Franco-Polish Relations

[cegorach]

*sorry for lack of 'the' before 'title' but it didn't fit.




Because I usually start with heavy artillery shelling the other side which has some predictable results, perhaps the opposite approach will be a better idea.


So let us start with kind words about more pleasant links between Poland and France.

After all we have so spectacular examples, such as:



Fryderyk Chopin and his lady with very much lady-like firstname George Sand (http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=1B-6hzIfQo8)

Napoleon Bonaparte and Mrs Walewska (http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=JjKhnMYn86E)


Charles de Gaulle and his little friend (http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/?action=view&current=800px-3c15011u.jpg) he met in Poland while serving in '5 Chasseurs Polonais' or perhaps after that in July or August 1920 - it is unclear, major de Gaulle never spoke about the relationship openly.


François Rochebrune

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/Rochebrune.jpg


and his Zouaves of Death

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/405px-Zouave1888.jpg*






*of course the picture shows a French Zouave who was inferior to a Polish zouave, but that is obvious.





So perhaps we could return to a friendly exchange of arguments (http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=BzbKtsJgDCU&feature=related) ?



Now the subject.

A Europe of blocks (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/04/a_europe_of_blocs.html) maybe ?:bling:


Let us hope we will avoid any problems with communication (http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=WbXORfYms0Y) this time.



So do you think that the EU will see regional blocks dictating its policy or more a collection of temporary alliances only in certain areas e.g. common agriculture policy ?

[Adrian II]

So do you think that the EU will see regional blocks dictating its policy or more a collection of temporary alliances only in certain areas e.g. common agriculture policy ?As far as I can remember there have always been alliances based on common interests within the EU, but these were not necessarily regional, they were usually one-item blocks and they all proved to be temporary. The most obvious would be the Franco-German 'tandem' that dominated the original 6-member EU for quite a while. For some years now, Britain and The Netherlands have been a bit of an (unequal) tandem when it comes to monetary and fiscal policy.

As the EU expands I suppose we will see more shifting, temporary alliances regarding agriculture, foreign policy, etcetera. Such bargaining is a natural part of any political proces and I don't think it will endanger the union.

As to the specific Polish or French plans, I know too little about them to even drop my two cents.

[cegorach]

As to the specific Polish or French plans, I know too little about them to even drop my two cents.


According to our Foreign Office (the minister made a speech today about our foreign policy in next 3-4 years including our turn to lead the EU in 2012) France and Germany are seen as strategic partners whatever it means.

I believe it has much to do to our efforts to increase EU military power - a part in the efforts to double-tripple secure our safety.
Our part in the mission in Chad has much to do with it, I guess.

Personally I see a number of areas where we could ally ourself with France - temporary alliances in the inter-EU policy - most likely the common agricultural policy is the first such area.:inquisitive:

[Adrian II]

I believe it has much to do to our efforts to increase EU military power - a part in the efforts to double-tripple secure our safety.I fully support those efforts. We live in a time of pipeline diplomacy, proxy wars and strategic uncertainty, and unlike most western Europeans I am very much aware of Poland's specific security concerns, both military and economic. And I think Poland is having a hard time pressing for solutions and remedies without at the same time antagonising some EU or Nato members, particularly every time it appears to favour the U.S. over its European partners.

Some of Poland's problems concern us all, or so they should. I have always maintained that the Polish may sometimes act like buffoons (foor good measure, I am referring to the notorious "twins" and such, not to present company :laugh4: ) but that they are now our buffoons and we should act accordingly. Every arrangement that increases security on our eastern flank should be applauded, signed, supported and have money thrown at it, for better or worse.

[KrooK]

Sorry but why are you involving NATO here? Who like who but France whom almost destroyed NATO 40 years ago ... (here I would like to quote Jacques Chirac ;) ) should be quiet about it.

[Adrian II]

Sorry but why are you involving NATO here? Who like who but France whom almost destroyed NATO 40 years ago ... (here I would like to quote Jacques Chirac ;) ) should be quiet about it.No.

But who like who have ten times smarter compatriot in thread is who must not troll and get like thread who locked again, eh?

[cegorach]

France is back in the military structures of the organisation and is too large to ignore too - so if for example Ukraine is going to join French agreement will matter too.
Besides we are also talking about non-NATO military structures built inside the EU which are NECESSARY otherwise we as european community might face another humilation somewhere... hardly a good thing I believe.
We simply cannot call for the Americans every single time to solve our problems (post-yougoslavian wars) and when it comes to Poland and other countries more sensitive about their security it is a good idea to have another system, a backup plan for sure.




Personally I believe we would need a number of security structures - formed and named like the NATO or less formal on more local level:

The NATO - obviously,

Security structures working alongside/inside the EU - might include other non-EU states,

'Special relations' with a number of states - certainly with the USA, Israel, Lithuania and Ukraine,


All might work to larger or lesser degree together, at least that would be the usual situation, but in case one cannot work we have another.
Also all of those are already in place, in various stages of organisation, planning or effectiveness - for example our military cooperation with Israel is probably more beneficial than with the USA (military industry, development of weaponry, investments in this sector).


Security obviously includes energy supplies, intelligence cooperation and to some degree more unified foreign policy.

[Adrian II]

All might work to larger or lesser degree together, at least that would be the usual situation, but in case one cannot work we have another.It is about time the EU realizes that when its membership stretches into conflictuous areas such as the East, the Balkans or the Near east (Turkey, which borders directly on Iran), it should develop a more robust defensive posture. But I think this will either be a collective effort or no effort at all. Since last year we have made start with the European Battlegroups, which have the potential of growing into a serious rapid reaction force. What we lack (and this is a severe handicap) is a collective security concept.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Right now the rapid reaction force is only 60,000 men IIRC and is limited to the Petersburg tasks, ie rescues, peacekeeping etc. But then if they want to develop a European army then the individual countries would lose a lot of their own abilities to make foreign policy decisions.

[cegorach]

It is about time the EU realizes that when its membership stretches into conflictuous areas such as the East, the Balkans or the Near east (Turkey, which borders directly on Iran), it should develop a more robust defensive posture.

Common danger = common security - the EU entering the Middle East would be pushed to do something just in case...




But I think this will either be a collective effort or no effort at all. Since last year we have made start with the European Battlegroups, which have the potential of growing into a serious rapid reaction force. What we lack (and this is a severe handicap) is a collective security concept.


True. I hope there will not be any nonsense quarells just like with the poor, castrated cat in the Nordic Battlegroup.

I am just glad our eagle isn't so eager to expose his/her...:yes:

Czechs already said they will not allow any attacks of this kind targeting their lion.

[Adrian II]

I hope there will not be any nonsense quarells just like with the poor, castrated cat in the Nordic Battlegroup.As long as Swedish women can keep their huge cojones, we're safe.

It's the lack of a European security concept that really worries me. By now just about every EU member has come up with its own exhaustive lists of aims, concerns and focal points, but the essense of a security doctrine is that it cuts and prioritizes.

I believe that for the first time since 1989, territorial defense along the North-East arc should be a priority again...

[cegorach]

It's the lack of a European security concept that really worries me. By now just about every EU member has come up with its own exhaustive lists of aims, concerns and focal points, but the essense of a security doctrine is that it cuts and prioritizes.


Perhaps it will appear first created locally - in regional groups and later will be implemented by the EU under the pressure and through lobbying.

Personally I am really displeased that in a number of cases, especially concerning energy security european states are acting so badly.

The fact that recently it was Lithuania which decided to veto EU-Russian negotiations because finally had enough waiting for EU help with the Russian pipeline to the Mozaikas oil rafinery is another failure of the common EU policy.
A nightmare, but if the company which supplies virtually all three Baltic ex-Soviet states has to import oil by tankers just because it is in Polish hands, not Russian for several years already - everyone can get angry.

Currently the veto tactic is used far too often, even if it should be much easier to gain support in the community.





I believe that for the first time since 1989, territorial defense along the North-East arc should be a priority again...

True, but if we see one sided and selfish actions all the time - e.g. the problems with Nabucco pipeline and unchecked growth of the South Stream -
it is hard to demand something...

At least regional cooperation in this particular matter seems to work to some degree - certainly among the three , small Baltic states and possibly Poland (can't say for sure)...

[Kagemusha]

Powerblocks in EU? Well hmmm..I can honestly say that in my opinion, my country Finland and also Sweden and Denmark, pretty much vote in coordination with Germany in most affairs, i might be wrong but doesnt the same apply pretty much on Benelux countries and Austria also.:oops:

[JR-]

More power to France and Poland, i would be delighted to see the federal ideals chopped up into salami slices of individual influence between blocks of nations.

[cegorach]

According to France Presse - Slovenia (still leading the EU), Poland, Lithuania and Sweden will mediate in the name of the EU in the Georgian-Russian conflict.

MIght look like the 'block' in action, but Poland usually cooperates with Lithuania in recent years, especially and simply it is unlikely the EU would not include those states in such actions (especially Poland).

We will see how it goes and if at all it really starts.





Another question.

I have learnt that it is Romania which is supposed to play the key part in Sarkozy's eastern policy.

I realise it is because very good relationship, high level of cooperation (and investments from France) or even similar language and Romanian fashion to learn French (even in times of Caucescu).
The problem is that if that is true we will soon see a conflict of interests either between Germany and France and/or between fRance and Poland/ Romania and Poland.

For some reason I never really thought of Romania as playing any important part in the eastern policy and as a matter of fact I cannot recall any notable Romanian-led initiative when it comes to the former ex-Soviet territory.


I have a feeling it might end in even less organised and more confused policy towards eastern neighbours of the EU or caucasian states.

Maybe someone else can add something about the part which was or is played by Romania - I have always seen it as more concerned about the balcans and obviously about Moldova, but not Ukraine (except the argument about the status of Snake Island), Belorus or Georgia and others...


Will Sarkozy really bet on this horse ? Would it bring more confusion if he does ?
Am I just scheming and intriguing because of the usual Polish plans to grasp back the hegemony in the EE (and the world) ? Will this thread see its end after some explosive argument about said Snake Island ?

To be continued in the next episode...

[cegorach]

Whatever.

Seems the oly way to keep it afloat is to offend someone.


Anyway.

Mr. Sarkozy is visiting Poland on Wednesday.

For now it seems that France will indeed support the idea of the Eastern Partnership soon to be proposed by Poland with support from Sweden.
We will see when France takes the leadership how it proceeds.




A strange visit it is going to be, because of the war between our president (or rather the man who occupies that seat and will be removed) and prime minister - cohabitation - yeah, right.

[cegorach]

I am talkig to myself anyway so I will continue something which slowly becomes(yeah, right - it already IS) a mini-blog.



So OK, Sarko visited Poland - pretty nice.

Despite the fact he was invited by our moro...president and his government-in-the-exile-hoping-to-return-one-day formed from most peculiar people in the government of his brother it wasn't actually spoiled which is a huge success already !:2thumbsup:

A lot of blah, blah, blah about PolishFranco-Polish friendship and cooperation with some nice words in the Sejm - some say that Sarkozy was more interested in Joanna Mucha here with Radek Sikorski https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/sik2.jpg
than in the speech he prepared, but let's ignore that already.

The good things were the repeated French support to the project of the Eastern Partnership and the agreement that we will pay our debt to France sooner than expected (good for us to avoid additional costs) circa 250 million Euro.

The rest is a mystery, certainly after the visit of 'Prime Minister' Putin the next day.

Anyway the Eastern Partnership is coming along nicely and that would be actually everything I am interested in.

From the Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11460118)


Other countries are moving to counter what they see as Germany's overly Russia-friendly policies. Poland and Sweden this week launched their own plan, called the “eastern partnership”, to offer generous trade and other co-operation to Ukraine and Georgia, as well as to other interested countries. The aim is to recreate the model of the “Visegrad” group of four central European countries in the early 1990s, which helped ex-communist states to prepare for what at the time seemed the highly uncertain prospect of EU membership.

For the first time in any EU initiative, the plan explicitly includes Belarus (albeit only on a “technical” level for now). Russian regions such as Kaliningrad are also welcome to apply for some of the goodies that a partnership agreement can offer, such as better border crossings and environmental projects. Ex-communist Poland and rich, neutral Sweden may prove an effective combination. Their forceful foreign ministers, Radek Sikorski and Carl Bildt, get on well. Bravery is good. But brains are even better."

Good idea to involve Sweden in the project - even if makes any future claims of 'Swedish aggression' a bit less ridiculous.
Believe me you will hear such eventually.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Sorry, was busy for most of last month. Had been meaning to post a reply earlier. Some assorted thoughts:

Firstly, erm...you guys ought to really do something about that Tusk / Kaczyński stuff. It is all a bit peculiar. ~:confused:

I don't know about all of this. I'm torn. On the one hand, I am opposed to sub-EU groups. It misses the point of the EU, and fails to tap into its strength. Nor is the EU meant for particularistic policies. It is not a something you tap into whenever it suits a single state. The EU is not meant as a convenient vehicle for Polish Promethean fantasies. We do not need another Greece - obstructing and sucking dry the EU at every opportunity, whilst simultanously using the EU as a convenient instrument against Turkey.
Similarly, Sarkozy overplayed his hand in this fashion too with his Mediterranean Union. It's a good idea in principle. But his proposal - membership limited to the south, the bills for the north - was bound to be shot to pieces of course.

Yet, we need some sort of policy. Some sort of arrangement with the countries in the East and South. So, on the other hand, I actually do support both a Med Union and your beloved Eastern Union. Because the reality is that the EU is surrounded by instable, undemocratic, underdeveloped or even hostile neighbours. And the reality is that no matter how much I would content that one of the whole points of the EU is to deal with these challenges as a block - strength in unity and numbers and all that - in the foreseeable future there's no such thing as a competent and potent EU.
The EU is in some sort of limbo still. It is now too big to share common interests, and still too uncentralised to decide on anything.

One of the great aspects of the Med Union is that it solves the 'Eastern Question' - what to do with Turkey. The Med Union is a meaningful partnership without real membership status. This concept could be used for the Ukraine and Belarus too.

As to Russia: for too long, we have let ourselves be played like fools by Russia. Each country has been dealing individually with the great hungry bear in the backyard. Brilliant divide and conquer diplomacy by the Russians. This problem is more pressing to the Eastern members still. So, yeah, good luck to Poland and Sweden.

[cegorach]

Sorry, was busy for most of last month. Had been meaning to post a reply earlier. Some assorted thoughts:

Firstly, erm...you guys ought to really do something about that Tusk / Kaczyński stuff. It is all a bit peculiar. ~:confused:


Only 933 days left for the 'president'.
Sadly impeachment is hardly the option - stupidity is not a crime. Our constitution didn't predict such situation where a president is remotely controlled (by phone) and represends one party.
That is how you pay for allowing yourself to be fooled by a good PR campaign.
Right now Tusk is clearing the ground for the presidential campaign in 2010 with detailed interviews coming out with certain unconvenient truths about his youth wile the entire populist-nationalist camp is repeatedly shooting its own feet ( it is a miracle thay can still walk...) once-twice every single week.

Besides the guy is not seen seriously by anyone as far as I believe, the fact the Georgians like him is something I find hard to understand.

Well at least they've erected this monument to honour the Polish-Georgian cooperation before the war.

Quite fitting it shows the Prometheus himself.:yes:

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/promete.jpg

So as long as the president doesn't cause major blunders he can do what he likes - trying to emulate Piłsudski - which of course is a farse, but at least it doesn't cause too many problems.

Times have changed - the spirit lives on, but the means used in the past or anything similar is out of the question.

Still it is funny to see Russian press, apparently still confused, trying to show Kaczyński as the russophobe comparing him to 'pro-Russian' Tusk...
Either they believe their own ideas or the Kremlin's PR team still doesn't know what to do with our present government - it certainly isn't possible to portrait as unpredictable, nationalistic or irrational (as the previous was) neither as an American lapdog (as the socialdemocrats were) and only occassional outbursts describing Sikorski as the bad guy who is in conflict with 'pro-Russian', rationalist Tusk are left.

The sad reality is the only pro-Russian political forces in Poland (directly and undirectly) are the populists who are now all too busy facing trials for corruption and sexual assaults, while the anti-EU and indirectly pro-Kremlin LPR is in so poor shape noone really knows who is still in that party decaying in the rubbish bin of our politics.

Only most desperate 'wishful thinking' can be seen as the reason why Tusk who as a historian wrote about Piłsudski is shown as someone 'pro-Russian', yet it happens - really hard to understand.





I don't know about all of this. I'm torn. On the one hand, I am opposed to sub-EU groups. It misses the point of the EU, and fails to tap into its strength. Nor is the EU meant for particularistic policies. It is not a something you tap into whenever it suits a single state. The EU is not meant as a convenient vehicle for Polish Promethean fantasies. We do not need another Greece - obstructing and sucking dry the EU at every opportunity, whilst simultanously using the EU as a convenient instrument against Turkey.

That is why it is sold in a different way.

Of course neo-Prometheism is the core of the new project, but unlike Grece we are not taking the EU it will not have to go eventually.
It is interlocked with energy projects and keeps Ukraine out of the 'no go' zone Russia is trying to built there - the rest is somehow less important, but if that helps Armenia to solve their disagreements with the Azeris or adds another level of protection for Georgia it will surely be useful.





Similarly, Sarkozy overplayed his hand in this fashion too with his Mediterranean Union. It's a good idea in principle. But his proposal - membership limited to the south, the bills for the north - was bound to be shot to pieces of course.


That is the beauty of the Eastern Partnership - it is something much simplier and easier to defend than the Med. Union.
It will not cost almost nothing but helps a lot




One of the great aspects of the Med Union is that it solves the 'Eastern Question' - what to do with Turkey. The Med Union is a meaningful partnership without real membership status. This concept could be used for the Ukraine and Belarus too.


Which is why some Ukrainians are nervous about the project - they as we are seeing it as an introduction to the EU, not instead.



BTW Any material results of the 'PM' Putin's visit to France ?
To me as words are spoken and nothing is signed he can visit anyone anywhere anytime - only the results count.

[InsaneApache]

Interesting stuff about the Mediterranean Union Louis. Likewise the Eastern Union. I liked the bit about the north paying for it, but as we in the UK like to say, c'est la vie!

It reminds me of what pater says to me when I go and visit him. "If it wasn't for the tourists and the EU this lot, (The Greeks), would be riding around on donkeys, not Peugeots."

It does beg the question though. If the EU was to fragment what would be the point? Or would it return to being a trading bloc?

[cegorach]

Perhaps it is my fault talking too much about historical relationships, their heritage and long-term political plans so it results in some sort of 'neoimperialist Poles and their expensive schemes' conclusion (I know, I know I am exaggerating with sarcasm, but I like it - that is in my blood).

Let's face the facts.

The key elemt is the Caucasus region with its strategical importance and the alternative path to oil and gas resources the EU needs.
The most important piece would be the Azeris who have huge resources of gas (more about that below), smaller, but sizable amounts of oil and the path they can offer to sign deals with Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and others.
For that we need Georgia and Armenia - first adds another pipeline, away from Turkey (more routes do not hurt), second is necessary to secure the deal because we need to deal with the tension between the Azeris and the Armanians somehow and what better than keeping them in one structure to resolve the differences.
Obviously Ukraine has a different role, but it also offers another, secure path to the energy from the Caucasus states, besides the EU should try to expans its zone of influence and security - if we don't do that Russia will eventually - noone likes to live in a grey zone of little security without any profits from neutrality which is doubtful in this part of the world.

So here are the practical, sizable and profitable results from forging the Eastern Partnership - larger trade, better anti-emigration barriers (of course against the illegal immigration) - similar with all forms of anti criminal activity and cooperation and of course better energy security.

Why I am talking about the Azeris ? Simply we need to look at the raw numbers - to 2015 they are planning to reach up to 47,5 billion of cubic meters of gas which will be mostly exported.
It is reasonable it is possible because their trippled their production in time of last 12 months to 17 billion and should reach 27,4 billion this year.
They are already supplying themselves (they had to import gas only few years ago), Georgia and Turkey and should start supplying Greece and even Italy (Poseidon pipeline) this year. It should also be more than enough for Nabucco - no wonder the Russians are pushing so hard with the South Stream right now and are trying to push the Azeris to sign a number of deals with Gazprom to 'intercept' their export integrating them into Russian projects.

So basically we need to react fast because if Russia takes control over the region in this area we can say goodbye not only to the huge resources of Caucasus, but also the the safest, independent routes to Central Asia.

Considering the fact that Russia already has problems with supplying its customers during wintertime and their production is getting lower with badly allocated investments in the entire oil and gas sector we need to secure as many alternative paths as possible - not to mention the political consequences we would have to swallow if we stay idle.

We can all see that state controlled Russian suppliers are not so much concerned with effectiveness and profit, but with eliminating the competition giving them an enormous advantage in any future deals and that Kremlin is trying to meddle too much and too often - hardly to our benefit.
If it will be my country's task to drag the entire EU into more secure position so be it - I doubt anyone will really oppose it if it is done properly and with the 2005-2007 political cabaret over I am certain it will have to happen, or we sooner or later we will suffer.

The Eastern Partnership as an important way to secure EU interests works to our common benefit - of the EU, of the eastern states it targets and of Russia which will have to abandon imperialist dellusions and slowly become a normal country concerned more about the wellfare of its citizens than its Kremlin controlled energy exporters.