Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

The Rise of Romania (et cetera)

Eastern Europe Intermarium NATO Russia Poland Romania Baltic Germany Buffer Zone Superpower

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1
BarkEater93

BarkEater93

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 255 posts
  • LocationCanada
 

Eastern Europe has usually been a theatre for conflict and a region occupied by others: whether it was run over by Nazi Germany or swallowed up by the Soviets, among others. The last two decades have given the peoples in the region the rare opportunity to have their own sovereign nations and to govern themselves. However, these nations have remained hyper-vigilant because the people know that such opportunities have usually only been temporary. The resurgence of Russia towards their frontiers in the last few years has been case in point.

 

Without outside help, these nations are left vulnerable; small and exposed to much larger Russia. Western Europe hasn’t done much to help them except for the odd gestures of solidarity; they’re preoccupied with their own issues, and don’t have the energy or the appetite to get into another Cold War situation.

 

The United States, on the other hand, has a bigger interest in blocking Russia from penetrating deep into Europe. The U.S. fought and won the Cold War and doesn’t want another Soviet Union returning. What the U.S. has been doing is creating a buffer zone in Eastern Europe, in an effort to try to separate Russia from Western Europe.

 

europe_new_containment.jpg

 

The U.S. has been putting increasing investment into building a line of defense, which includes the Baltic countries, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania. The U.S. has not only deployed its own troops and military equipment but has also supported these countries with their own forces. Other NATO members have offered help, but not to the same degree as the United States. There is a special relationship forming between the U.S. and these countries outside the context of NATO. NATO is an institution that is no longer relevant in today’s changed world, with friction between its members. But there is an alliance forming in Eastern Europe that reflects current times and needs. Trump’s visit to Warsaw before the G20 summit and Mattis’s visit to Lithuania signal this growing relationship.

 

But it goes much deeper than that, and it has huge ramifications for the region.

 

To be continued.

 


  • Erowind likes this

#2
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,026 posts

So, now we have to depend on Trump to contain Russia?

 

Good luck with that.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#3
Maximus

Maximus

    Spaceman

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,537 posts
  • LocationCanada

Romania, Bulgaria, the Visegrad Group, and the Baltic States would certainly benefit from increased cooperation. These states have had their freedom and independence guaranteed by US/Western European led institutions such as NATO, and to a lesser extent, the EU. Obviously, the current political climate in the US has jeopardised that guarantee (Trump refusing to publicly endorse NATO's Article V), which has resulted in uncertainty for these countries. Unlike Germany, France, and the UK, these states don't have the luxury of being somewhat far away from Russia- many are right on Russia's doorstep. 

 

The US is looking inwards, and Western Europe is more focused on social welfare spending than defence (i.e. Macron's recent $1 billion cut to the French defence budget). With Russia staging massive military exercises on many of these countries' borders, and the recent Crimean Annexation, these countries are understandably nervous. 

 

However, there are a number of obstacles standing in the way of an effective bulwark to Russian aggression:

 

1. Many of these countries, already stuck with pathetic demographics, are experiencing demographic decline/stagnation. Even together, they cannot match the Russian economy, or defence budget.

 

2. Russian political influence is strong or growing in some of these countries (i.e. Hungary and Bulgaria). Obviously, this is not good if you want a stable and effective alliance for the purpose of countering Russian aggression.

 

3. Inter-state tensions will likely be more pronounced in a smaller alliance. Large alliances such as NATO are good at squashing petty squabbles; in a small alliance, two countries (i.e. Romania and Hungary) can turn their squabbles from a sideshow, to a crisis for the alliance. 


If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done. -Peter Ustinov
 

#4
BarkEater93

BarkEater93

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 255 posts
  • LocationCanada
Over the past few centuries, Poland has been at the mercy of Germany and Russia, being sandwiched between two bigger powers. In the future, the positions will be reversed. This is something common to other Eastern European countries. In the future, Eastern Europe will be the most powerful region on the continent.
 
But back to current times: right now, a military alliance is forming in Eastern Europe, backed by the U.S., as a buffer against Russia. All countries in this buffer, despite having big cultural and political differences, share one thing in common: they feel vulnerable alone and are concerned about Russia. That sentiment is strong with them because they have felt helpless and know the feeling because they’ve been through many similar situations before. That alone binds them to achieve a common goal. Just this month, the U.S. has been leading a large-scale military exercise in the Black Sea area in Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria: http://www.npr.org/2...itary-exercises
 
Understandably, some countries have been more discreet about it than others; something they have had to be careful with because Russian influence can easily creep in. Hungary in particular has had history with this. It’s a country that historically had to go with the flow of nearby, bigger powers even if it ultimately wasn’t aligned with them, to try to protect its sovereignty. Hungary, under Horthy, had to do this with Nazi Germany even though it was secretly dealing with the Soviets. Today, Hungarian Prime Minister Orban has seemed to be submitting to the Russian will, in actuality, its Hungary trying to protect itself from Russia and trying not to cause too much attention. Hungary has had disputes and drifted from other EU members and doesn’t want to be seen as a vulnerable state for Russia to dive in.
 
But the dynamics are now changing: The U.S. is an increasingly important player in the region. The U.S. seeks to support these countries against Russia and maintain their sovereignties. Laying an ocean away, the U.S. has no interest in occupying these countries. On the other hand, whatever Russia’s ambitions are, Eastern European countries are still concerned about their sovereignty with Russia; they were swallowed up by the Soviet Union before. 
 
The American support of Eastern Europe can be compared to the American support of other countries like South Korea. South Korea developed phenomenally in just a short period of time; it transformed into an advanced industrialized country with a huge economy, with help from the U.S.
 
Next, on how the continuing vibrancy and development of economies in such countries as Poland and Romania are in huge contrast to those in Western Europe, and what that will mean for their increasing power. 


#5
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,026 posts

^^^ Interesting.

 

(I did notice that you side stepped my pessimism regarding Trump).  


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#6
BarkEater93

BarkEater93

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 255 posts
  • LocationCanada

Well, right now the U.S. is conducting military exercises and supporting these countries as a buffer against Russia, all this with a Trump presidency. This was going on with Obama too, but now it has vamped up and a coherent alliance has taken shape. Regardless of Trump's personal relations with Russia, he has had to take a hard stance on Russia. Foreign policies don't change because of personalities.

 

One of the most important foreign strategies the U.S. has had over the last century has been to prevent a power from taking hold in both Western Europe and Russia. The technology and politics of Western Europe combined with the resources of Russia would make a Eurasian power that could be an existential threat to the U.S. The U.S. fought in both World Wars and the Cold War to prevent such a power from forming. And now again with Russian influence creeping towards Western Europe, the U.S. is forming a buffer with countries from the Baltic to Black Seas.



#7
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,026 posts

 

 

Well, right now the U.S. is conducting military exercises and supporting these countries as a buffer against Russia, all this with a Trump presidency. This was going on with Obama too, but now it has vamped up and a coherent alliance has taken shape. Regardless of Trump's personal relations with Russia, he has had to take a hard stance on Russia. Foreign policies don't change because of personalities.

 

Except that in theory the President is the most important individual when it comes to establishing foreign policy.  What you are describing in actual fact is more or less accurate.  What you leave out is that the Trump presidency puts all of this very much in flux. I suspect that there are hard liners and that there are those more or less sympathetic to Russia.  In a sense, it very much is the hardliners within the national security state versus Trump. Ordinarily, I personally would be more inclined to be friendly toward Russia.  Here is where personalities do matter.  I am simply not a fan of Putin or Trump.  

 

As for the main thrust of your thesis, it sounds like a restatement of Kennan's containment theory.  Kennan himself only meant political containment, but it came to be adopted by the hard liners as also including military containment.  Back then, it was Communism that was the main threat.  A Communism that happened to be prevalent in the Soviet Union.  Today, Russia has morphed into a kleptocracy.  So an alliance with Trump is definitely an expansion of kleptocratic influences.  If that way of looking at things is correct, then "Romania, etc."  may very much be in danger of falling to the kleptocrats.  Moreover, many of those kleptocrats may very well adopt stages of disguises that obscure exactly with whom they are lining up in terms of international alliances.  One countervailing force will be that of a striving for democracy.  Another, that of the petite bourgeois.  That is, small businesses who are left out of the inner circle of power, but who do not necessarily embrace democratic norms.  

 

So, we can expect a  lot of smoke and a lot of clouds obscuring what is going on underneath.  In time, things may settle out as some of the conflicts of the day get settled out.  On center stage will be the struggle between the security state and the Trumpians.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#8
BarkEater93

BarkEater93

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 255 posts
  • LocationCanada
In theory, the president is the most powerful individual in foreign policy. And that’s just it; the president is only an individual, a particularly powerful one, but only one among many. To get a better indication of the decisions being made on foreign policy, especially with long-term actions, look not just on one person, but also on Congress: hundreds of voting members from a wide variety of backgrounds.
 
Military support to Poland, Romania and several other states was already happening during the Obama administration. Heavy investment has been put into these countries. Much intelligence has been shared, strategic planning has been made. Many current senators were around while the Obama administration was doing this, and supporting it, as they do now. Blocking Russia is a strategy that runs very deep into the American political psyche; across generations (as in the Cold War). Most very well know, whether consciously or subconsciously, that creating a buffer is something the U.S. needs to do to prevent a Russia-Western Europe entente that could pose an existential threat.
 
All this doesn’t change just because the guy in the oval office may have personal friendly relations with Putin. Foreign policies don’t change because of personalities. The “struggle” between the security state and the so-called “Trumpians” is more a struggle that Trump has between resisting the wave and going with the flow.
This current containment is much different than Kennan’s idea. This is a very different situation than in the Cold War. Communism is no longer the threat; very little emphasis is now put on political ideology than on raw national power.
 
And here’s the current situation on that raw national power: Russia, feeling threatened by the expansion of NATO, seeks to expand its power west into Eastern Europe as a buffer. The U.S., alarmed by the expanding power of Russia into Europe, seeks to block Russia to prevent a Eurasian hegemon from forming that could challenge the U.S.; Those Eastern European countries, caught in the middle, have had their own sovereignties (let alone their power) in jeopardy. That sovereignty is not guaranteed with Russia; they were swallowed up by the Soviets before. It is with the U.S., and the U.S. also seeks to boost them to create an effective buffer.
 
It’s as simple as that.
 
Eastern European countries are dead set on trying to keep their nations alive. They’ve been through centuries of being absorbed by others. The last two decades have given them a rare opportunity to be completely sovereign. They’re going to pursue that no matter what leaders they elect.


#9
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,026 posts

 

 

In theory, the president is the most powerful individual in foreign policy. And that’s just it; the president is only an individual, a particularly powerful one, but only one among many. To get a better indication of the decisions being made on foreign policy, especially with long-term actions, look not just on one person, but also on Congress: hundreds of voting members from a wide variety of backgrounds.

 

Yes, but that one individual proved to be powerful enough to get himself elected president.  He is now in a position to use the loyalty he commands from his voters to impose his will upon Congress.  If a senator, particularly from his own party, balks at following his leadership he may very well find himself out of a job.  There is more than enough evidence to point to collusion between Trump, or at least his campaign surrogates, and Russia.  Yet, the Republican party is dragging its feet in pursuing an investigation.  They have put party above country.

 

 

 

Military support to Poland, Romania and several other states was already happening during the Obama administration. Heavy investment has been put into these countries. Much intelligence has been shared, strategic planning has been made. Many current senators were around while the Obama administration was doing this, and supporting it, as they do now. Blocking Russia is a strategy that runs very deep into the American political psyche; across generations (as in the Cold War). Most very well know, whether consciously or subconsciously, that creating a buffer is something the U.S. needs to do to prevent a Russia-Western Europe entente that could pose an existential threat.

 

Regarding "current senators" - see above.

 

Blocking Russia runs deep in the American political system because Russia once was a Communist power, and that brand of communism threatened both capitalism and U.S. hegemony within the capitalist system.  Kleptocrats have a long history of being tolerated in U.S. politics.  Study the history of people bosses such as Frank Hague, James Curley, Ed Crump, and Huey Long.  I think it was Huey Long that once quipped that he avoided military service because he had no reason to be upset with U.S. enemies at the time of his life that military serve might have been appropriate, or something to that effect.  Look at opinion polls and you will see a startling apathy, particularly among Trump voters, when it comes to potential dangers from Russia. 

 

There is a difference between an existential threat, and choosing a different set of leaders to follow.

 

 

 

All this doesn’t change just because the guy in the oval office may have personal friendly relations with Putin. Foreign policies don’t change because of personalities. The “struggle” between the security state and the so-called “Trumpians” is more a struggle that Trump has between resisting the wave and going with the flow

 

I could just as easily argue that it is you who is resisting the wave.

 

 

 

 

This current containment is much different than Kennan’s idea. This is a very different situation than in the Cold War. Communism is no longer the threat; very little emphasis is now put on political ideology than on raw national power.

 

Well, yes, that is pretty much central to what I am arguing.

 

 

 

And here’s the current situation on that raw national power: Russia, feeling threatened by the expansion of NATO, seeks to expand its power west into Eastern Europe as a buffer. The U.S., alarmed by the expanding power of Russia into Europe, seeks to block Russia to prevent a Eurasian hegemon from forming that could challenge the U.S.; Those Eastern European countries, caught in the middle, have had their own sovereignties (let alone their power) in jeopardy. That sovereignty is not guaranteed with Russia; they were swallowed up by the Soviets before. It is with the U.S., and the U.S. also seeks to boost them to create an effective buffer.

 
It’s as simple as that.
 
Eastern European countries are dead set on trying to keep their nations alive. They’ve been through centuries of being absorbed by others. The last two decades have given them a rare opportunity to be completely sovereign. They’re going to pursue that no matter what leaders they elect.
 

 


That is more an argument that such leaders will turn to Germany for leadership. They may also fall victim to old habits and see leaders arise in kleptocratic coalition with Russia, their electoral process having been more thoroughly sabotaged than our own.  
 
Moreover, I would add that this struggle between the security state and Trump is one in which we potentially lose either way.  Trump wins - more power to the kleptocrats. The security state wins - a further step away from civilian control of the military.
 
Sure, military leaders in the U.S. may very well be pursuing the strategy you suggest, ignore Trump as a pain in the arse and proceed as if he did not exist.  Congress will be key.  Will they do their job and allow investigations of Trump-Russia collusion proceed?
 
Or will they stand by and allow Trump to stop the investigation and then allow him to take further steps toward colluding with Russia?
 
Yes, I would like to see Trump rendered powerless.  Still, I do not relish the idea of the security state tightening its grip on the U.S.

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#10
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,026 posts

Speaking of potential conflicts between the security state and the prez:

 

Internal Documents Show How the Nation’s Top Spy Is Instructed to Talk About Trump

 

http://www.motherjon...lk-about-trump/

 

 

 

Last week, Dan Coats, the former senator from Indiana and current head of the US intelligence community, was interviewed by NBC’s Lester Holt in front of a live audience at the Aspen Security Forum, a gathering where diplomats, journalists and top US officials mingle with business executives in between livestreamed panel discussions on world affairs. (The hourlong discussion was posted on YouTube.)

 

ProPublica has obtained internal talking points, apparently written by one of Coats’ aides, anticipating questions that Holt was likely to ask. They offer a window into the euphemisms and evasions necessary to handle a pressing issue for Coats: how to lead the intelligence community at a time when the president has insulted it on Twitter and denigrated its work while questions about Russian influence consume ever more time and attention in Washington. Sixteen of the 26 questions addressed by the talking points concerned internal White House politics, the Russia investigation, or the president himself. One question put the challenges facing Coats this way: “How can you work as DNI for a president that undermines your work?”

 

DNI spokesman Brian Hale told ProPublica that the 17-page document was a small, unclassified part of “a thick binder” of preparation documents for Coats’ interview. The other pieces, according to Hale, “had substantive material on Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea.” The talking points document, he said, “was designed to address the questions we anticipated being asked because of the news cycle.”

 

…In the talking points, Coats was advised to say that he and the president have “a trusted relationship,” framing any disagreements as constructive ones. “We may not always agree,” the document stated. “We must maintain an open dialogue … the relationship portrayed in the media between the president and the intelligence community is a far cry from what I have personally experienced and witnessed … there is a healthy dialogue and a good back and forth discussion.”

 

 

Nothing here to see folks.  That conflict you see is not the type of carnage going on behind the scenes.  Cuz the standard talking points memo my staff has prepared says it is so.  So, move it along.  No bloodshed here. Everybody is just engaging in "open dialogue."  

 

I am just so relieved.   /sarcasm


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#11
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,026 posts

I am not even specifically looking for these types of articles, yet I j keep stumbling upon them:

 

Is Journalism a Strategic Asset?

 

http://thebulletin.o...egic-asset10973

 

Introduction:

 

Journalists don’t tend to think of themselves as playing an active role in national security—they report on events rather than participate in them. But the director-general of the Latvian security police made a long-time Washington Postcorrespondent reflect on her professional role. “The media are a strategic asset, just like oil and gas,” the Latvian official told Dana Priest, as she writes in The New Yorker.

 

Authoritarian governments, of course, have always seen media control as important, but Latvia is a young democracy, and the security chief meant something different: Having a free, fair, functioning press can be an important tool in the battle against disinformation campaigns like those Russia wages from Warsaw to Washington.

 

Deceiving the enemy has been around since the Greeks sailed away from Troy, leaving a giant wooden horse as a parting gift. But every new communications technology opens up new possibilities, and in more recent years, Moscow has attacked a slew of democracies using hardware, software, hacking skills, and the internet to steal information and spread lies.

Latvia—and other small democracies fighting foreign meddling—may understand that fact-based journalism is a weapon in their defense. Unfortunately, as Priest suggests, the current US president doesn’t seem to see the press as a strategic asset at all, but rather, as an enemy of the state.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#12
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,026 posts

...and the above provided a link to this article:

 

Lessons from Europe’s Fight Against Russian Disinformation

 

http://www.newyorker...-disinformation

 

 

Inside the security-police headquarters in Riga, Latvia, not much appears to have changed since the end of the Cold War, nearly three decades ago. A long, beige hallway leads to the executive conference room, which is furnished with an overstuffed couch, a giant television, and a patterned tea set atop a credenza.

 

The security police, like the F.B.I. in the United States, conduct counterintelligence, which mainly involves trying to uncover and stop Russian interference in the nation’s affairs. Ever since Latvia regained its independence, in 1991, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia has used spies, Latvian turncoats, blackmail, bribery, surveillance, and other skullduggery to stir up trouble, Normunds Mežviets, the director-general of the security police, told me during an interview. For at least ten years, Russia has also employed the Web to spread disinformation about Latvian society, in an effort to weaken citizens’ support for European unity and for their democratic form of government, he said.

 

Despite the headquarters’ décor, much has changed there, as I discovered when I visited, this spring, while reporting a story for the Washington Post on how Europe is handling Russian disinformation. To fight online troublemaking, Mežviets and his officers have become experts in the business of the news media. They know the owners and journalists of prominent television stations and newspapers. They also make it their business to know even the tiniest and most amateur Russian-language Web sites that pop up in the Latvian news sphere. When the officers spot even a discreet change in the Russian-language sites, they investigate those, too. By now, Mežviets has learned so much about the media that sometimes he sounds more like a journalism professor than a national-security officer. “It’s very important that normal media use really credible sources,” he told me in his office.

He recently lobbied Latvia’s legislature to adopt a law requiring that the government approve the sale of major media companies, so that they never fall under the control of foreign foes. Foreign-owned private-equity firms, whose goal is often to flip lacklustre companies after making them profitable, already own large mobile-phone and cable companies in the country. With a population of only 1.9 million, Latvia views a media grab by, say, Kremlin-friendly oligarchs as a major security threat. Mežviets said that, since there are “only three Latvian TV channels,” if one were to fall into Russian-friendly hands, “that could have a real impact.”

 

 

I suppose this could be read as supporting either/or my arguments or Barkeaters


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#13
BarkEater93

BarkEater93

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 255 posts
  • LocationCanada

U.S. Vice President Pence Just One of a Parade of Washington Officials to Visit Estonia in Recent Months

 

 

Estonia, a tiny Baltic nation dwarfed by neighboring Russia, isn’t a premier American tourist destination. But when Vice President Mike Pence arrives there on Sunday he’ll be just the latest in a parade of senior Washington officials to visit in recent months.

 
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) led a congressional delegation to Estonia in December and so did Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) in June. America’s top NATO general dropped by in March, followed soon after by House Speaker Paul Ryan in April. President Barack Obama himself gave a September 2014 address in the Estonian capital of Tallinn.
...
All three Baltic nations—Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia–have stepped up their diplomatic contacts with the U.S. in recent years as a revanchist Russia builds up its forces on their borders. The three nations typically arrange joint meetings with administration officials, such as a confab with Secretary of Defense James Mattis in Lithuania in May. Pence will also meet Lithuania and Latvia’s heads of state in Tallin.
 


#14
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,026 posts

Yuli posted this in the Germany Watch thread in the News and Discussion forum.  It is also may be highly relevant to this thread.  Note the reference to the European Union.

 

New Russia Sanctions 'Illegal' Says Germany, Urging Europe to Retaliate Against U.S.

Quote

Speaking to a German newspaper group in an interview published Monday, Germany’s Minister for Economics and Energy Brigitte Zypries said that “we see [the sanctions] as being against international law, plain and simple,” The Local reported.

“The Americans can’t punish German companies because they have business interests in another country,” Zypries said.

Zypries added that the EU should consider countermeasures in retaliation. Germany had, she said, repeatedly asked Washington not to move away from common anti-Russia sanctions policy.

“Unfortunately, that is exactly what they are doing. That means that it is right that the European Commission now considers countermeasures...Europe is ready to adopt short-term countermeasures in other parts of the world, too,” Zypries warned.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Eastern Europe, Intermarium, NATO, Russia, Poland, Romania, Baltic, Germany, Buffer Zone, Superpower

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users