently. Why would Poland make a deal with them, and not instead keep buying more gas or increase shipments from the US? "Because they need to have a truly independent source of energy" in preparation for a possible outcome where the US is not an ally anymore

    NATO is dying, people in a lot of countries are pushing for their country to leave NATO, it's obsolete in the current world, only the dinos want to keep it going because they don't know how to handle the new world, or how to make any income of the current/future situation (or keep in power and control for that matter)

    Some weeks ago the US accused Russia of causing the energy crisis in Europe, some countries followed the narrative, yet Germany didn't, have you seen that? Germany sided with Russia by simply saying "We didn't calculated correctly and didn't request enough gas as we needed"

    It's basic, right? If you pay for 100 litres of something, you get that, if you pay for 200, you get 200. It's childish to say "i pay for 200 litres but needed actually 400, and now i'm without gas because they only gave us what we paid for. This seller is evil! They sold me only what i asked for, and not what i truly needed!". Specially if the deals are expensive because they switched to short term contracts, sometimes even on a day by day basis. As a company, you can't produce much more than you sell, you need to have a buffer but in general you try to keep your expenses down to a minimum, it's logical and obvious for any business, otherwise you have to store the extra somewhere, and that costs a lot

    Norway has a better share of market i believe, and the gas company is owned in majority by the Norway government than private entities. But you won't hear that in the news, because obviously it shows a different narrative than the 'official' one

    But i went off topic now sorry

    Here's the reason this matter much, if Norway is going to be the main gas resource for Poland, it means they can throw away the alliance with energy with the US with little care, because 1. They have one of the top energy resources available and safe on their side. And 2. If they were lacking, they can still go back and buy more gas from Russia, even if the current deal expires very soon. This ensures Poland can keep going alone, if needed. "It is a preemptive step for isolation"

    Where does the US fits into Polands, short term plans for energy? It doesn't figure much, really, other than to keep the US companies happy. If the relationship was as strong, they would be buying gas from the US, yet they look for someone else, someone who even if playing friendly with the US and EU, mostly keep to themselves in general terms. This, as everything else in politics, it's a matter of convenience, just as France has demonstrated recently, and Turkey as well, they will do whatever they need to do, when the time comes, to ensure their survival first. That's just common sense

    If NATO goes down, which seems likely now, then all bets are off, anything may happen. Some countries "don't take a step without a shoe on that feet"


    Quote I do agree that this sounds like (and probably is) western anti-russian propaganda, but what "real history" between the taliban and Russia? Are you refferring to the soviet-afghan war? The Taliban emerged in 1994, long after the war was finished, so they don't really have a "history" together.

    And if you consider that during the Taliban takeover of Kabul in August, while all western embassies were being evacuated and closed, only the Russian embassy continued its operations under the Taliban's protection, it would seem that they aren't exactly on hostile terms.
    Because the US caused the Taliban to hate them, after being "allies" in the 80's, didn't you read about that? The US used the Taliban to fight against Russia, but immediately almost, after Russia left, they betrayed the Taliban, the hate is immense due to that. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But Russians also hate the Taliban in ways, it's just that they pretend not to, in both ways, because they can't spend out resources in an unnecessary argument and in both sides, there is a small geo political game going on.

    There is nothing to gain on both sides by going to war or fight in any way. The Taliban only cares about expelling "the traitors" for now, they need stability. This may change in the future, they may also expel Russia if they start feeling wrong about it. Is not that Russia is an ally, Russia is allowed to stay based on one single reason: "The Taliban still thinking how, and IF, they can get something out of it"

    Quote Poland's foreign policy is primarily built around the fact that Russia is the only threat to their territorial integrity and even existence as a state (and who can blame them after what happened in their long and turbulent history).
    This goes both ways actually, Poland invaded Ukraine and Belarus for a long time, they both Belarus and Ukraine took their land back after WW2, which for Poland, was written as "invasion" and accepted as such by the west. Can you invade land, if that land was yours in the first place, and had been invaded some time before? Or are you taking "my land back". That's just history anyways, the resolutions made it legal after so it doesn't matter much more than as a political and policy tool

    --

    But anyway, the thing is, Poland is preparing for a situation where they will not be sided with the US, they are taking steps to ensure energy resources from countries not aligned either with the EU, US, Russia or NATO, in the case that organization would go away.

    They are also doing more than that, they have prepared laws to basically expel foreign media owners, i mean they will require that all media within Poland, belongs to nationals only, no owners from any other country, including the US, so they are going to buy out US media companies operating in Poland currently. They already did this some bit ago with other companies. This is nationalistic and also very clearly says "the Poland government will be in control of all media in the state". And the US has already warned there could be sanctions on the way if this event happens. See where that's going? Poland could suddenly be considered a "non compliant state" or a "humans rights and free speech violator", yet the Poland government seems very set on their plan no matter what the consequences are

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-p...-idUSKBN28H277
    Quote WARSAW (Reuters) - State-controlled Polish refiner PKN Orlen is buying regional newspaper publisher Polska Press from its German owner, bringing more of the local media back into Polish hands.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-for-investors
    Quote The ruling party has drafted a media law that Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said is needed to prevent Russian and Chinese companies entering the broadcasting market. Yet the legislation targets one company: the American owner of Polish broadcaster TVN. The regulator has for more than a year declined to extend news channel TVN24’s license.
    See? It's because of Russia and China, and yet..
    Last edited by Mashika; 17th October 2021 at 05:31.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mashika For This Post:

    I am B (17th October 2021), Pam (17th October 2021)

  9. Link to Post #6
    Romania Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    22nd November 2013
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    57
    Thanked 501 times in 122 posts

    Default Re: Poland's relationship with the US

    Quote Posted by Mashika (here)
    Maybe this will help understand better what's going on behind the scenes (overall since it's complicated topic)

    Have you heard about the Norway/Poland gas agreement, due to become operational next year or so? Through Baltic pipeline?
    So, you believe that Poland wants to isolate from the US, just because they are buying gas from Norway? It is a complicated issue indeed, but just want to remind you that Poland started buying gas from Norway 20 years ago. The LNG deal (20 year deal) with the US was signed just 3 years ago. The fact that they decided to buy US gas, which is more expensive as it needs to be shipped across the ocean in specialized container vessels, shows that they are desperate to cut their reliance on russian gas.
    So I don't really see how this points to them cutting ties with the US... again, reminder of all their long-term arms contracts that have just been signed. You don't buy patriot batteries, f35s and tanks from a country that you want to sever ties with. The moment you do that your entire very expensive arsenal becomes paperweight, as you don't have access to spare parts anymore.
    And also, the US doesn't sell the f35 to a country it doesn't have absolute confidence in (see TUrkey).

    Quote https://www.reuters.com/article/us-p...-idUSKBN28H277
    Quote WARSAW (Reuters) - State-controlled Polish refiner PKN Orlen is buying regional newspaper publisher Polska Press from its German owner, bringing more of the local media back into Polish hands.
    Regarding Poland being a "non compliant state" or a "humans rights and free speech violator". A state-owned company buying a private media company is making that exact point. You do know that state-media is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes, right?


    Quote Some weeks ago the US accused Russia of causing the energy crisis in Europe, some countries followed the narrative, yet Germany didn't, have you seen that? Germany sided with Russia by simply saying "We didn't calculated correctly and didn't request enough gas as we needed"
    As I mentioned before, Germany oftenly acts as a puppet for Moscow. One of the reasons there is an energy crisis is because they shut down all their nuclear powerplants and replaced them with gas(russian). Meanwhile they have no issue importing nuclear power from France (which because of its nuclear output is one of the least affected countries in Europe - it's a net exporter of energy). The STASI is still kicking strong in Berlin.


    Quote Because the US caused the Taliban to hate them, after being "allies" in the 80's, didn't you read about that? The US used the Taliban to fight against Russia, but immediately almost, after Russia left, they betrayed the Taliban, the hate is immense due to that. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But Russians also hate the Taliban in ways, it's just that they pretend not to, in both ways, because they can't spend out resources in an unnecessary argument and in both sides, there is a small geo political game going on.
    Again, the taliban were formed in 1994, so the US were not allies with them in the 80s. You are confusing them with the mujahedeen, who btw are currently fighting the taliban in the Panjshir valley.
    Again, it would seem that Russia doesn't have a hostile relation with the Taliban, as

    Quote Posted by Zamolxe (here)
    And if you consider that during the Taliban takeover of Kabul in August, while all western embassies were being evacuated and closed, only the Russian embassy continued its operations under the Taliban's protection, it would seem that they aren't exactly on hostile terms.


    Quote This is not completely correct really, the constitution was changed so he, or any other president after, remains in the sphere of influence "Legally", but not as the actual president "officially" but he would remain in a position of power.

    I'm putting those words in double quotes for the next reason: . It can be called a trick of sorts, but we all know this was the same before, in the USSR presidents or primers retired but they kept working behind the scenes and being influential anyway, it just got the "it's official and legal now" treatment. This is how it has always been, nothing absolutely changed, except now it's "legal"
    Actually, isn't that exactly what the new constitution says? That he can officially serve 2 more terms as president, not unofficially, like in 2008, when he switched seats with Medvedev? First of all, he extended his terms to 6 years and second, the new law specifically does not count the terms that were served before it came into effect. Not saying that he will choose to, but he can officially serve 2 more terms now.

    Quote Posted by Mashika (here)
    There were some talks behind the scenes for some time "US and Belarus only", but recent events have changed this, so all communication, and any possible advance that was made in the recent past, may be thrown out entirely, this has bigger implications than you may think, but i'll wait for a bit to talk more about that
    Don't tease, please share

  10. Link to Post #7
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    26th September 2019
    Language
    None
    Posts
    3,411
    Thanks
    10,548
    Thanked 27,828 times in 3,335 posts

    Default Re: Poland's relationship with the US

    Quote Posted by Zamolxe (here)
    So, you believe that Poland wants to isolate from the US, just because they are buying gas from Norway? It is a complicated issue indeed, but just want to remind you that Poland started buying gas from Norway 20 years ago. The LNG deal (20 year deal) with the US was signed just 3 years ago. The fact that they decided to buy US gas, which is more expensive as it needs to be shipped across the ocean in specialized container vessels, shows that they are desperate to cut their reliance on russian gas.
    They now will have a pipeline, very much like the one from Russia to Germany, so that they are not dependent on US gas at all

    Quote So I don't really see how this points to them cutting ties with the US...
    They are preparing for it just as we speak

    Quote again, reminder of all their long-term arms contracts that have just been signed. You don't buy patriot batteries, f35s and tanks from a country that you want to sever ties with. The moment you do that your entire very expensive arsenal becomes paperweight, as you don't have access to spare parts anymore.
    And also, the US doesn't sell the f35 to a country it doesn't have absolute confidence in (see TUrkey).
    None of that will matter at all, if/once NATO goes down, and as i said, some core countries are already starting to think about "why" do they need NATO, and the US knows this so that's why they started building a separate structure that only includes the very very close allies, also now known as AUKUS. It's just the pieces moving on the chess board

    Quote Regarding Poland being a "non compliant state" or a "humans rights and free speech violator". A state-owned company buying a private media company is making that exact point. You do know that state-media is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes, right?
    Isn't that what i said? That Poland is going in that direction and the US is not happy about it, and it could lead to exactly the point i'm making in the first place?
    The media company that was bought by the oil company, got their entire editor department replaced by new people some time after. Previous people who had being hired by the Germany owned company, were "not up to the task" maybe? I thought i had been clear about the meaning of that...

    Quote Some weeks ago the US accused Russia of causing the energy crisis in Europe, some countries followed the narrative, yet Germany didn't, have you seen that? Germany sided with Russia by simply saying "We didn't calculated correctly and didn't request enough gas as we needed"
    Quote As I mentioned before, Germany oftenly acts as a puppet for Moscow. One of the reasons there is an energy crisis is because they shut down all their nuclear powerplants and replaced them with gas(russian). Meanwhile they have no issue importing nuclear power from France (which because of its nuclear output is one of the least affected countries in Europe - it's a net exporter of energy). The STASI is still kicking strong in Berlin.
    So again this is what i have been saying for long, these things are happening, and other countries are joining now, i'm not saying it already happened and it's a done thing, i'm saying "in the near future" and there is clear evidence of where things are moving

    Quote Again, the taliban were formed in 1994, so the US were not allies with them in the 80s. You are confusing them with the mujahedeen, who btw are currently fighting the taliban in the Panjshir valley.
    Again, it would seem that Russia doesn't have a hostile relation with the Taliban, as
    The mujahedeen is just a concept that represents the warriors of islam in several ways, the Taliban was always a faction of them, one that rebeled against other factions, at the time you say "were formed", and then empowered themselves and started their own jihad, all of them came from the same single moment and were fighting together. They just broke apart years later, they were there all that time, all along

    I know this because my grand father was a military man and he was there as an USSR official, while the Afghanistan war was happening between the "mujahedeen" and Russia, he was involved in that in several ways

    Quote Actually, isn't that exactly what the new constitution says? That he can officially serve 2 more terms as president, not unofficially, like in 2008, when he switched seats with Medvedev? First of all, he extended his terms to 6 years and second, the new law specifically does not count the terms that were served before it came into effect. Not saying that he will choose to, but he can officially serve 2 more terms now.
    No, this is all a lot of misconceptions, there is now a way he could run again, it doesn't mean he has chosen to, or would truly be able. It just means that there is a chance he could run again, just like in the US where a president can run and then not run and then run again. In other countries like Mexico for example a president can run for president and if elected can only serve once, then he will never be able to try again. (Putin doesn't need to hold the title to still be 'The president')

    The reason for this change, it's because no one feels there is someone capable of keeping things going the way they are going right now. So they are going to try to put someone else there, and if that fails, Putin will be back soon enough. It's a political game, it's a safeguard for the very near future of the country. Everyone else 'capable' of running the country is on training wheels right now, so to speak

    There is another thing that happened that allows him to 'retire' and still be influencing everything across the country, this actually has been in place from very long ago, but not "officially". These things are not ever talked about in general, but are there. He doesn't and very much most likely won't be running from president ever again, but he will still be "the one to go" for major decisions, the other thing you are speaking about is a public show only, it means nothing in the big scheme of things

    Quote Beginning in 1999, all living former presidents were granted a pension, an office, and a staff

    In 2020, the Constitution was amended to grant the former president immunity (except if he was removed from office by impeachment). This immunity may be lifted in the same manner as the impeachment procedure. Also, in accordance with the amendments, former presidents (except if he was removed from office by impeachment) were granted the right to become senators for life.[
    This doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means That's actually how he will keep ruling, just like when Medvedev was "the president" lol


    Quote
    Quote There were some talks behind the scenes for some time "US and Belarus only", but recent events have changed this, so all communication, and any possible advance that was made in the recent past, may be thrown out entirely, this has bigger implications than you may think, but i'll wait for a bit to talk more about that
    Don't tease, please share
    Rather wait until there are news about it, otherwise it will just be "hearsay", and that matters very little

    I can see that a lot of the perception about Poland/US relationships is very much based on US propaganda, such as in this website, which everyone knows is a US paid for propaganda site

    https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...y-its-friends/

    Just look at the articles there The narrative is starting to form in advance of what may be coming, and this is coming from US paid journalists, so you see i'm not the only one 'seeing it coming', they already started the narrative machine 'just in case'
    Last edited by Mashika; 17th October 2021 at 10:42.

  11. Link to Post #8
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    26th September 2019
    Language
    None
    Posts
    3,411
    Thanks
    10,548
    Thanked 27,828 times in 3,335 posts

    Default Re: Poland's relationship with the US

    'Poland will not be intimidated,' says PM Morawiecki as EU law row brought before MEPs

    https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/19/...d-legal-crisis
    Quote We cannot and we will not allow our common values to be put at risk, said Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission.

    But Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, also present at the plenary session in Strasbourg, hit back.

    "Poland will not be intimated," said Morawiecki, vowing to defend his country's sovereign independence against the "creeping expansion" of EU institutions.

    The battle of words illustrated the poor state of relations between the two sides, which this month reached a new low after the Polish government endorsed a defiant judgment of the country's constitutional court that questioned EU law primacy.
    "Your flavour of democracy does not taste the same as my home made one"

    Quote "The Commission is the guardian of the Treaty. It is my Commission's duty to protect the rights of EU citizens, wherever they live in our Union. The rule of law is the glue that binds our Union together."
    This is so funny, because on the USSR it mostly worked the same

  12. Link to Post #9
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    68
    Posts
    8,896
    Thanks
    9,943
    Thanked 55,053 times in 8,169 posts

    Default Re: Poland's relationship with the US

    https://t.me/Q_Anon8/40963

    Poland also cut off aid to
    khazarian mafia Ukraine

    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Yoda (5th October 2023)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts