'Fort Trump'? Polish President urges US to open base

[Jaga]

I don't agree with pres. Duda, but he just counts on more money from the US. I believe that suggesting the name "Fort Trump" was quite inappropriate

watch the video
edition.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/fort-trump-andrzej-duda-poland/index.html

'Fort Trump'? Polish President urges US to consider opening base

Washington (CNN)Polish President Andrzej Duda urged President Donald Trump on Tuesday during a joint news conference to deploy more US troops and military equipment to Poland, even suggesting the US establish a permanent military base and name it "Fort Trump."

"I invite you to post more American military troops in Poland," Duda said, calling a US presence a "guarantor of security."
Duda suggested building a permanent US base in Poland and said he would name it "Fort Trump."
"I firmly believe that this is possible," Duda said, saying it would be both in US and Polish interests.
Trump said he is considering Poland's request to establish a permanent US base in that country, but added that Poland "would pay the United States."
Trump said Duda had offered the US more than $2 billion to set up a base in Poland.
"He would pay the United States, meaning Poland would be paying billions of dollars for a base," Trump said. "We're looking at that more and more from the standpoint of defending really wealthy countries."
"The President offered us much more than $2 billion," Trump said.

[karl]

Jaga

It is an interesting proposal to pay the Americans to set up an American base in Poland. The amount offered though, would only barely cover set up cost, and then the question will arise, who will pay for the yearly upkeep of the base or will Poland expect the Americans to pay a yearly lease for the base upon Polish soil?

Knowing the Trump agenda, he will expect Poland to pay up for use of Americans to shore up their defense forces as insurance against Russian possible incursion on Polish soil.

All this would make much better sense to simply for Poland to put down all the saber rattling and learn to live with their neighbour Russia on better friendly terms. But, I would only suppose this would be out of reality in the light of long past memories that are never allowed to die out.

www.defensenews.com/land/2018/05/29/talk-on-setting-up-permanent-base-in-poland-heats-up-but-does-it-make-sense/

Whilst though, we needs be travel a bit further with this. It would be much safer in the manner of German logic for the Americans to move out off German soil and whilst doing so, move out also the Nuclear weapons that do not exist and place them on Polish soil. In this manner, so goes the incentive for Germany to be hit by first strike nuclear attact if all things went to heck and not neccessarly from Russia. For the Americans have placed a large target on our foreheads with their stored nuclear weapons upon our lands. For this and France would be a nice target to nutralize Europe by such forces willing to risk all to invade our respective lands. For the risk is very well worth it for the worth of our respective lands with the riches to be gained with using our respective industrial build up.

With the nuclear weapons cleared from our land to Polish soil. An attact to nutralize these weapons would be too close to Russian soil resulting with Russian defensive forces to insure this would not occure.

The Poles are not thinking clearly in the logistics of military logic.

Karl

[kaima]

Might as well rent them our mercenary armed forces, we fight for all kinds of other businesses and dictators (granted, dictators come with many different titles these days).

So Russia moves into Ukraine against their promises to honor the boundaries existing in the 90's when Ukraine de-Nuklearized. So now the USA, within the NATO umbrella considers moving into Poland, in violation of agreements to not push NATO forces closer to the former Soviet / Russian borders.

Nice to have a stable world where national leaders follow international agreements!

This is a sad but interesting time!

Kai

[Jaga]

Karl, good point with oonclusions that even if Polad would spport buiding this base, American know that Poles are justluring them

[Not My Point]

I read it on the internet, so it must be true...…


www.heritage.org/europe/report/the-1997-nato-russia-founding-act-does-not-prohibit-permanent-nato-bases-eastern


Can you say Ukraine?

[Jaga]

Poles just want Americans to invest their money ... but building another military base does not solve any problems.

[kaima]

... and a write up from July 8, 1997

www.cnn.com/WORLD/9707/08/nato.reax/index.html

U.S. prevails in historic NATO expansion
Polish, Czech and Hungarian leaders celebrate membership
July 8, 1997
Web posted at: 10:50 p.m. EDT (0250 GMT)
MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- President Clinton Tuesday prevailed in his plan for limited NATO expansion as Western allies agreed to invite three countries -- Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic -- into the military alliance.

"We have taken a giant stride in our efforts to create a Europe that is undivided, democratic and at peace -- literally -- for the first time since the rise of the nation state on the European continent," Clinton said.

Completing the embrace of former Warsaw Pact adversaries and neutral states, NATO's 16 leaders will sign a charter with Ukraine Wednesday and hold the first session of a Europe-Atlantic Partnership Council with 27 partner nations.

The NATO leaders spent most of Monday arguing over how many Eastern neighbors should be let into the alliance as a first group of newcomers in 1999, the year NATO turns 50.

The jubilant Polish, Czech and Hungarian leaders embraced and raised clasped arms in triumph at the NATO summit conference center after receiving their invitations to join the defense alliance that won the Cold War.

Ironically, two of them -- Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski and Hungarian Prime Minister Gyula Horn -- were once communists, although both now espouse democracy and the market economy. Czech President Vaclav Havel was a dissident author jailed by a Soviet-backed regime.

Added Clinton: "These are the countries who have proved their readiness to join us at this table."

Countries
Clinton killed a last-minute, face-saving effort by France to include a specific promise to Romania and Slovenia that they would be invited to join at the next NATO summit in 1999. The president preferred instead to leave that door open.

"The alliance expects to extend further invitations in the coming years," said NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana at the end of a long day in which enlargement was the only subject. "No European democratic country whose admission would fulfill the objectives of the (NATO) treaty will be excluded from consideration."

A high price to pay
But some White House aids expressed concern that there will be a high price to pay for imposing American will on its 15 NATO allies. The president has taken on added U.S. responsibility for NATO enlargement -- and its associated strategic costs.

Those costs could be high. Winning the two-thirds majority required for ratification in the U.S. Senate won't be easy, especially if the vote comes up next summer just as the U.S. is planning to withdraw its troops from Bosnia, a step the Europeans oppose.

"If the European countries that are there in Bosnia now all decide to pull out ... when we take out the land forces, I think it will make it very difficult to get the vote to expand NATO in the Senate," U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, Democrat of Delaware, said.

'Very happy with the decision'
France and other allies believe Europe's southern flank is the most volatile region and that early admission of Romania and Slovenia would have added stability

Chirac
French President Jacques Chirac was stoic in defeat. "We should look at this meeting as an evolution," he said. "It's an important step we couldn't have imagined two or three years ago."

President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland said, "We are very happy with the decision of today. Poland waited so long and now the doors to full NATO membership are open. We are very satisfied and we are ready to go forward."

Slovenia Prime Minister Janez Drnousek said, "We expect to be included very soon, one year or perhaps two years from now." His foreign minister, Zoran Thaler, complained that "Slovenia has not been given any good explanation why it is out."

Dutch Foreign Minister Hans van Mierlo said Germany gave up first in the battle for five, then they all fell to the American steamroller.

"The countries favoring five new members had to quickly face up to the reality that that was not possible, especially after Germany gave up the fight," Van Mierlo said.

Russia may not remain appeased
The Russians, who also waged a losing battle against NATO enlargement, accepted it grudgingly in the end, signing a document setting out closer relations with NATO and the formation of a new NATO-Russia Joint Permanent Council based at NATO headquarters in Brussels.

But Russia may not remain appeased if the allies eventually invite the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to join. That possibility was deliberately left open in the final NATO communiquŽ.

NATO officials say the lure of eventual membership is having a stabilizing effect deep into eastern Europe, spurring old enemies to settle nagging border and minority issues and bring their armed forces under democratic civilian control.

They cited Romania's recent agreements with Ukraine and Hungary as examples of the "virtuous circle" created by the prospect of NATO and European Union enlargement.

The counterargument is that foreign investors may be drawn only to those countries sure of being in the first wave of NATO and EU enlargement, widening the prosperity gap between the happy few and the other east European states.

Senior White House Correspondent Wolf Blitzer and Reuters contributed to this report.