|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Yuki,
I normally read all your posts with great pleasure - not this time.
Living in a neutral country of "old-europe", with 5 national languages
and english widely spoken, I strongly object your analysis. If you
would like to know more details, let me know.
Concerning the special situations of the (by GWB)so called "new
europe", i.e. nations formerly behind the iron curtain, it seems they
trust the US more than the EU - but prefer to join the EU for economic
reasons. If this way can survive when political interest between the
US and EU are incongruent, remains to be seen. But sometimes there was
the impression, that the tail tried to wager the dog.
And concerning Russia and its historical ambitions: Sometimes things
(and politics and nations) change for good or worse. In "old europe"
many strong friends of the people of the US (not its admin) think here
were the good ones and there were the bad ones, but the US have
changed for worse - maybe Russia might change for better.
And for going to the US a passport won`t suffice - visa are required
for Polish people - if it hasn`t changed meanwhile.
Sorry, whilst I still admire the american people, I lost most of my
trust in its political system (and published analysis) since 2000. I
wonder, why.
Kind regards
frankphd_us
-- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Yuki Taga <yukitaga@xxx> wrote:
>
> It might be a good idea to get Amibroker out of Poland.
>
> I did my master's degree in National Security Studies at Georgetown
> University (undergraduate work at Columbia). Make of this what you
> will, as I'm sure any intelligent person would do in any case.
>
> The key to the future stability of Eastern Europe is a country that
> didn't even really exist before 1871: Germany. Until that year, the
> German-speaking world was fragmented into small states, riven by
> internal dissension, and wide open to the influence of foreign
> powers.
>
> With the Prussian defeat of the French in 1871, all that changed.
> Prussia was now free to create a unified Germany. This changed the
> history of Europe, as most of us recognize, but Germany still found
> itself in the position of being sandwiched between Russia and France,
> and we have all lived with the psycho-political ramifications of that
> for most of the 20th century.
>
> With the demise of the Soviet Union, circa 1991, Germany found itself
> united, and militarily secure. It was rarified air, and although
> economically expensive initially, the Germans loved it. In fact,
> they could afford it.
>
> Germany would have naturally welcomed any blockage of the reemergence
> of Russian influence in the early years of this century, but by now
> this reemergence is a fact, and a fact that Germany is not inclined
> to challenge. Almost without saying, Europe, and Germany, are
> dependent on Russian energy to get through the winters at a price
> they can afford.
>
> If Germany is inclined to thwart the newly aggressive posture of
> Russia, the first step would be to insure its eastern flank, namely
> Poland and the Baltic countries. If the United States could be
> relied upon to provide sufficient forces, this would be a credible
> deterrent. But of course the US cannot possibly put sufficient
> forces into the area, and must rely on its nuclear umbrella, and
> Germany well understands this.
>
> Mind you, Germany would have no objection to US forces in the
> Baltics. But Germany absolutely realizes that such forces would be
> only token, and that the US would unlikely be willing to "go to the
> mat" (full-out nuclear war) with the Russians should they decide they
> can no longer tolerate the Baltic states. So Germany isn't about to
> send troops east. Therefore, Germany does not make NATO credible,
> unless you think Danish and Dutch or Belgian troops are going to take
> up much slack. God love you, and God help them.
>
> The bottom line is that NATO is no longer a credible threat against
> Russian games in Eastern Europe. A "fait accompli" would be just
> that: a done deed. Russia understands this, and is testing the idea
> in Georgia.
>
> The problem of Eastern European security is the problem of Germany.
> If it won't act to thwart Russian aggression, for whatever reason,
> then what can be done about Russia, which seems bent on reasserting
> its former hegemony?
>
> If I was living in Poland these days, I'd make sure everyone in my
> family had a passport -- and the means to use it.
>
> As we all know, these are very challenging economic times.
> Historically, such times have lent themselves to military adventures,
> whether most of us would deem such adventures prudent or otherwise.
>
> I know ... I know ... these are different times.
>
> Oh? Really? And just what would a lame-duck US administration do
> about a sudden and full-fledged Russian invasion of the Baltics and
> or Poland? Stop them from trading with insolvent US banks? Risk New
> York for Tallinn? Tell me another good joke.
>
> I stand ready to take on opposing views. ^_^
>
> Yuki
>
------------------------------------
**** IMPORTANT ****
This group is for the discussion between users only.
This is *NOT* technical support channel.
*********************
TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to
SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
*********************
For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
For other support material please check also:
http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
*********************************
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:amibroker-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:amibroker-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|