Chances of Moscow becoming part of Poland again?

Poland being part of Moscow would be more likely , very handy for me , my Russian wife and i could live there without a visa , i could make my English car legal as i did easily in Moscow and Bulgaria , and i would not have to pay huge electric bills because i am English . . . my home in Bulgaria which has every electrical item you can think of cost seven times less than my farm in Poland which had only a computer and a few low energy bulbs . . .

Impossible. Times changed. Back in past, two factions of Slavdom/Sarmatia in wide sense (essentially it was Sarmats vs. Scythians) clashed for Moscow. Today, Moscow represent distant cousin but, important point of balance for Poland.

If Russia collapse, Anglo-Germanics and Chinese would grab everything. Plus, Germanics would take Poland, on the top of all, like the strawberry on the cake. Just to prove the point, which state that all Slavs must extinct.

In 1610 a group of Russian nobles welcomed Polish prince Vladislav on the Russian throne.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Boyars
Russia could become a Polish posession for a while if not at least one problem: It was unthinkable for Russian people to have a heretic (a Roman Catholic) on the Russian throne. However not only Polish king Sigismund prohibited his son Vladislav convert to Orthodox Christianity, but demanded all Russians convert to Catholic faith. Ultimately the war has broke out.

@Vlad1234
Which is a good example of idolizing the position of a king (tsar?) and being inspired by Ceasarian tendencies. Russians were not prepared for any overcomplicated form of governing other then monarchal ones. It changed in 1917, but due to certain factions being more powerhungry and ideologically driven the democratical/republican reforms that could had come to fruitation were halted until modern times of the post-soviet Russian federation.

It was reverted to monarchical tendencies under Stalin for a time cause of the chaos, fears and effects of the civil war. Very similar with 1991 and after effects, but thankfully to a much smaller degree and avoidance of a civil war. However the strengthening of the position of president is repetition of the same as in Russians past.

If the main parties in Russia will thouroughly work for better communication within it's Federation on local levels of government and encourage political participation instead of trying to discourage out of fear of losing power. It would go into Russian history that could reform Russia to a higher level then Peter did, it would most likely cost them a lot of power and influence for the next ten years. But generations of Russians would surely remember their sacrefice

Just as the elites of Poland neutralized pillaging, raids and agression from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Polish elites today (I know Ironside I know) should neutralize the option of agression of the Russian Federation by making a Union with Russia directly, or indirectly by working for Russia to join the EU.

If most of Polish society would be able to see a way to bury the hatchet despite all the harm done throught centuries of conflict. It would enable the political forces to make such a move, especially as Russia is far more capable to handle such a transformation now then ever before thanks to the internet and the greater difficoulty of hiding information that is being shared

I'm not sure that what happened. However who would leave his son in a place they keep killing their rules like rabbits.
I think there wasn't much support for this kind of union.

@Cojestdocholery
It was the Vasa who went into exile from Sweden by being too fanatical about catholiscism. He remained in power in Poland while having problems with the Polish nobility. Or am I mixing the Vasa rulers?

I dont see how anyone especially Polish claim Russia wasnt or isnt a European power. Unlike Poland they had colonies and were part of the boxer rebellion in China or nations that put the weak man of asia under their wing and divided it during the 1800s and early 1900s. Only europeans did that not Poland and Russia was one. They were also parts of most of the major wars and trade agreements with real western european pwoers and divisions that happened post wars like the great war while poland didnt exist. plus they had a big aristocrasy class and wined and dined with the french and european elites during the 1800s while again Poland dint exist. Watch some movies in holywood for godssakes Polish. not your fake crap history.

"Sigismund's primary intention was to destroy the Russian state and impose Catholicism with the use of force or terror if necessary."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund_III_Vasa

Yes, listen to wiki, in fact listen to it all the time, no matter the qestion or a problem ask wiki and then do what it tells you.

Are you for real?
It sound like some Russian wrote it!
Reading his mind. If anything he would like to get Kremlin to accept union like it happened in Poland.
His first aim would be absolutum dominum in Poland using Kremlin resources, next step regain Sweden.
Russia lost it chance at becoming the strongest Europen power.

Was Poland always a democracy?! Not even at interwar period!

@Vlad1234
Poland was still a republic during interwar period, the opposition knew however that any military clash for governmental power was impossible for them. Which lead to them losing support.

The national-democrats were ones with very large support in Polish society, but it's influence lost ground year by year after 1926 coup. The coup targeted mainly military control, civilian sector was largely ignored by Marshal Piłsudski and given to closest supporters to guarantee armies needs.

It was a very autocratic form of republic, still a republic non the less.

Vlad, your free to retaliate all you want and critisize Poland's republican traditions. Especially how it began and why.

It still doesn't change the fact of Russias society being used to far more autocratic tendencies and methods.

Could you prove that majority of common Poles had more rights and freedoms than majority of common Russians at lest before 1918?

@Vlad1234
That's impossible, Poland was split among three Imperial megalomanical states at the time when such reforms were starting to get introduced. You should know that very well, we are not discussing the quality of life of Russia's or Poland's poorest parts of society and their rights to the governments budgets.

We are talking about the efficiency, amounts of waste, corruption and time spent before decisions are made and how co-operative and good the local level of governance is. By having autocratic forms of governments, it's easier for the government to govern how it seems fit. But it's views doesn't necessarily correlate with the reality on the local level. And blocking local government from performing help, improvement or necessary action contributes to urbanization.

Do I have to tell you about the situation of many many people having to work in Moscow, Petersburg etc? Instead of building up their own communities? What does it help if countries become more autocratic and wealth is concentrated at capitols mainly? Like Washington D.C, there are hordes of americans that are unhappy with such an arrangement, Poles about Warsaw and I bet Russians about Moscow.

Your most likely thinking this is just another jab at Russia... I am just thinking what's best for Russia while also being good for Poland. But, your most likely thinking that anything that's good for Poland internally in Russia is bad huh? It seems like that to me atleast

Interwar Poland history 1918-1939:
"The new, inexperienced government faced serious problems; already there was rampant corruption among government officials; a dizzying turnover of cabinets caused confusion and distrust.
The ineffectiveness of the Sejm led some of his inner circle to suggest that he launch a military coup and regain power
For the next decade, Piłsudski dominated Polish affairs as strongman of a generally popular centrist regime, although he never held a formal title except for minister of defense. He retained the 1921 constitution, and the noisy, ineffective Sejm continued to operate, but it nearly always gave him what he wanted. Critics of the regime were occasionally arrested, but most were sued for libel. In 1935 a new Polish Constitution was adopted, but Piłsudski soon died and his protégé successors drifted toward open authoritarianism. Opposition voices were increasingly harassed or jailed

In many respects, the Second Republic fell short of the high expectations of 1918. As happened elsewhere in Central Europe, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, the attempt to implant democracy did not succeed."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_(1918%E2%80%931939)#From_democracy_to_authoritarian_government

Again wiki? They were doing all right. It was delusional Piusłudzki who use his millitary boys to get to power.
Didn't really made a diffrence. What do you expect from a guy who belivied himself to be incarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Who knows. Once when EU is deep past, when Germany is no more, when western Europe is Arabized, when Britain became state within USA, when project of Greater Serbia is reality from Baltic to Balkan, maybe, just maybe, Moscow is part of Poland.

Rampant is almost an understatement here.


Like today's Belarus.


He was by far the strongest, best and most respected figure of that period.

Sure, very kin to Putin today with the respect I reckon. Problem is that Piłsudskis fanboys were more interested in proving themselves legitimate by guessing what Piłsudski would had done in their stead. Hopefully nothing similar or at least not too dramatical will happen when Putin will have to be replaced.

In Poland's case neighbours and far reaching states using the Opportunity to the fullest.

If the Russian Federation would dive into a similar crisis with a leadership switch, I got No clue how it would be resolved.

Navalny could easily be seen as backed by the west, at the same time. He wouldn't be able to control anything within Russia, which would allow any internal conflicts to be handled without western interferance if it didn't risk navalnys position. Making the west focusing/contacting navalny which would halt western influence.

Unless there would be a strong enough backing by one of the most prominent Russians or wealthiest that would want to sweep away an electoral victory as soon as possible after Putin to underline his backing/influence.

Poland doesn't have any Russian in Russia who could be backed mainly by Poland, the factions in Russia who would be most Poland friendly would be those who coincide with Polish foreign policies (idealists, intellectuals, catholics, businessmen, maaybe the military if they understand Poland... But most likely not if they see Poland as NATO puppet without having a slavic perspective)

So Poland is forced to be quite neutral within Russian politics,as there are No suitable candidates to "bet" on. Only dealing with those in power, as best as possible.

You mean he wasn't supporting protestant revolution in Sweden. If that makes him fanatical then he was.
He was deposed from being the King of Sweden.

@Cojestdocholery
I think of him being too fanatical about demanding all of Russia to convert to catholiscism when it clearly wasn't an option for Russians to do so. I am not a fan of forcing anyone to have faith.

It's a matter of choice, not that of political bickering

I don't know if he did it. I think it was an issue about him being the Tzar.
Poland's Senate didn't like it and boyars in Moscow had different ideas.
I think it was a sound move to make it work.

@Cojestdocholery
Either way, any chances of Moscow being part of Poland conquered or in union is irrelevant. As it didn't lead to any fruitation. Later on Catherine Tsarina contributed to being only one major slavic state instead of two. From Russian perspective most likely great! Cause Russians got monopoly basically fighting for slavic interests, but also reducing chances of any long term alliances that wouldn't threaten Russians to such a degree like conflicts with Sweden/Germany/Ottomon Empire which was at it's worst during ww2 when slavic continued existance was questioned.

For Russia to develope, she needs security, peace and less pressure from the west. Problem is that Russia seems any initiative from Poland as western initiative and not Polish initiative. Most of the west doesn't give a damn about Russia really, unless used for internal affairs (blame Russia etc bla bla)

For Poland and Russia to increase stability among slavic states, a good agreement needs to be made about Ukraine (with the aim for her to grow to increase each others prospects and capabilities)

And having a stronger slavic state in the south in the balkans, problem is that due to the Yugoslav civil war which lead to a break up. The option of a unified slavic state in the south is out of the question that would be large enough to co-operate with.

But instead, petty squabbles over Crimea and who gets to have most influence in Belarus seems more important now. It would require a great statesman to be able to make it happen, and currently I can't seem to think of any being able to push something like that through at the moment

The same thing happened in Ukraine and perhaps Belarus.

There was Paderewski, and Dmowski. By far the most respected figure by Poles in that period was Dmowski.

No, definitely Marshal Pilsudski, leader of the country.

You are making this up.

Perhaps all the statues, monuments, streets and squares named after him are 'made up'...

He was supported by the left, communists and minorities. Majority of Poles supported Dmowski. If not for his military coup and propaganda of his regime...

So what? Are some votes more or less equal than others?


Yet that isn't how they voted, is it? And Marshall Pilsudski had huge support. Legions even...

They also voted for President Narutowicz, a great man, murdered by a crazy person 99 years ago this month.

Absolutly.


They voted against him, fi not he wouldn't go for a milittary coup.