Polish-American Relations Regarding Iraq, Iran, Russia and NATO
Posted by Joerg Wolf in Transatlantic Relations on Thursday, March 20. 2008
At my day job at Atlantic Community, we have published quite a few interesting articles on US-Polish issues. Polish perspectives are under-reported in the German and American mass media, but they are important because Poland is one of Europe's bigger countries, is considered very Pro-American and was seen as the primary "New Europe" country, a term that is less frequently used these days, but is still controversial.
Marek Swierczynski, a journalist at the Polish TV channel TVP, reflects on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war:
Poland's decision to join the "coalition of the willing" has left the military stretched beyond capacity, the society in serious mistrust of their leaders and perception of a joint effort for a good cause seriously damaged. It took 25 lives 5 years and 3 governments to rethink and withdraw.
Ryan R. Miller of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) in Washington, DC. writes about Poland's Iran Option:
Possible Polish-Iranian energy cooperation puts U.S. policy makers between a rock and a hard place, as America finds itself committed both to isolating the Islamic Republic and supporting Polish efforts to outflank Russia's Gazprom.
Wess Mitchell, who is the Director of Research at CEPA, outlines recent developments between the United States and Poland regarding the US missile defense program. He concludes that relations between Poland and Russia are likely to deteriorate and Tusk may have compromised himself by acting so decisively this early in his term: Missile Defense: Poland Has Less Room to Maneuver.
Anna Nadgrodkiewicz sums up contentious issues in Polish-American relations: Polish troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the necessity of easing visa requirements, and the proposed missile defense shield. See her article Managing Image and Expectations.
Marek Swierczynski sees NATO at a Crossroad in a second article:
Just before the NATO summit in Bucharest, the differences on what and how the Alliance should do in the future seem all but rising on both sides of the Atlantic. The Warsaw conference on NATO's Transformation made fundamental divides clearly visible. (...) The new NATO members seem to live in a Neverland. Professor Kuzniar assessed that the Alliance is the only force of global reach and capabilities. Wrong. There is no such thing as NATO global capability. There is the US global capability and to be more precise it is one of the US Navy.
Welcome! You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW -- a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis by three young professionals from Germany, the Netherlands and the United States. More about us.
The horizontal menu bar at the top helps to navigate this site.
Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter, which is emailed twice per month.Poland always behave that way. When in Warsaw organization, it showed its unspeakable loyalty to USSR. Now Poland is a NATO member and want to be trated like a big power within EU and NATO. Poland make itself like an agent of the US. It disdain Russia's security interests to embace US 's support. Such a coutry will not earn respects from outside , therefore is not fit for the title of "big country". In my mind a big coutry at least have its dignity and independence.
I guess German and France will not welcome Poland with open arms. There had existed an awesome player (Britain)which put US instead of EU 's interests at first. What position fits for the new lapdog.
With the instruction from US, EU develops into an organization full of controversy itself. It can hardly be regarded as an powerful strength in geopolitics. When it want to play a tune , the orchestra always disappointed people. Under the current circumstance, The relationship across Atlantic ocean became the only solution for EU to play its once ambitious role. Without US support ,EU will be meaningless. It's a pity for a coutry like France or German , they had to compete for US's gratitude. Their tradition and history make it impossible to behave in such a disgraceful way like poland or other once USSR's satelite states. In US view and feeling , France and German will never and ever take the place of UK.
"Poland always behave that way. When in Warsaw organization, it showed its unspeakable loyalty to USSR."
Ya, well, they DIDN"T have a choice dipstick!
Now they do! And guess who whey are choosing?
Do you even know how stupid you sound?
‘Such a coutry will not earn respects from outside , therefore is not fit for the title of "big country".
It will from me, I respect Poland more than any western European nation except for Denmark and (maybe) Britain and the Netherlands.
‘With the instruction from US, EU develops into an organization full of controversy itself.’
Please enlighten me as to just what these ‘instructions’ were.
I might tend to disagree with the idea that NATO does not have a global reach simply because in a globe spanning emergency simply because it is primarily the heavy ships of the US Navy showing up is not a sign that the rest of the NATO nations are, generally, sitting on their butts passing resolutions of support. Close in coastal support in many cases allows the US relatively free access to patrol shipping lanes anywhere in the world. Many of those lanes are locally being patrolled, sometimes well beyond their designed range by the litoral navies of NATO. For example on must consider the coastal waters of Europe in the Straits of Hommuz, Gibralter and the soon to be French beach resort and liberty towns of the UAE.
It may appear that the US Navy is a herd of ents patrolling the world but on closer examination there is also often a nasty collection of beehives that are filled with modern destroyers, frigates and electric subs that secure the bases and the coastal waters of the alliance. Unless the interior lines of communication of the alliance are secure NATO may not act even if the members unanimously chose to do so.
I left out the sentence where I was referring only to Marek Swierczynski's article.
"It may appear that the US Navy is a herd of ents patrolling the world but on closer examination there is also often a nasty collection of beehives that are filled with modern destroyers, frigates and electric subs that secure the bases and the coastal waters of the alliance."
True, in some aspects.
However most of the time euros are just along for the ride. A lot like South Korea. They have some destroyers and participate in training, but in the long run.....
Ehh, bees hurt like hell when they sting, but you can take hundreds of stings before you die.
How many assaults from and ENT do you think you can take?
that was me replying - forgot to put the name in.
What is this crap?
Spam Prevention: You cannot post a comment so soon after submitting another one.
Your comment could not be added because comments for this entry have either been disabled, you entered invalid data, or your comment was caught by anti-spam measurements.
de Wess' article:
Wess misses the salient point of the Tusk negiotations with the US about the missile shield; it is not about the missle shield at all but rather the demand that the US garantee Polish territorial sovereignty independently of its NATO treaty obligations.
This is an alarming development as it recognises that the Polish foreign ministry believes that a possibility exists the NATO alliance will collapse and that possibility is severe enough to negotiate a bilateral defense treaty with the US.
What does the Tusk administration know about American demands in the Bucharest NATO meeting? There do not seem to be ausipicous portents.
If Poland does receive an unilateral defense treaty, how long before the Czechs, Hungarians, and Slovaks demand a similar treaty? On a related note that Wess omits, the Polish government is demanding the transference of military technology and hardware as payment for the US protecting their kielbasa-eating asses. There are signs that may point to the Tusk administration repudiating the former NATO doctrine of military specialization and engaging in a defensive, general re-vitalisation of the defense industry.
"the demand that the US garantee Polish territorial sovereignty independently of its NATO treaty obligations."
Wow, very interesting. Got a source for that?
Apparently there is not much trust in NATO...
This could indeed lead to a chain reaction in Central and Eastern Europe.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/10/europe/shield.php
"The new Polish government is prepared to drive a hard bargain because much is at stake if this system goes ahead," said Tomas Valasek, director of defense at the Center for European Reform, an independent research institution in London. "Poland wants security guarantees from the U.S. since it is not convinced NATO would provide that guarantee. This means the U.S. putting boots on the ground in Poland but also helping Poland to upgrade its air defenses."
Poland is determined to link the negotiations to modernization of its air defenses, whether it be with Patriot missiles or with another system. Polish officials and security experts dismissed suggestions that a new air defense system would be designed to protect Poland against potential attack from Russia.
"The new Polish government is prepared to drive a hard bargain because much is at stake if this system goes ahead," said Tomas Valasek, director of defense at the Center for European Reform, an independent research institution in London. "Poland wants security guarantees from the U.S. since it is not convinced NATO would provide that guarantee. This means the U.S. putting boots on the ground in Poland but also helping Poland to upgrade its air defenses."
Poland is determined to link the negotiations to modernization of its air defenses, whether it be with Patriot missiles or with another system. Polish officials and security experts dismissed suggestions that a new air defense system would be designed to protect Poland against potential attack from Russia.
Very good point! And after a little research I agree that the change is a dagger aimed at the heart of the cooperative security of NATO. I, probably like many others, simply assumed that parts of the new agreement, where the bases are, construction costs, etc., were indeed between Poland and the US but the actual security guarantees were part of NATO.
Again excellentt point!
"It will from me, I respect Poland more than any western European nation except for Denmark and (maybe) Britain and the Netherlands."
I wonder why, does that have something to do with your "infaillibility" ? that I expect should be over by the end of this year ; yeah, even the pope has nowadays a grain of salt as far infaillibility is concerned
"This is an alarming development as it recognises that the Polish foreign ministry believes that a possibility exists the NATO alliance will collapse and that possibility is severe enough to negotiate a bilateral defense treaty with the US."
The Nato alliance will collapse as a US lead alliance, I don't see from where US 'll get the money to support it anylonger, may-be in the next generation : 30 years, since then, China will have already decided how the world should behaved ; so the Pole's should ask Benjin to protect them ;
the funny thing in their history, they always ask for a protection from some countries, that were of course, the famous ones, therefore, Brits's empire and France's empire in the past centuries ; that didn't work because of their isolement ; I don't see how a country, that stands several thousands km away, would like to risk its soldiers'life and its economy in a risky happening there. So they should ask the Germans, the Swedishs... their proxy neighbours to help them
they should also ask themselves how to be respected by their neighbours first,(ie Germany, Russia) and understand that a closer US preference won't help them, as their former alliances didn't
The Nato alliance will collapse as a US lead alliance, I don't see from where US 'll get the money to support it anylonger, may-be in the next generation : 30 years, since then, China will have already decided how the world should behaved ; so the Pole's should ask Benjin to protect them
That is the goofiest thing I've ever heard. The serious players treat NATO as the military component of a political alliance. The entities putting the most stress on it are the ones not committing forces and treating it as a political photo-op feel-good club. The US shoulders more that its' share of the financial and manpower burden, and even quietly lends manpower and equipment to under-equipped elements in Afghanistan.
Many of the European parties are obsessed with the renaming of forces from this to that in various deployments, and trying to make a show of putting on or taking off blue helmets as is the case in the patrolling of Lebanon's coast, the quasi-occupation governing of Kosovo, etc.
The only way anyone could "lead" NATO is not by building up brownie points, but by having a mature and broadlt capable defense establishment. It is also not the place to hold a contest over who can find the greatest looking diplomatic coup with those your country claims to supports.
The only way the EU could lead an entity like NATO is not to act like a swarm of noisy flies who are neither a soverign entity, a federated republic, or a mouthpiece for a scollection of titular republics - but to first become a nation of some tangible nature with an accoutability mechanism. It must also develop a unified, complete, and broad defense force with a understandable relationship to a yet to be developed civilian political leadership that points up and answers to an elected body and executive.
Otherwise it couldn't even lead another fawning, lauditory symposium on itself.
Why are you so impatient with the european project? You can´t expect 27 nations to hand over their sovereignty to an entirely new government in a matter of just a few years.
One may compare this to the german states prior to 1871. Most were too small to matter in military alliances - but once we were united, no longer were a lot of alliances needed any more.
What I am always so confused about is when americans want to see the EU strongened. If the United States were mostly independent states and in the process of uniting nowadays, surely european governments would do all they can to seperate and disunite the american states, so that unification is prevented.
European unification creates one lasting consequence: European interests are bundled. With every additional step towards integration, our interests in the world will be represented more efficiently. From an american point of view, this cannot lead to an increase of american power. It only creates an uncomfortable competition.
Because as a headless hydra they are a powder-keg. It also gives large sectors of teh population a reason to believe that their engangement with the world can be limited to showing charity being loaded into aircraft sitting on the flightline on the TV news.
Why not? It only took the US six years, that time between the Articles of Confederation(1781) and the Constitution(1787) to create a unified central state from a collection of former colonies with their own sovereign constituions who often still referred to themselves as independent countries. I'm beginning to suspect that this grand edifice is simply existing much like a birthmark that no one has the energy or the belief to do anything about.
A german-polish "entente cordiale" is a provocative illusion. It would be a disgrace from a german perspective. The very existance of descendants of the displaced germans will prevent such a horror.
"I wonder why, does that have something to do with your "infaillibility" ? that I expect should be over by the end of this year ; yeah, even the pope has nowadays a grain of salt as far infaillibility is concerned"
I made no claim of infallibility. Your rejoinder is irrational.
"Your rejoinder is irrational"
the hospital that makes the charity looks fool
The Poles probably feel that asking the Germans, the Swedes, the Russians or the Austrians for security arrangements not a particularly good idea as those countries at one time or another occupied the country. And considering that the two main supporters of Polish independence in this century was the US and the UAW, as well as the Vatican which would leave the field of potential allies somewhat reduced.
Plus the Poles recognize that any other country in the world that still has beaver and buffalo must be their kind of country. Why ally yourself with the mice when the Russian ratter is still in the area?
"The serious players treat NATO as the military component of a political alliance. The entities putting the most stress on it are the ones not committing forces and treating it as a political photo-op feel-good club."
funny ; precisely, ask yourself why
sure, we did have reasons to rely on US' good will, he, pax americana has work so far your economy was doing well, now allow us to have a doubt about your capacity to lead your geopolitical ambitions, and more seriously after november
The US shoulders more that its' share of the financial and manpower burden, and even quietly lends manpower and equipment to under-equipped elements in Afghanistan
The US contributes only with 25% of the total NATO budget
That's the management budget, you dolt, not deployments. If you think the end goal of an organization is to be a monstrous paper-pushing ministariat to keep a Belgiums' employment base up, then so be it. That's not the mission.
that's why I don't consider the whole army budget, (in which Nato partners are considered as your "foreign legion")
which is more enourmous than we could ever once dream for ours
You'll recall that the US is always being asked not to "go it alone". Is this why? To have something to be "owed"? Because a quick overview of *where* French and UK forces have been for the past three decades shows all sorts of "going it alone" in Africa. The lack of criticism is, of course, attributed to some superior sense of the validity of these missions that removed leaders and rebuilt governments. The difference is the feelie-feelie cultures that chooses to notice the US and express anger and paranoia, but not see the same thing in themselves.
As for the US using the Europeans as a foreign legion, It's a case of the reverse where the former Yugoslavia has been concerned for a decade. It was supposed to be the then emerging EU's first moment to show itself.
You'll recall that it's actually in Europe. and was delayed by a lack of combat ready forces and a lack of public will.
In short -these things happen-. The concept of the ICBM was there to make a case for absolute MAD to make the price to be paid for a battle over western Europe into an American, Canadian, and global problem, and thus too horrible to bear. Who was the Foreign Legionaire there?
As the son of an actual foreign legionaire, one who went on to earn a legion d'honneur when it still meant something, and the great-nephew of a non-Brit Royal Navy surgeon who went home when the fighting stopped, I wonder just what it was that these arab men who had to escape the Vichy to serve would think of this foolish notion that the Grand Armee of the Republic has ever been an American reserve division.
I think it's projection having to do largely with thying to shed from memory the painful notion that there were generations of foreigners who have done just that for France. It's okay. History is there to teach us and let us go forward. If you'd rather abuse it to abuse America, I will abuse it to respond in kind.
'that's why I don't consider the whole army budget, (in which Nato partners are considered as your "foreign legion")
which is more enourmous than we could ever once dream for ours'
Foreign Legion!? ROFL!! More like a bunch of REMF's.
"Foreign Legion!? ROFL!! More like a bunch of REMF's"
ahahah, ok boy, go to play with your play-station
"The difference is the feelie-feelie cultures that chooses to notice the US and express anger and paranoia, but not see the same thing in themselves."
funny the net doesn't say so : anger and paranoia come essentially from US side ; I am just a small "musketeer" that "bullies" it
"It's a case of the reverse where the former Yugoslavia has been concerned for a decade"
McCain vs Albanese militias
Kosovo history
"On January 28, 1999 NATO warned that it was ready to use military force immediately, and Britain and France went further to indicate that they were ready to send in ground forces to enforce a peace settlement. A conference was held at Rambouillet in France in mid-February to negotiate an end to the war. Present were the Western allies, Yugoslavia and representatives of the major Albanian Kosovar groups demanding independence. The Western Allies led by the United States issued a two-week deadline, backed by threatened air strikes, during which time both parties must agree to the proposed settlement"
"I wonder just what it was that these arab men who had to escape the Vichy to serve would think of this foolish notion that the Grand Armee of the Republic has ever been an American reserve division."
they were enrolled in the army, on the "colonial" free patry ~240 000 soldiers from there started to fight and then gained the Italian soil (I have to check the exact number though)
"We didn't come to Europe to save the the French, either in 1917 or in 1944. We didn't come to to Europe to do anyone any favors. We came to Europe because we in America were threatened by a hostile, aggressive and very dangerous power...
American security and American foreign policy have always rested on this hard fact: we cannot permit a hostile power on the Atlantic Ocean. We can not be secure if we are threatened on the Atlantic. That's why we went to war in 1917; that's why we had to fight in 1944. And that's why, as a matter of common sense and the national interest, President Roosevelt declared (November 11, 1941): "The defense of any territory under the control of the French Volunteer Forces (the Free French) is vital to the defense of the United States."
WWII 112 gripes about the Frenchs
May the son of a foreign legionnaire feel at home in EU one day and don't seek anymore for the stars hollow as the bible promise land, otherwise get the fuck out of there, you should be with your fellows in Irak
“The Western Allies led by the United States issued a two-week deadline, backed by threatened air strikes, during which time both parties must agree to the proposed settlement"
This perfectly illustrates Joe’s point. Yugoslavia was ENTIRELY a European problem, and should have had an entirely European solution. Yet once again it was ‘the Western Allies LED BY THE UNITED STATES’ who ended up doing the wet work.
‘we cannot permit a hostile power on the Atlantic Ocean. We can not be secure if we are threatened on the Atlantic.’
Why? This was certainly true a century ago, and was still partly true in 1942, but I see no reason why it should be taken for granted today. But just in case, should we put the 82 Airborne on alert to invade Venezuela?
‘that's why we had to fight in 1944’
WTF?? We had to fight the Japanese in 1942, and there were a few compelling reasons why we had to fight Germany. But the truth is, by the time we entered the war, Hitler had already abandoned Operation Sealion and was snowed in at Moscow. So England was under no immediate threat and the Continent was already under German occupation anyway. We could have put a token force in England, continued supplying equipment to the Russians, and concentrated on defeating the Japanese and isolating Mao. Germany never had a prayer of beating the Russians and would, in time, have been pulverized by them. They get dachas on the Cote d’Azur and we get a pro-American China. The only downside is Werner von Braun and Co. would have ended up working for the Russians, and that is a major downside.
So you found a handful of examples amonge a population of 300 million. They don't otherwise have teh reflex to indulge their feelings of helplessness by marching in the street in mass.
Yugoslavia is in Europe. The Europeans wanted an intervention. If you want to believe that the US was the impulse behind the effort, you'd have to revise your view of Bill Clinton as a sort of "warmonger". After 6 years of hoping it would go away, they were begging the white house. Even democrat Sandy Berger was so tired of the Frech-British inability to assemble the coalition that they wanted (without the UN and its' attendant Russian veto, by the way), that Berger's position evolved into "this is your moment, good luck with it". His private opinion was that he was fed up with the European partners' abscent decision structure and inability to find among 2 million uniformed personnel, 10-15000 deployable troops.
"This is what America is good at, helping people." Her statement raises certain questions that instructors might ask their students to pursue. What has been the record of U.S. interventions in improving life in foreign countries? Should past failures discourage interventions in the present and future?"
history on line
"Yugoslavia was ENTIRELY a European problem, and should have had an entirely European solution. Yet once again it was ‘the Western Allies LED BY THE UNITED STATES’ who ended up doing the wet work."
I see rather that the US wantted to handle the operation and not leave UK and France took the initiative of being Nato decisionors there. cf the backyards businesses too.
the rest is bla-bla
your good at mind play-stations scenari,
Nicolas Sarkozy's inappropriate policy result in France racist clash never ends. Do they need an independent investigation group to collect facts and make judgements.
Africans living and working in Paris have been pushed into ghettoized suburbs of Paris (banlieue), where the state has withdrawn education, health, and other services, while increasing police presence, checkpoints, raids on sans-papiers and levels of oppression in general. This week the suburbs have exploded.
The trigger came on Thursday, October 27th, 2005, as a group of 10 highschool kids were playing soccer in the Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois. When police arrived to do ID checks, the kids ran away and hid, because some of them had no ID. Three of the children hid in an electrical transformer building of EDF and were electrocuted. Two of them, Ziad Benn (17) and Banou Traoré (15), died; the third, Metin (21), was severely injured.
On Saturday morning, 1000 joined in a march organised by religious associations and mosques in Clichy-sous-Bois. Representatives of the Muslim community appealed for calm and marchers wore T-shirts saying mort pour rien ("dead for nothing"). The mayor of Clichy, Claude Dilain, called for an enquiry into the deaths of the two boys. All eyes were on Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. The response? As people were gathering in the mosques for the Night of Destiny, the most sacred night in the month of Ramadan, a night people usually spent at the mosque, the empty streets of the Cité du Chêne Pointu filled with about 400 CRS militant riot police and gendarmes, blocking off the neighborhood. Yet very few people allowed themselves to be provoked into breaking the sanctity of this night, despite racist insults from the police.
On Sunday, however, provocation turned into outrage as the women's prayer room at de Bousquets mosque was teargassed by police. As people stumbled out gasping for air, the policemen called the women "whores", "bitches" and other insults.
France people reaction to riots and related Muslim culprit(s)
There is NO excuse for the vandalizing, looting, burning, and violence a bunch of testerone charge religous extremist have caused. Arrest them, charge them and sentence them. If they are illegals send them back to their countries.
What they say to the riots happend in Tibet. If France want to play the dangerous game of supporting some Tibet terrorist groups and excersie violence against Chinese people in China or elsewhere. They will pay the cost .
Joe Noory :
This is the kind of diversion of responsibility that infuriates me. The Soviet meddling in Central America was far worse and deeper than anyone wants to admit, and yet the US doing something about it is cited at fault.
Comment:
You are right . Althogh CIA sponsered those terrorists to attack USSR's invaders , there is no need to criticize CIA for this . To some extent the Soviet's illeagal occupation in Afghan validate CIA's action.
The arguements between me and Paterson is whether CIA is the plotter and sponsor of so many sabotages against Latin American and African states. I guess some policy concerning Afghanistan need to be reevaluated. if they(US gov) did, the radical strength will not prevail in Afghan and 911 events will not happened thereafter.
Comment:
I'll give you the point of view from Chinese side to balance your minds which is full of western media propaganda. I don't want you totally agree with my points hereinafter.
www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm - 248k
India’s China War by Neville Maxwell-
While the Sino-Indian border dispute halted, China proceeded to negotiate boundary ...... When the world learned on November 21, 1962, the border war in the ...
Comment:
Sino-India border war is another legacy from Britain colonization comparable to Kashmir disputes between India and Pakistan. I need to prompt Paterson that Republic of China (insead of PRC China) is the legal government of China at that time. Republic of China did not authorize Tibet local government to take part in the negotiation with British India . The agreement between British India and Tibet local government was sent to ROC central government for approval. Republic of China central government totally reject the agreement. Check britain government 's documents to see whether they recognize Tibet as an independent state. Since not approved , Inida's claim on “McMahon Line” is baseless. He can not inherit British India government's unfulfilled "inheritance".
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm
www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm
The roots of the Border War extend back into the 19th
Century, when both China and British India asserted claims
to desolate, remote mountain areas between China and India.
Military expeditions, intrigue and unproductive diplomatic
exchanges marked decades of relations between the two coun-
tries. Rather than resolving the border issue, Chinese and
British Indian actions only set the stage for conflict.
Major changes in the governments of both China and
India in the late 1940s had brought the two countries to
friendly relations in the early 1950s. The paper examines
how "intrusions"--strategic military projections into each
others claimed territory--again created conflict over the
disputed border areas. The key issue was the 1956-57
construction of a Chinese military highway in the disputed
territory of Aksai China just west of Tibet. India protested the Chinese "incursion"; diplomatic exchanges continued for three years without progress or compromise. Each side firmly asserted its claim to the Aksai Chin area. Large sections of the North East Frontier Agency, east of Tibet, were also in dispute. In 1959, India initiated a forward policy of sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. This program created both skirmishes and deteriorating relations between India and China. The 1961 Indian invasion of Portugese Goa further alarmed Chinese officials in Peking.
(continued...)
Webmaster:
Your comment was successfully added.
Warning: This comment needs approval before it will be displayed
Would you like to read more?
Have a look at our directory of Atlantic Review posts.
Or check out the constantly updated reading recommendations from our readers in the sidebar: "Tips From Our Readers."
More information on this project in this post. Feel free to comment on any article recommended in the sidebar.
BBCode format allowed. You can make a clickable link with this code:
If you write "[url=http://america-germany.atlanticreview.org]Carnival of US-German Relations[/url]", then this will be displayed: "Carnival of US-German Relations".
And if you write "[url]http://atlanticreview.org/mustreads.html[/url]", then this will be displayed: "http://atlanticreview.org/mustreads.html"
Sponsor
Tips From Our Readers
- Russia Is Back on the Warpath?
- Rubin: Kurdish leaders are drunk with power
- Honduras Defends Its Democracy
- German-American Partnership in Peril? | Atlantic Council
- Taheri: Iran's Troubling Opposition re MEK
- Pipes: A Call for American Boldness in Iran re MEK
- Nokia, Siemens Help Iran Spy on Internet Users
- Great YouTube - He's Barack Obama
- Prechter: U.S. likely to lose AAA rating
- Imagine Breaking Up The United States
Latest Comments
the idea of a transatlantic alliance isn't new, it already was Roosvelt and churchill [...]Comment (1)
Don S about Atlantica: A Threat to American Freedom
I'm not at all afraid of a true free trade area with Europe, the Reagan/Thatcher [...]Comment (1)
Don S about Atlantica: A Threat to American Freedom
Tis true, Pat. Actually the baning of US produce from the EU isn't the fault of the [...]Comment (1)
Pat Patterson about Atlantica: A Threat to American Freedom
In re; Roland Emmerich has been making films about the either a radically altered [...]Comment (1)
Don S about Atlantica: A Threat to American Freedom
"And three years later it is likely to get even worse, because "there is a movement [...]Comment (1)
Don S about Atlantica: A Threat to American Freedom
"cause the Earth to topple from its axis" Global Warming? Well, that certainly [...]Comment (1)
Blogroll
Google the Site
Hot Topics
Afghanistan
Anti-Americanism
Economics
Iran
Iraq
Merkel
Polls
Terrorism
Click here for the full list of all topics.
or 
: