French foreign policy in the EE - a real change or an illusion ?

According to Le Monde the French government is trying to rebuilt or infact built a new web of contacts with almost all 'eastern european' (central, eastern, baltic and balcan states).

It could explain why the French delegation in the official visit of Mr. Sarkozy to Poland this month is supposed to be so large (as much as half of the government) - I doubt they are all travelling just to see the birthplace of Chopin or Maria Curie-Skłodowska...

As much as I see Polish-French political and military relatiosnhip after Napoleon as a complete waste of time and effort I can not ignore this change of direction. After 'EE will join the EU only if Russia does' Mitterrand and 'shut up and do as we want' Chirac it almost a ground breaking move.

I was always in favour of having a better understanding between members in the EU and certainly that initiative could help.

THe question is if it is entirely serious.

It is a question mainly to the French members.

So:

Do you think it is a French answer to latest German move which 'employed' EE members, especially Poland and Bulgaria to counter Sarkozy's idea of this 'Mediterrean Union' ?

Is it an initiative to bring support for the idea from this part of Europe and the EU especially ?

Is that a part of a new French strategy in the EU with features such as the '6 state EU conclave' (France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland) ?
This would most likely have something to do with France coming back to military structures of the NATO too.

Or is it just a move to forge strong relationship in the area where only Germany (from EU 'big' or rather 'largest boys') was interested before so in fact a French reaction not a part of a bigger plan ? IN other words something rather temporary and without much possible impact in the future.

Personally I have nothing against any of those possibilities as long as it will serve in bringing Ukraine, Belorus and some others to the NATO and the EU in the future so helping our own plans in this area of Europe.



Any thoughts ? Louis, Brenus perhaps ?




BTW If I understood correctly Nordic states are apparently gaining influence along with Germany. It puzzles me a bit because I havn't heard about anything important coming from for example Sweden and directed towards the group of states named in the text - Poland, Ukraine, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and Lithuania.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A l'approche de la présidence française de l'Union européenne (UE), l'équipe de Nicolas Sarkozy a lancé une initiative diplomatique pour l'Ukraine. Paris courtise parallèlement les pays d'Europe centrale et orientale, auxquels il a proposé des "partenariats stratégiques".

Alors que la diplomatie de Jacques Chirac avait tendance à négliger – parfois avec une pointe de mépris – les pays de l'Est européen, et à freiner tout rapprochement de l'Ukraine avec l'UE par souci de ménager la relation avec la Russie, une approche nouvelle a été décidée.

Les responsables français ont récemment transmis aux pays membres de l'UE et aux dirigeants ukrainiens un document ("non-papier") contenant une série de propositions visant à renforcer le partenariat entre l'Ukraine et l'UE. Il s'agit de "faire passer à un niveau nouveau la politique de voisinage" que Bruxelles a mise en place, explique-t-on de source française. A l'occasion du sommet UE-Ukraine prévu en septembre à Paris, M. Sarkozy voudrait pouvoir afficher des résultats dans ce sens.

L'initiative est saluée en particulier par la Pologne, qui plaide depuis longtemps pour qu'une perspective européenne soit offerte à l'Ukraine. Les Polonais ont en outre fait passer le message qu'il leur serait plus facile d'accepter le projet français d'Union de la Méditerranée si l'Europe faisait, par ailleurs, un geste envers ses voisins de l'Est : pour eux, l'axe "méridional" de la politique européenne ne doit pas se faire au détriment de l'axe "oriental". Varsovie a d'ailleurs dans ses cartons un projet équivalent à l'Union de la Méditerranée, mais en direction des voisins orientaux de l'UE...

L'activisme français au profit de l'Ukraine satisfait les pays d'Europe centrale, tout en étant accueilli avec scepticisme par d'autres partenaires, comme les Pays-Bas, rétifs à toute notion d'élargissement ultérieur de l'UE. Les partisans en Europe d'une adhésion turque se demandent si l'équipe de M. Sarkozy ne cherche pas à enfoncer un clou, en démontrant à quel point les Ukrainiens, contrairement aux Turcs, ont une légitimité européenne.

A Bruxelles, certains s'interrogent : "La France est saisie d'un amour soudain pour l'Ukraine, alors que d'autres dossiers sont plus brûlants pour l'Europe : les relations avec la Serbie, les Balkans, et la nécessité d'avoir une politique avec la Russie." Moscou a déjà fait connaître son hostilité à la démarche française visant à arrimer l'Ukraine à l'Europe. C'est sans doute l'une des raisons pour lesquelles la tentative de l'Elysée n'a fait l'objet d'aucune annonce publique.

Paris avance avec une certaine précaution. La diplomatie française reste en deçà des souhaits exprimés par Kiev : elle ne prône pas explicitement, dans le document qu'elle a fait circuler, l'idée que l'Ukraine soit amenée un jour à devenir membre de l'UE. "Mais on ne dit plus que la porte est fermée. Elle est entrouverte. Rien n'est exclu pour l'Ukraine, et c'est une nouveauté", commente-t-on côté français. "Après avoir longtemps été réticente, la France dépasse maintenant les plus fervents défenseurs de l'Ukraine que sont les Polonais ou les Autrichiens !"

Le geste envers Kiev est d'autant plus marquant que, lors du récent sommet de l'OTAN à Bucarest, la France était en phase avec l'Allemagne, qui s'opposait à l'inclusion de Kiev dans le "plan d'action pour l'adhésion". Mais la nouvelle politique est-européenne répond à une volonté de M. Sarkozy de se montrer attentif aux dirigeants ukrainiens pro-occidentaux issus de la "révolution orange" de 2004, qu'il a rencontrés à plusieurs reprises.

Elle traduit aussi le souci constant du président français, depuis son élection, de réparer les dégâts causés par la crise de 2003 entre M. Chirac et un certain nombre de capitales d'Europe orientale qui avaient exprimé leurs vues atlantistes et leur soutien à Washington à propos de l'Irak. L'ambiance a assurément changé. L'appui de la Pologne a ainsi été sollicité - et obtenu - par Paris en 2007 pour l'opération militaire de l'Eufor au Tchad, par exemple.

Le réchauffement des relations avec la "nouvelle Europe" doit être symboliquement scellé par la signature de "partenariats stratégiques" bilatéraux entre la France et sept de ces pays. Celui avec la Roumanie a déjà été conclu lors de la visite de M. Sarkozy à Bucarest en février. En mai et en juin, d'autres doivent suivre, avec la Pologne, la Hongrie, la République tchèque, la Slovaquie, la Bulgarie et la Lituanie. Le secrétaire d'Etat aux affaires européennes, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, a été chargé de les préparer.

Il s'agit, dit-on à Paris, de marquer "le retour de la France dans ces pays". Comme pour l'Ukraine, Paris veut signifier que l'Europe orientale et son potentiel ne doivent pas être "laissés" à l'Allemagne et aux pays nordiques. Les Français cherchent aussi à rallier le plus de soutiens possibles aux priorités de leur présidence de l'UE, comme la promotion d'une Europe de la défense.
Natalie Nougayrède

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach

As much as I see Polish-French political and military relatiosnhip after Napoleon as a complete waste of time and effort [..]

---

Sure. All they did was go to war with Germany on your account in 1939. A negligible detail, no doubt? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Sure. All they did was go to war with Germany on your account in 1939. A negligible detail, no doubt? :dizzy2:

---

ignored as everything and as always since one certain day.




Hmmm perhaps I could avoid mentioning that, but on the other had it hives me some pleasure so what the hell.

I will send a PM to Louis perhaps he will find some time as usual to explain the details of French politics.:idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach

ignored as always since one certain day.

---

As if I care.

And do you remember why this French alliance with Poland came into being? Because France was the only power to come to Poland's aid in its war against the Soviets in 1920, wasn't it?

Apart from other sorts of aid, like facilitating and transporting the so-called Blue Army of Polish exiles to the Polish battlefield, the French also sent four hundred military advisors of their own. Among them a certain Charles de Gaulle who was awarded Poland's highest military order for his role in the fighting near the Zbrucz river and was subsequently offered a military career in Poland.

An episode that resulted in the formal French-Polish Alliance of 21 February 1921, an alliance that was of vital interest to Poland in its negiotiations with Soviet Russia.

Just details, I know...

Speaking of which, that Polish ‘Blue Army’ I mentioned above wasn’t really Polish, was it? It was .. (drumroll) .. French!

In the last years of WWI the French recruited Polish exiles (many coming from America) into brigades and finally formed them into a 10,000-strong Polish Division within the French army, with an eye to creating the future armed forces of an independent Poland. This move proved to be of mutual benefit for both parties. Other countries beside France favoured a Polish right to independence, but these Polish soldiers knew darn well that their armed participation on the French side would be their only realistic ticket to de facto independence. So they fought like lions on the river Marne, for which they were amply decorated.

After the war they were merged with other Polish military elements in France (such as the Foreign Legion’s ‘Bayonne Legion’) into one army. This ‘Polish Army in France’, trained and outfitted by the French, was transported to Poland in 1919 together with their French weapons, horses, food and supplies as well as the four hundred French instructors. Being the only armed unit that was up to WWI standards, they became the backbone of the fledgling state. It is safe to say that without them the Red Army would have had its way and Poland would not have existed as a truly independent state (indeed, if at all) for very long.



I know these are the smallest of minute details and we really, really shouldn’t bother with them, if only you would alter your post ever so slightly to take them into account.

Instead of calling Franco-Polish relations since Napoleon a waste of time and effort, I suggest you could say (and note how carefully I manage to avoid the word ’vital’ here) that these relations were rather important to Poland.

It has the added benefit of avoiding questions such as exactly whose time and effort were wasted on whom. Of course, if you insist you can always try to answer that question.

Illusion...

Can you expand that a bit ?

One word statement hardly gives anything to think about.

Why do you think so ?:inquisitive:

For one it is a waste of resources to create a network of contacts with several states with at least a number of high rank governmental visits so it has to be justified if it is only an illusion, a smokecourtain for something more important.

Sorry, it's a common answer among the french about almost everything Sarkö promises.


What our president says is illusion. Not real change. He wants to be considered as the new accelerator in european relations?
Well he promised to be the new accelerator in the building of fair and respectuous and virtuous relationship with african states, treating our former colonies as loyal partners for enhancement of democracy. No more of this feudal links with african satraps! Guess what happened? The first foreign leader to visit him one year ago was... Omar Bongo, Miss Africa since the sixties. And then he sold a nuclear power plant to Mr Khadafi, who has never backed any form of terrorism and is of course, a marvelous democrat. Illusion...

And it's been the same about every topic this last year. Except the tax cuts for the Upper (and I mean Upper, those who don't NEED more money) class, it is the SINGLE part of his program he applied.

Sarkozy's projects? Illusion.

Sarkozy was and is the master of the Verb. In fact he is the illustration of the Bible first sentence “At the beginning was the Verb”, “Au début fut le Verbe”.
As Minister of Interior, he was always the fastest to go in front of the camera, claiming for result of others, with harsh comments but no action. From the police to Firemen Services he made a lot of promises which he failed to implement. It was not really is problem the media don’t do follow-up.
I wrote on this site he was the “Back to the Past”, and unfortunately, I was right. Sarkozy give back to the Rich what belong to the poor.
For the NATO reintegration, to the systematic destruction and pillaging of 100 years of painful and sometimes bloody social conquests and freedom, he just brings France back to the 19th Century society. His systematic alignment on the worst US policy (and that is why is going with Poland –remember the new Europe- to the recognition of Kosovo, sending troops in Afghanistan (he still hesitates about Iraq I supposed) is part of his ultra-conservative attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

I wrote on this site he was the “Back to the Past”, and unfortunately, I was right. Sarkozy give back to the Rich what belong to the poor.
For the NATO reintegration, to the systematic destruction and pillaging of 100 years of painful and sometimes bloody social conquests and freedom, he just brings France back to the 19th Century society. His systematic alignment on the worst US policy (and that is why is going with Poland –remember the new Europe- to the recognition of Kosovo, sending troops in Afghanistan (he still hesitates about Iraq I supposed) is part of his ultra-conservative attitude.

---

So do you think it is the only reason - to 'be on the same side' as the USA ?

Perhaps there are other issues, ideas or plans too ?

I agree (even if I am not expert here) that he is able to claim others' achievemtns as his own or declare something which is obviously not true just to gain/regain some popular support - the defeat with Meditterrean Union declared as a success is a good example.


@Tristuskhan

Quote:

---

What our president says is illusion. Not real change. He wants to be considered as the new accelerator in european relations?
Well he promised to be the new accelerator in the building of fair and respectuous and virtuous relationship with african states, treating our former colonies as loyal partners for enhancement of democracy. No more of this feudal links with african satraps! Guess what happened? The first foreign leader to visit him one year ago was... Omar Bongo, Miss Africa since the sixties. And then he sold a nuclear power plant to Mr Khadafi, who has never backed any form of terrorism and is of course, a marvelous democrat. Illusion...

And it's been the same about every topic this last year. Except the tax cuts for the Upper (and I mean Upper, those who don't NEED more money) class, it is the SINGLE part of his program he applied.

Sarkozy's projects? Illusion.

---

Thank you for the explanation.

In a way - as far as my limited knowledge about his policy allows me - he is quite like our previous government ( 'double trouble' - or 'twins') i.e. words to gain support followed by lack of activity or simple 'legal impossibilism' i.e. proposals which breach international treaties and violate the constitution so impossible to implement, but proposed only to gain support and play himself as a die-hard reformer who cannot do anything because 'others' stop him.

Still it looks awfully expensive just for propaganda.
After all such high ranking governmental visits (in Poland it would be the highest ranking meeting with a French envoys ever) according to the protocol, tradition and all known customs are supposed to mean something.
If after such an impressive show of goodwill results will be none existent French reputation will reach new lows.

If the entire thing is just for show the cost for France will be very high - added to rather bad reputation in this part of europe it would mean France falling to the second row in the EU.

I can hardly believe anyone could risk such a defeat.:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach

So do you think it is the only reason - to 'be on the same side' as the USA ?

---

He has a very strong ideological atlantism, and has a tendancy to stick to the US positions whatever they are, so if not the only, it's one one the major reasons of his current attitudes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach

If the entire thing is just for show the cost for France will be very high

---

And the man does not give a damn... he's the first french president with such disregard for France. It's becoming so obvious that it beginning to create much (inconclusive) popular boredom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach

I can hardly believe anyone could risk such a defeat.:inquisitive:

---

You bet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

He has a very strong ideological atlantism, and has a tendancy to stick to the US positions whatever they are, so if not the only, it's one one the major reasons of his current attitudes.

And the man does not give a damn... he's the first french president with such disregard for France. It's becoming so obvious that it beginning to create much (inconclusive) popular boredom.

---

Even so experienced polit... I have just realised we had equally experienced politician in power only 8 months ago his 'experince' translated into obsessions, rudeness and nedless quarells...

So it is only boredom the result of this time ? Is there apathy or anger too ? Anger can be quite positive in the long run - I am thinking about my country where voters' anger removed populists from the parliament and changed the government (populists, conservative-right and left are almost destroyed now with centrist conservative-liberals in power).

I wonder, though who could possibly gain from such feeling in France ? Any candidates ?

Quote:

---

You bet?

---

I would better not.

'Never underestimate stupidity' even if it is suicidal one.

Still I must say I had some expectations about the new French government... at least in theory I shuld give them some time...

Even so experienced polit... I have just realised we had equally experienced politician in power only 8 months ago his 'experince' translated into obsessions, rudeness and nedless quarells...


Divide and rule is something Sarko understands well. And France is an easy -to -divide place. Atavism.

So it is only boredom the result of this time ? Is there apathy or anger too ?

Maybe others could answer your question better than I do since I live in a quite remote place and do not know what it is to feels in my flesh Sarkozy's daily effects, especially the omnipresent police in those the urban areas I avoid so much.


I wonder, though who could possibly gain from such feeling in France ? Any candidates ?


Bayrou? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayrou The only name that comes to my mind, even if he is not from my political chapel. Once he gets rid of his "there is too much State" stance (that dogma is a bore for us french) he could be the one. But he has almost no corporate backing (Sarkozy spends his spare time buying Bayrou's former followers). Buying, as I tell you.
Apart of him i see few proper candidates: Besançenot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besancenot is a fair man leading an unfair party, unable to rule an united "true" left by itself despite the strong potential of this left wing (25%?).

Corinne Lepage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinne_Lepage she's the best and as a consequence does not play an active rule.

And don't forget this old one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Le_Pen because Sarkozy (despite his claims) has not killed this filthy character


I would better not.

'Never underestimate stupidity' even if it is suicidal one.


Sit down, have a beer and watch the show!

Still I must say I had some expectations about the new French government... at least in theory I shuld give them some time...

Time HE spends visiting dictators or resting on his friend's yachts.


Now everything I say can be described as "severely biased" as I'm some kind of left-leaner.

Nice thread, Cegorach. But yesterday was a French public holiday. Bad timing for a Frenchie thread. Brenus and Tristus were no doubt busy waving their red flags and shouting anti-bling-bling slogans in the streets. :sneaky:
Meneldil and Caernafan don't post very regularly. ~:mecry: Honourary Frenchman Adrian has shared his 2 cents already. ~;)

Quote:

---

Is that a part of a new French strategy in the EU with features such as the '6 state EU conclave' (France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland) ?

---

Not really, no. Poland is a big member state, indeed, in the same league as Spain. As such, relations with Poland deserve close attention.
But these six share little in common. Inner circles within the EU, closer ties between members, are not based on size in the EU, but on mutual interest and shared values between groups of members. So no, there is no common policy of these six. Relations between them vary. Two things to bear in mind: Merkel and Sarkozy absolutely hate each other. Not since Mitterand and Kohl have relations been this bad on a personal level between a German chancellor and a French président. On a personal level, Sarko is of course completely intolerable. Merkel is more sensitive to this than other world leaders and one can't blame her.
The near symbiotic French-German axis is still solid, if not as strong as it has been for decades. Mutual necessity for it is waning, especially for Germany.

The other thing is, that relations between Poland and the EU have been normalised since Tusk took over last October. He started relations with the other member states afresh, quickly travelled to France a few months ago as well. So a high-profile French-Polish summit was simply in the making. When one medium-sized European state and one Global Superpower are in single union, the need for a well-defined policy vis-à-vis each other is simply there. And when circumstance prevented it in recent years, both countries changed governments in the last twelve months. The time is simply right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach

Do you think it is a French answer to latest German move which 'employed' EE members, especially Poland and Bulgaria to counter Sarkozy's idea of this 'Mediterrean Union' ?

---

No, it has little to do with the Med Union or with any East European resistance against it. It was Germany and the UK who shot the Med Union to pieces. They told Sarkozy to go fait l'amour with himself. As to any reservations of the Eastern Europe members, I am afraid to inform you, nobody gave a to eh, they were carefully taken into account. :sweatdrop:

As to French East European policy in general: France is always busy with grand new plans and grand new plans are always French. Call diplomacy a national sport. France is a country with a vocation, with a mission to fullfill: to spread democracy, human rights and the values of the Republic. They will be spread, either with boots on the march, or with the sharpness of our minds as a bajonet. Paris was granted the right by God to assume a special place in Europe and lead you all. These plans are both real and very transient at the same time. Circumstance, opportunism and a certain inclination for the grand gesture at the expense of solid realism mean these plans can be more temporary than they were originally intended.

This is the deepest current in French European policy. At the next level, circumstance simply prevented an all-ecompassing French EE policy in recent years.
The big policy was to incorporate central Europe into the EU. This came to fruition in 2004. (As an aside: Louis was celebrating in Budapest when it joined. Great day, great festivities, and me drunk, singing 'Alle Menschen werden Brüder' on the shore of the Donau. Ah, bliss.)
Then, France was dormant in the East. Chirac was too old in general, the EU referendum was lost, Poland was ruled by the evil twins, New Europe was too busy liberating Iraq, there was a revolution in the Ukraine, the Russian menace wasn't properly understood by Europe, etc. So it took a few years to return and formulate a EE policy. In a way, the question is not why does France suddenly have an EE policy, the question is, why did she lack one for a few years.

To the nature of the new EE policy, I don't know exactly what you want to discuss, you touch on so many subjects: Ukraine in the EU, EU expansion in the former Soviet Union in general, French-Polish relations, French-German relations, the Mediterranean Union, the balance / conflict between NATO and EU expansion in the East, Russia and the EU, temprorary vesus deep currents in French foreign policy, the status of Sarkozy's presidency. I'd love to discuss any of these, or any connection between them, but not all at the same time. I wouldn't know where to begin and especially where to end. That I am not well versed in each and every one of these subjects - slanderous tongues would say: utterly clueless - has, of course, nothing to do with me not expanding on them here. But if you could please narrow it down a bit...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach

If the entire thing is just for show the cost for France will be very high - added to rather bad reputation in this part of europe it would mean France falling to the second row in the EU.

---

Et mon cul, c'est du poulet? :smash:

Sink yer teeth into this:
QUOTE=Cego: Personally I have nothing against any of those possibilities as long as it will serve in bringing Ukraine, Belorus and some others to the NATO and the EU in the future so helping our own plans in this area of Europe.

That Poland's new grand plan? Belarus in the EU? That others need to support at the risk of obsolencence? Four years ago, your current foreign minister ran crying to the Americans, begging and pleading them to add Belarus as a fourth member to the axis of evil. Now, apparantly his great plan is to have Belarus join both the EU and NATO...

Was it not this same Sikorski too who wrote that 'France and Germany risk being completely disqualified as serious members of the international community when Iraq's WMDs turned up?'
Somebody ask him yet what the non-presence of WMD's means then, to 'the status as serious members of the international community' for those who insisted blind European faith in the neocons was the way to go?

So I guess the pattern is:
- Poland warning France that she risks second-rate status if France doesn't believe in Santa Claus WMD's in Iraq,
- Poland warning France that she risks second-rate status if France doesn't add Belarus to the Axis of Evil,
- And now, p'tite Pologne warning la France éternelle that she risks second-rate status if, instead, she doesn't make Belarus a member of the EU?

Maybe Poland really shouldn't waste all those excellent opportunities to remain silent...:knight:

Quote:

---

Moscou a déjà fait connaître son hostilité à la démarche française visant à arrimer l'Ukraine à l'Europe. C'est sans doute l'une des raisons pour lesquelles la tentative de l'Elysée n'a fait l'objet d'aucune annonce publique.

---

Sod Moscow. The days of the Soviet Union must be over. Free peoples can decide their own destinies, and it is about time the EU stopped being so timid towards Russia. We ought to build a democratic Europe with Moscow, or despite Moscow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TristusKhan

Bayrou? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayrou The only name that comes to my mind, even if he is not from my political chapel. Once he gets rid of his "there is too much State" stance (that dogma is a bore for us french) he could be the one. But he has almost no corporate backing (Sarkozy spends his spare time buying Bayrou's former followers). Buying, as I tell you.

---

I supported Bayrou. I still like him, a lot. But it is the Sarko show now. I thoroughly despise the man Sarko, but I support his ideas, and I love his provocations. The place of Bayrou is to be a voice of moderation, for which he has my support and respect.

But for now, I want upheaval, shock and provocation. Donc, vive le bling-bling! Et vive la Sarkaille!

And Brenus:
1968 was forty years ago. To be a radical in France nowadays means to be a conservative. Sarkozy is the true heir of '68. :knight:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Nice thread, Cegorach. But yesterday was a French public holiday. Bad timing for a Frenchie thread. Brenus and Tristus were no doubt busy waving their red flags and shouting anti-bling-bling slogans in the streets.

---

It was a public holiday in Poland too and today is the National Holiday - though I don't mind a good quarell discussion

Quote:

---

Not really, no. Poland is a big member state, indeed, in the same league as Spain. As such, relations with Poland deserve close attention.
But these six share little in common. Inner circles within the EU, closer ties between members, are not based on size in the EU, but on mutual interest and shared values between groups of members. So no, there is no common policy of these six.

---

Well it was Sarkozy who proposed to create such leadership group - I am just repeating what he said.:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

No, it has little to do with the Med Union or with any East European resistance against it. It was Germany and the UK who shot the Med Union to pieces. They told Sarkozy to go fait l'amour with himself. As to any reservations of the Eastern Europe members, I am afraid to inform you, nobody gave a to eh, they were carefully taken into account. :sweatdrop:

---

I know that.:laugh4: But Merkel asked for example Tusk to nail the coffin of the idea which he did gladly (Bulgaria did the same for the Balcans).
I thought he could try to create a new bridge of contacts running directly above Mrs.Merkel.
I have no illusion about the strenght of my country, the question is if we can exploit what we can and here is the time when the question appears if Sarkozy is going to try to 'play us' too.
After all it is all very dynamic, there are no solid camps and there are no vassal states supposed to do something for someone.

Quote:

---

As to French East European policy in general: France is always busy with grand new plans and grand new plans are always French. Call diplomacy a national sport. France is a country with a vocation, with a mission to fullfill: to spread democracy, human rights and the values of the Republic. They will be spread, either with boots on the march, or with the sharpness of our minds as a bajonet. Paris was granted the right by God to assume a special place in Europe and lead you all. These plans are both real and very transient at the same time. Circumstance, opportunism and a certain inclination for the grand gesture at the expense of solid realism mean these plans can be more temporary than they were originally intended.

---

Hmmm so we have a problem since Poland sees itself in very much the same way, though it is in general less diplomacy and more direct actions, sometimes too rush, though.

Quote:

---

The big policy was to incorporate central Europe into the EU. This came to fruition in 2004. (As an aside: Louis was celebrating in Budapest when it joined. Great day, great festivities, and me drunk, singing 'Alle Menschen werden Brüder' on the shore of the Donau. Ah, bliss.)
Then, France was dormant in the East. Chirac was too old in general, the EU referendum was lost, Poland was ruled by the evil twins, New Europe was too busy liberating Iraq, there was a revolution in the Ukraine, the Russian menace wasn't properly understood by Europe, etc. So it took a few years to return and formulate a EE policy. In a way, the question is not why does France suddenly have an EE policy, the question is, why did she lack one for a few years.

---

Disagree with the first (2003-2004 was before the elections of 2005), agree with the last.

Quote:

---

To the nature of the new EE policy, I don't know exactly what you want to discuss, you touch on so many subjects: Ukraine in the EU, EU expansion in the former Soviet Union in general, French-Polish relations, French-German relations, the Mediterranean Union, the balance / conflict between NATO and EU expansion in the East, Russia and the EU, temprorary vesus deep currents in French foreign policy, the status of Sarkozy's presidency. I'd love to discuss any of these, or any connection between them, but not all at the same time. I wouldn't know where to begin and especially where to end. That I am not well versed in each and every one of these subjects - slanderous tongues would say: utterly clueless - has, of course, nothing to do with me not expanding on them here. But if you could please narrow it down a bit...?

---

Just the two. I am more interested why this particular attempt is being made - is there a deeper plan or is that temporary and perhaps serving such plans as the Med Union - which adds the question if it really is dead and buried or just closed in a coffin ?
To make it simple - it is about technology, means rather than ideas.

Quote:

---

That Poland's new grand plan? Belarus in the EU? That others need to support at the risk of obsolencence? Four years ago, your current foreign minister ran crying to the Americans, begging and pleading them to add Belarus as a fourth member to the axis of evil. Now, apparantly his great plan is to have Belarus join both the EU and NATO...

---

He, he. It is nothing new, in fact it is older than Poland itself, I mean the modern state of Poland.
The plan is continued with much effort since mid XIXth century.
Obviously taking someone to the EU and the NATO is just the most modern version of the grand design, but honestly who cares if it is the EU or some grand central-eastern european union ( e.g. resurected Commonwealth from XIXth cent. or Międzymorze federation from the interbellum) - the results are supposed to be the same : a zone of security and democratic order with as much of the former Russian Empire or Soviet Union as possible.

Actually it sems the only idea which is followed by our legal authorities without a break, except the communists (obviously, but it was by the emigree - see Free Europe, Paris 'Kultura' society) and the bloody endeks and neoendeks (fortunatelly in power for a few years of interbellum only - before 1926).

Quote:

---

Was it not this same Sikorski too who wrote that 'France and Germany risk being completely disqualified as serious members of the international community when Iraq's WMDs turned up?'
Somebody ask him yet what the non-presence of WMD's means then, to 'the status as serious members of the international community' for those who insisted blind European faith in the neocons was the way to go?

---

Tauche (sp ?). It has nothing to do with any particular person or especially with the existence of WMD anywhere (probably except Belorus or Ukraine). The designers are already dead and include Adam Czartoryski ( Hotel Lambert XIXth century), Józef Piłsudski, Jerzy Giedroyć ( Paris 'Kultura') and John Paul II (in much expanded version, but still from the same tradition and the same set of core values) among others of course.
Take an hour to research it and you will see it is something which lasts for almost two centuries.

If your France has the revolution inspired drive to do something, believe me others have too and perhaps more solid because it survived the utter destruction of the state - hardly such a laughing matter.


Besides try to see the difference between the current government of the state called now Belorus and its people - Belorus or anyone else who would possibly count from the area (so Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Belorus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) - temporal situation is nothing to the changes which can and will happen eventually.


Everyone has its own interests and players are played all the time - it is a question what interest and from what point we are watching it developing.


So for example if the Med Union is supposed to rise again as a healthy creature or as a rotting zombie it really doesn't matter as long as our interests will be served. Obviously right now it is a danger, even if only rather a noisy distraction - it could very much stop Ukraine from accessing the NATO and especially the EU for decades or forever so for now no support from us.

From someone elses point of view it can be entirely different, but for us safe, independent (even from us, but at least more friendly and non-Russian) and democratic (as much as possible) east is the priority.
In the long term it might bring stable democracy to Russia itself, even if it will take decades.

I will be damned if the words 'For our and your freedom' doesn't mean anything - it is not a pose, but the core of my national identity and I will rather shoot myself than see it buried or corrupted, thank you.


After it is finished we can think about other things, but after some break I hope - it would be nice to finally have nothing to do in the east - blissfull silence after over 500 years of hostility - time for good coffee, skiing in Alps or even swimming with bloody dolphins in Fiji, but until that the usual scheming and intrigues.:whip:



A final word - Piłsudski once said 'If you have nothing else to break the wall even your own head should be used' - thankfully we have more to our disposal , the difference between current and previous government is that they usually :wall: while we usually :smash: or even should :smash: :whip: - if we can't do so alone.
In general whatever it takes.

“Brenus and Tristus were no doubt busy waving their red flags and shouting anti-bling-bling slogans in the streets” In England?
I actually just enjoy the absolute pleasure of “je l’avais bien dit”. The total failure in promises, excepted the one to the give the money to the rich, from Sarkozy is a music for my ears (remember Baldur’s gate, the main shop…)…

“1968 was forty years ago. To be a radical in France nowadays means to be a conservative.” I was 9 years old in 1968. My years of politic are more the 75s’ (Action Direct and Fraction Armée Rouge) than the “Flower Power”…:beam:

“Sarkozy is the true heir of '68”: In which direction? It is the post 68 spirit. 68 was against Female Discrimination, the right of the ownership of their bodies, the equality of rights, the concept that Humanity is one etc.
Then from this came from Freedom of Myself to what Sarkozy incarnates today: Selfishness, "m’as-tu vu", and all “promises involve only the ones who believe them”. Nothing more than emptness...:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“1968 was forty years ago. To be a radical in France nowadays means to be a conservative.” I was 9 years old in 1968. My years of politic are more the 75s’ (Action Direct and Fraction Armée Rouge) than the “Flower Power”…:beam:

---

Rote Armee Fraktion ?

I understand that such radicals have certain appeal to some people, but personally I wouln't ever move beyound blowing up Lenin's monuments if I lived in the 1970s, certainly not people.

International idealist terrorist coalition, thank you very much. No wonder that during the debates between our left wing '68' dissidents (like Adam Michnik) and those from France it came up we indeed are poles apart...

My point of view is different than your Cegorach.

I don't think Poland and France needs better relationship now. Since Napoleon all alliances cause big damage in Poland and strenghtened France. Situation like today is good - France is on West, we on Easy and everyone is happy where he is. As Finn president told "don't look for enemies close and allies far away". Maybe its strange - according to me our medium sized country don't need good relation with "superpower" but...
I have no doubts - now we are much weaker than France but we have opportunities and if there will be no next world war into next 10 years, we will be stronger and stronger. I don't think France has similar situation.
So that best would be build Kingdom of Heaven on our own.

I don't get it. It is obvious that France is in the western part of the continent, unless it annexes Germany which is at least unlikely.

Besides I don't see any way around the problem. If we play it well France will give us support in questions we are interested in. Germany and probably the UK are easier to convince, but only really overwhelming support can work well in certain areas such as energy security or security in general.

We are in no situation when we either have to rely solely on France (thanks God !) or it is somehow crucial to our safety (thanks again), but we need to play on all fronts - double, tripple guarantees are the only way to give us at least 50 years of relative safety, although I hope for more.

Sorry mate, but France can play a very important part in the game we need to play - we are not Switzerland, Sweden or Andorra, we are Poland a country which either is successfull or it disappears because there is no way we can relocate to a safe corner of the Earth if there is any such place anymore.

So we either gain French support or we will have to create so complicated schemes to acheve something that everything qill fall apart with any really minute change or incident.
See how it is now - from EU states only three small Baltic states have similar attitude for sure, but they lack long term vision and are too small. Czechs are fine, but you never know anything for sure with them - in critical moment they can as well fortify in Prague and play political Szwejk. Slovakia is a mess again. Our centuries old friends Hungarians are now sadly between a Russian trojan horse and a really hesitant ally and center-righ-populist Fidesz opposition is just like our imbeciles from PiS. Germany have their own plans and their hesitation with Ukraine is well known even with Merkel. They simply have other priorities than we, though it is not too difficult to sway their opinion it will never be the same as ours. Besides it can get worse if their sado-masochistic love affair with Russia starts anew with a second Schroder in power one day.
Others from eastern-central Europe are either not interested (Slovenia), limited to Balcans in their interests (future members such as Croatia), with open pro-Russian leanings (Bulgaria, Greece) or without sufficient strenght, even if quite enthusiastic (Romania). Scandinavians are fine, but hardly useful in certain projects and we can simply ignore most of the western medium and small powers for their lack of interest (Spain) or really sad state of their politics (Italy, possibly Belgium).
So we get the Uk which will always be a bit away from the continent and the self-centred French.

Of course France is anything but a perfect ally, to be honest they are indeed terrible - pompous, arrogant, treating others as half-barbarians who just discovered forks (probably when in France) and in general thinking about themselves as the center of all things, but it is either a shifting, ever changing and fragile construct which makes a house of cards a concrete bunker in comparison or we will need to gain their support from time to time.

So I say we do much to accomodate them, to make them feel happy - tell them how we love their cousine, how wonderful their language is, how much we poor and modest 'barbarians' can learn from them, frak, we can even tell them how we appreciate the great and long lasting Polish Franco-Polish (putting the right words in the order they could enjoy the most) or call Maria Curie-Skłodowska, Marie Curie from time to time.
Indeed even if our diplomacy needs to recall Lassalle's poem about Pol... Franco-Polish friendship every time it is nowhere we lose anything important as long as we stick to the principles, do not sacrifice our plans and gain their support when we need it.





BTW I really like French language and literature - no disrespect here.



P.S. Totally disagree about Napoleon. For centuries it was the only time when our interests were virtually the same as those of France. Remember that in 1797-1807 even the word Poland was officially banned after the partition agreement and the cursed trinity could be only demolished by an outsider with too much energy and ambition who could only be the Corsican. Despite Santo Domingo, Żeromski's "Popioły" and Vistula Legion nothing changes that the only rational outcome of Napoleon's conquest would be fully ressurected Rzeczpospolita with addition of Code Civil which was an excellent work too.
That is why we lost so much in 1812, 1813, 1814 and 1815 , but at least after 1815 nobody could entirely ignore us anymore, even if it meant open attempts to annihilate us in decades after 1864.


P.S 2.
I suggest to change the sign. I don't like simplified and provocative way this man uses in his biased crusade - doing much harm to the question I care so much and inspiring extremists, BUT this way you are making this persona an authority, a recommended source - in most cases the only one. With predictable and utterly distasteful results.

Quote:

---

P.S 2.
I suggest to change the sign.

---

I suggest he keeps the sign cegroach , it says a hell of a lot about him and his "mind"set:thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

I suggest to change the sign. I don't like simplified and provocative way this man uses in his biased crusade - doing much harm to the question I care so much and inspiring extremists, BUT this way you are making this persona an authority, a recommended source - in most cases the only one. With predictable and utterly distasteful results.

---

No way m8. Time to show him his worth by Stalins way. No care what are you repeating all the time - finally it became truth. Anyway I realy don't like that guy. He call himself historician but only thing he does is making money when he put conclusions that are necessary for some groups of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

And do you remember why this French alliance with Poland came into being? Because France was the only power to come to Poland's aid in its war against the Soviets in 1920, wasn't it?

Apart from other sorts of aid, like facilitating and transporting the so-called Blue Army of Polish exiles to the Polish battlefield, the French also sent four hundred military advisors of their own. Among them a certain Charles de Gaulle who was awarded Poland's highest military order for his role in the fighting near the Zbrucz river and was subsequently offered a military career in Poland.

---

All nice, but you're leaning over dangerously close to the whole "France won the war against the Soviets for Poland" myth. And, uh, I think you forgot something: namely that France wasn't the only one clenching the proverbial butt cheeks tight 'cause of them commies taking stuff over in good old Russia, suddenly making peace with the evil Jerries and being all radical and revolutionary and all that.

And, well, heh -- the Franco-Polish alliance, huh? Only to encircle that evil Hunnish devil that humiliated France so dearly in 1871 and then had to be kept as weak as possible after 1918. After a while, it became a nice cordon sanitaire against that other threatening force: the USSR. Finally, as for "coming to Poland's aid" in 1939: Phoney War, anybody? You call that aid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

All nice, but you're leaning over dangerously close to the whole "France won the war against the Soviets for Poland" myth.

---

I am not leaning in any direction. I don't do 'leaning'. But if you want to dispute any of the facts I mentioned, go right ahead.

Quote:

---

Phoney War, anybody? You call that aid?

---

Sadly, it wasn't enough. The German attack on Poland surprised everyone, including Poland, which expected a German assault toward 1942. At the time of the invasion Poland was even selling part of its self-produced military hardware to acquire funds for its further industrialization. Within a few weeks after the attack, there was no more Poland whilst France and Britain had hardly begun mobilizing or acquiring much-needed equipment for a possible offensive.

I hope I'm not telling you anything new when I say none of Europe was prepared for Hitler's onslaught.

Let me tell you a story. When the Germans invaded The Netherlands on May 10, 1940, France sent its 7th Army to Belgium and The Netherlands to provide support. They came too late to help prevent the rapid collapse of the Dutch army, but they continued fighting in the south-western province of Zeeland after the formal ceasefire. They were mostly motorized infantry and Moroccan sipahis. Hundreds of them died, either in desperate fights alongside the last Dutch troops or because they drowned afterwards in attempts to regain France or Britain by sea. The bodies of 229 soldiers, most of them Moroccans, were buried in Dutch cemeteries and later collected in a separate war cemetery. The graves are well looked after, their story is taught to schoolchildren and each year in May the Zeeland locals hold a memorial service at the cemetery in their honour. Not because they made any big difference in the larger frame of things. It's because they died for us. It's because recognizing and honouring the contributions and sacrifice of others for your liberty is the decent thing to do.

“I understand that such radicals have certain appeal to some people, but personally I wouln't ever move beyound blowing up Lenin's monuments if I lived in the 1970s, certainly not people.” I didn’t say I was under influence, I said it was my political background; more a joke than reality. However that was the reality when the first Oil crisis happened.:idea2:

“I don't think Poland and France needs better relationship now. Since Napoleon all alliances cause big damage in Poland and strengthened France.” Strengthened France in what aspects? :inquisitive:
And hopefully France won’t have to go to war to defend Poland…:laugh4:

“call Maria Curie-Skłodowska, Marie Curie from time to time” Usual custom in France. Not in Spain, but in France the wife takes the name of the husband, and my wife, English have my name… It is not all against Poland, you have to know that…:yes:

“to be honest they are indeed terrible - pompous, arrogant, treating others as half-barbarians who just discovered forks (probably when in France) and in general thinking about themselves as the centre of all things,”: Err, we are the centre of all the things, we invented democracy, human rights, fire and the wheel. And it is not nice to be so jealous…
And we don’t treat others as half barbarian but as full barbarian.:clown:

“the Franco-Polish alliance, huh? Only to encircle that evil Hunnish devil that humiliated France so dearly in 1871 and then had to be kept as weak as possible after 1918. After a while, it became a nice cordon sanitaire against that other threatening force: the USSR. Finally, as for "coming to Poland's aid" in 1939: Phoney War, anybody? You call that aid?” Didn’t work very well the help from Poland in 1914… Why? Ah, yes, Poland didn’t exist. Why it existed later? Ah, yes, France and UK imposed it. No need to say thank you, you’re welcome…:laugh4:

I won’t go to WW2. Reading people like you and your comments brings back bad under skin feelings. I hope the 90.000 French soldiers fallen in 1940 because the French and the UK governments, respecting their military agreement declared war against Germany can’t read them.
And the nice “cordon sanitaire” was lead by a dictator who took his share of flesh after the invasion by Hitler of Czechoslovakia…:thumbsdown:

Do you notice how the France haters like to qualify all French defeats as humiliating…? And the French victories always doubtful/ignored or the guy who won wasn’t French / not really French…
How this country survived all these humiliating defeats, I don’t know: Probably because they are genius in Diplomacy. Hoops, I forget: their wives, daughters and sisters go in bed with the enemies… That is how…:skull:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

I hope I'm not telling you anything new when I say none of Europe was prepared for Hitler's onslaught.

---

Yes, yes -- because it wasn't painfully obvious what Germany was doing taking a crap on Versailles each and every day starting in 1933. If Europe was caught unprepared then that was because it had chosen to take a nap while Germany went hunting map pixels in Eastern Europe.

Every nation bordering Germany, especially its traditional enemies as well as Poland, knew what was going on. Hell, the industrialization effort you mentioned was part of a plan to center the nation's industry as far away from harm as possible (harm, obviously, expected to come from either Germany or Russia). In the end, with Slovakia turning coats, choosing the south of central Poland for that wasn't such a good idea after all, but the plan was made before 1929 and the meteoric rise of block mustaches and goose steps, so yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

Yes, yes -- because it wasn't painfully obvious what Germany was doing taking a crap on Versailles each and every day starting in 1933. If Europe was caught unprepared then that was because it had chosen to take a nap while Germany went hunting map pixels in Eastern Europe.

---

European nations were unprepared for the exact same reason why Jews didn't leave Germany en masse in 1933: they couldn't or wouldn't believe that things would turn so bad so fast. If that makes you angry, maybe you could find some living members of that generation and slap them around a bit, eh? Show them they weren't punished enough for their gullibility. :inquisitive:

Here you are far from truth...

Quote:

---

Sadly, it wasn't enough. The German attack on Poland surprised everyone, including Poland, which expected a German assault toward 1942. At the time of the invasion Poland was even selling part of its self-produced military hardware to acquire funds for its further industrialization. Within a few weeks after the attack, there was no more Poland whilst France and Britain had hardly begun mobilizing or acquiring much-needed equipment for a possible offensive.

---

Poles expect attack. They prepared themselves and started mobilising troops. They would finish but .... France asked Poland to stop mobilisation.
Anyway France betrayed Poland into 1939. Do you know what Hitler feared most. According to Goering "100 French divisions attacking 20 divisions of German reserves". I can add that without Ruhre region Germany would have to surrender without fight.

Do you know what was strategic reason to help Netherlands and Belgium?
France would be flanked - Maginot line would be surrounded without loses.
Thats why France had to help there.

Blue Army was formed because France needed every man to fight. Organised unit would lower morale of Poles fighting for Central Countries. 400 officers who were sent to Poland during war 1920 did not take part into real combat - however french newspapers claimed that it was only their efforts and good plan won Battle of Warsaw.


To sup up I advise you to stop show France as savior of humanity. France always did everything only to help France.

Quote:

---

And the nice “cordon sanitaire” was lead by a dictator who took his share of flesh after the invasion by Hitler of Czechoslovakia…

---

I like your style Brenus:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Poles expect attack. They prepared themselves and started mobilising troops. They would finish but .... France asked Poland to stop mobilisation.
Anyway France betrayed Poland into 1939. Do you know what Hitler feared most. According to Goering "100 French divisions attacking 20 divisions of German reserves". I can add that without Ruhre region Germany would have to surrender without fight.

---

Yup, we're in fruitcake territory. I knew it.

Quote:

---

Do you know what was strategic reason to help Netherlands and Belgium? France would be flanked - Maginot line would be surrounded without loses. Thats why France had to help there.

---

You don't say? I'm deeply shocked. We shall dig up those 229 soldiers forthwith and dump them in the sea. Oh, those treacherous Frenchmen!

Quote:

---

Yup, we're in fruitcake territory. I knew it.

---

Only if it is the correct type of fruitcake

http://www.polana.com/product/153/18
Polish fruitcake is far superior to all other fruitcake:laugh4: