Polson
11 Sep 2016
Polonia / Let's talk about Sweden and other Scandinavian countries [236]
Sjuksköterska. This one almost sounds Polish ;)
though find Swedish to be far and away the most melodic.
Sjuksköterska. This one almost sounds Polish ;)
Polson
9 Sep 2016
Polson
9 Sep 2016
Language / SEXUAL AND PASSIONATE WORDS IN POLISH [41]
I know, I know. Just saying. Your words are kind of... crude ;) (and there are no kids here (I guess))
I know, I know. Just saying. Your words are kind of... crude ;) (and there are no kids here (I guess))
Polson
9 Sep 2016
Language / SEXUAL AND PASSIONATE WORDS IN POLISH [41]
Please, Dreamergirl, children are watching... KIDS, DON'T READ THIS ;)
Please, Dreamergirl, children are watching... KIDS, DON'T READ THIS ;)
Polson
9 Sep 2016
Travel / Help: Travelling from Gliwice to Zilina (Slovakia) [7]
Try this tigerexpress.eu/en
Comfy and cheap, as far as I remember.
Does someone know of any better way to arrive in Zilina?
Try this tigerexpress.eu/en
Comfy and cheap, as far as I remember.
Polson
3 May 2016
Food / Is brain-damaging vegan fad growing in Poland? [176]
Unfortunately, no other governments had had the guts to form such ethical laws since the nazis, pity ;)
Probably not. But I read somewhere that we eat like 7,000 animals in a lifetime. That's still 7,000 lifes spared when you're a vegetarian.
Or, if you prefer, 7,000 deaths you won't participate in. That's quite something, especially if you like animals ;)
Indeed, vegetarians/vegans don't expect cruelty to just disappear. They want to minimize it as much as possible.
As to animal testing, alternative methods exist. I'm not saying we could avoid 100% of all animal experiments, but some cruel experiments really could and should be avoided.
True. But there's something nice about humans: we have moral/ethics. We don't do just what we want. We are responsible beings (or at least we're supposed to). Responsability is the key word here I think. I'm not shocked when a lion catches and kills a antelope, but I am when I see humans treating animals like they were furniture from IKEA, that we can "produce", kill, disassemble and stock.
(Actually, furniture from IKEA may receive a better treatment than the animals we eat)
Vegans reject all animal products. The thing is: as every (mammal) female, cows don't produce milk all the time. They have milk only when they have to feed their calf. In the dairy industry, cows are inseminated every year, so they can "produce" a calf (and MILK). The separation of the cow and its calf happens ASAP after birth (which, apparently, make them scream and look for each other for days) so we can get as much milk as possible. If the calf is a male, it will only live a few months and then be slaughtered. If it's a female, it will become like its mother and have a short and exhausting life.
A cow can live about 20 years in the wild. Dairy cows in the dairy industry do not live more than 5-6 years. As soon as they "produce" less, they are transformed into minced meat for hamburgers.
Vegans are not crazy. They're actually very logical... ;)
Becoming vegetarian is actually easy. Turning vegan is a bit harder, but probably more rewarding.
Pro's and con's, I don't know, it depends. Becoming vegetarian was probably the best decision of my life (so far). I can't find any serious con. It's all good to me. The food is diverse, rich, tasty, and healthy (I eat more organic food now than when I was an omnivore). And it feels so much better to know that what you eat hasn't caused any pain.
I think vegetarians and vegans generally have a more diverse (and quality) diet than omnivorous people. They eat more fruits, vegetables, legumes, cereals. The vitamin and mineral intake is generally good. But yes, as any diet, you can miss out on some vitamins and minerals.
Vitamin B12 is a famous "problem". But it can be easily fixed.
Various studies have shown that vegetarians are healthier (and live longer apparently) than omnivorous people. Vegans do even better...
I think I read somewhere that there could be some sort of drug addiction with meat... ;)
I can share my own experience. Ever since I'm a vegetarian, I don't feel hungry all the time, and I haven't gained much weight.
I think our body adapts to what we give it (food).
One more thing: there are "famous" vegetarian/vegan bodybuilders. But to be honest, I don't know if they take steroids or any other food supplement ;)
True. But we're no lions or wolves or cats. We are humans. We can adapt, think, make the difference between good and bad, and change our habits to suit our moral/ethics. I really like wolves, but I don't expect them to do anything like that ;)
Mm, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Our meat industry (in the whole EU including Poland (very probably)) also uses all sorts of hormones, antibiotics, etc. Which is not surprising considering how important meat is in our culture. When you need to produce that much, I think hormones and antibiotics are inevitable at some point.
It's really late here. We'll keep talking tomorrow, if you want to ;)
I stated they were among the first to form animal welfare laws which groups like PETA fight for.
Unfortunately, no other governments had had the guts to form such ethical laws since the nazis, pity ;)
You don't have to be a vegetarian to put a dent into animal cruelty.
Probably not. But I read somewhere that we eat like 7,000 animals in a lifetime. That's still 7,000 lifes spared when you're a vegetarian.
Or, if you prefer, 7,000 deaths you won't participate in. That's quite something, especially if you like animals ;)
I think I'd rather have a new drug tested on a rat than a human being.
Indeed, vegetarians/vegans don't expect cruelty to just disappear. They want to minimize it as much as possible.
As to animal testing, alternative methods exist. I'm not saying we could avoid 100% of all animal experiments, but some cruel experiments really could and should be avoided.
even other animals are cruel to each other. Ever see a cat catch a mouse?
True. But there's something nice about humans: we have moral/ethics. We don't do just what we want. We are responsible beings (or at least we're supposed to). Responsability is the key word here I think. I'm not shocked when a lion catches and kills a antelope, but I am when I see humans treating animals like they were furniture from IKEA, that we can "produce", kill, disassemble and stock.
(Actually, furniture from IKEA may receive a better treatment than the animals we eat)
Also, some of the more extreme PETA types are against milking cows and many vegans are against drinking milk
Vegans reject all animal products. The thing is: as every (mammal) female, cows don't produce milk all the time. They have milk only when they have to feed their calf. In the dairy industry, cows are inseminated every year, so they can "produce" a calf (and MILK). The separation of the cow and its calf happens ASAP after birth (which, apparently, make them scream and look for each other for days) so we can get as much milk as possible. If the calf is a male, it will only live a few months and then be slaughtered. If it's a female, it will become like its mother and have a short and exhausting life.
A cow can live about 20 years in the wild. Dairy cows in the dairy industry do not live more than 5-6 years. As soon as they "produce" less, they are transformed into minced meat for hamburgers.
Vegans are not crazy. They're actually very logical... ;)
What are the pro's and con's though of being a vegan or even vegetarian?
Becoming vegetarian is actually easy. Turning vegan is a bit harder, but probably more rewarding.
Pro's and con's, I don't know, it depends. Becoming vegetarian was probably the best decision of my life (so far). I can't find any serious con. It's all good to me. The food is diverse, rich, tasty, and healthy (I eat more organic food now than when I was an omnivore). And it feels so much better to know that what you eat hasn't caused any pain.
It looks like missing out on vitamins and minerals, especially b12, are the biggest concerns.
I think vegetarians and vegans generally have a more diverse (and quality) diet than omnivorous people. They eat more fruits, vegetables, legumes, cereals. The vitamin and mineral intake is generally good. But yes, as any diet, you can miss out on some vitamins and minerals.
Vitamin B12 is a famous "problem". But it can be easily fixed.
Various studies have shown that vegetarians are healthier (and live longer apparently) than omnivorous people. Vegans do even better...
If I gave up eating meat
for even a week, I'd probably eat like pasta, potatoes, rice, etc. and probably gain weight thanks to carbs and still feel hungry all the time.
for even a week, I'd probably eat like pasta, potatoes, rice, etc. and probably gain weight thanks to carbs and still feel hungry all the time.
I think I read somewhere that there could be some sort of drug addiction with meat... ;)
I can share my own experience. Ever since I'm a vegetarian, I don't feel hungry all the time, and I haven't gained much weight.
I think our body adapts to what we give it (food).
One more thing: there are "famous" vegetarian/vegan bodybuilders. But to be honest, I don't know if they take steroids or any other food supplement ;)
Animals eat each other too - it's part of nature.
True. But we're no lions or wolves or cats. We are humans. We can adapt, think, make the difference between good and bad, and change our habits to suit our moral/ethics. I really like wolves, but I don't expect them to do anything like that ;)
Poland already has such wonderful food that isn't treated with hormones, antibiotics, and all sorts of other garbage like the food in N. America.
Mm, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Our meat industry (in the whole EU including Poland (very probably)) also uses all sorts of hormones, antibiotics, etc. Which is not surprising considering how important meat is in our culture. When you need to produce that much, I think hormones and antibiotics are inevitable at some point.
It's really late here. We'll keep talking tomorrow, if you want to ;)
Polson
2 May 2016
Food / Is brain-damaging vegan fad growing in Poland? [176]
Good for their image ;) But it has nothing to do with vegetarianism/veganism today.
I wouldn't care much about what a guy who supposedly wanted to ban slaughterhouses for animals but created slaughterhouses for humans said ;)
Phew! ;)
I understand. Habits. You were born and raised with meat at every meal (more or less). That's probably the hardest part to get over. But it wasn't hard for me. The moment I saw the piece of meat in my plate not as just food but as the (bloody) part of a sensible being who had had a miserable life and a cruel death, I had no problem to quit eating meat.
That's true. Tofu alone is quite tasteless. But if you know how to cook it (and what to cook it with), it can replace meat.
I almost never eat tofu anyway.
I've had a veggie kebab lately (with seitan), very nice.
They don't eat just that, but yes, they're more likely to "save the world and end cruelty to animals" than the persons who don't act.
There's a HUGE difference between killing animals by accident and a system that "breeds" and kills them ON PURPOSE by billions every year.
Human consumption intentionally kills over 1,000 BILLION animals every year. If this is not a massacre, what is it?
Also, I'm pretty sure that most of the world production of soy beans is intended to livestock, not humans. So if you think about it, by eating meat, you kill animals twice: the rabbits in soy bean crops and the cows in industrial farms ;)
I stated that they were some of first people to create animal welfare laws.
Good for their image ;) But it has nothing to do with vegetarianism/veganism today.
He also wrote in his diary that Hitler planned to ban slaughterhouses once the war ended
I wouldn't care much about what a guy who supposedly wanted to ban slaughterhouses for animals but created slaughterhouses for humans said ;)
Thanks Polson that's very nice of you but I was just joking.
Phew! ;)
I honestly don't feel like I've had a good meal unless it has meat in it.
I understand. Habits. You were born and raised with meat at every meal (more or less). That's probably the hardest part to get over. But it wasn't hard for me. The moment I saw the piece of meat in my plate not as just food but as the (bloody) part of a sensible being who had had a miserable life and a cruel death, I had no problem to quit eating meat.
I'd fell hungry all the time if all I ate was salad and tofu.
That's true. Tofu alone is quite tasteless. But if you know how to cook it (and what to cook it with), it can replace meat.
I almost never eat tofu anyway.
veggie burgers
I've had a veggie kebab lately (with seitan), very nice.
They think that by only eating wheat grains and tofu that they're going to save the world and end cruelty to animals.
They don't eat just that, but yes, they're more likely to "save the world and end cruelty to animals" than the persons who don't act.
Well actually, millions of animals each year are killed by white and soy bean combines each year.
There's a HUGE difference between killing animals by accident and a system that "breeds" and kills them ON PURPOSE by billions every year.
Human consumption intentionally kills over 1,000 BILLION animals every year. If this is not a massacre, what is it?
Also, I'm pretty sure that most of the world production of soy beans is intended to livestock, not humans. So if you think about it, by eating meat, you kill animals twice: the rabbits in soy bean crops and the cows in industrial farms ;)
Polson
2 May 2016
Food / Is brain-damaging vegan fad growing in Poland? [176]
Indeed. Barbarians do that. Civilised people can decide and act differently (ok, this is provocation, a little, but somehow true ;)).
This is all political, Adrian. The nazis needed to work on their image. And showing empathy to animals helps a lot!
As to Hitler being a vegetarian, this is VERY debatable. If this really was true, it could have been for medical reasons (the guy wasn't very healthy). Also, apparently, Hitler's favourite meal contained meat.
This is unfair (and wrong). Vegetarianism was not created by Nazi Germany, please... Some Ancient Greeks like Pythagoras were vegetarian. Were they nazis?
Adrian, you're smarter than that. Come on.
Do you kill it yourself or...?
Meat is basically dead animals, reared (especially in Poland) in a cruel way and slaughtered so a particular species can steal the protein and carbohydrate from their corpses.
Indeed. Barbarians do that. Civilised people can decide and act differently (ok, this is provocation, a little, but somehow true ;)).
Himler banned trapping and put severe restrictions on hunting while Goebels, a conservationist himself, described Hitler as a vegetarian.
This is all political, Adrian. The nazis needed to work on their image. And showing empathy to animals helps a lot!
As to Hitler being a vegetarian, this is VERY debatable. If this really was true, it could have been for medical reasons (the guy wasn't very healthy). Also, apparently, Hitler's favourite meal contained meat.
PETA ought to be proud of their roots
This is unfair (and wrong). Vegetarianism was not created by Nazi Germany, please... Some Ancient Greeks like Pythagoras were vegetarian. Were they nazis?
That's fine... let the idiots eat that nasty vegan garbage. For every animal they don't eat, I'll eat three.
Adrian, you're smarter than that. Come on.
I think I'll have a delicious baby cow sandwich.
Do you kill it yourself or...?
Polson
2 May 2016
Food / Is brain-damaging vegan fad growing in Poland? [176]
I agree with everything you said, except the last sentence (of course ;)).
Not sure what you mean by "trendy PC causes to promote". I don't see why extending our empathy to our four-legged (and two-winged/finned) companions would be a "trendy PC cause".
If meat is not an absolute necessity, why would I keep causing pain and suffering to so many beings?
This is a genuine question. I don't see it as a naive "trendy PC cause", but more a real philosophical, ethical questioning.
Only if we see animals as mere objects can we keep treating them this way. Otherwise, we need to rethink a few things.
I agree with everything you said, except the last sentence (of course ;)).
Not sure what you mean by "trendy PC causes to promote". I don't see why extending our empathy to our four-legged (and two-winged/finned) companions would be a "trendy PC cause".
If meat is not an absolute necessity, why would I keep causing pain and suffering to so many beings?
This is a genuine question. I don't see it as a naive "trendy PC cause", but more a real philosophical, ethical questioning.
Only if we see animals as mere objects can we keep treating them this way. Otherwise, we need to rethink a few things.
Polson
1 May 2016
Food / Is brain-damaging vegan fad growing in Poland? [176]
Various nutritional deficiencies are found among omnivorous people too.
Most of the synthetic B12 world production goes to livestock supplementation. Which means that the B12 we get from the animals we eat actually come from food supplementation and medication these animals get in "farms". I'd rather supplement myself directly than through dead animal flesh.
Vitamin D can be synthesised by your body just by sun exposure.
As to calcium, the countries where dairy products consumption is the highest are also the ones where bone problems (such as osteoporosis) are the most commonly found. Calcium can be found in non-animal products.
This is very true. A diverse and balanced diet is one of the keys to a good health. But meat consumption is not vital. A diverse and balanced diet without animal products can be very healthy.
Homo sapiens is an omnivore indeed. Which means that we, humans, CAN eat everything (more or less). Not that we HAVE TO.
Humans have always adapted their diet to what their environment could "produce". Most of humans are lactose intolerant. While others eat insects.
We eat too much meat. And emerging countries like China and India tend to eat more and more meat. Which will cause great environmental and ethical problems.
By eliminating all animal products from the diet vegans increase the risk of certain nutritional deficiencies.
Various nutritional deficiencies are found among omnivorous people too.
vitamins B-12 and D, calcium
Most of the synthetic B12 world production goes to livestock supplementation. Which means that the B12 we get from the animals we eat actually come from food supplementation and medication these animals get in "farms". I'd rather supplement myself directly than through dead animal flesh.
Vitamin D can be synthesised by your body just by sun exposure.
As to calcium, the countries where dairy products consumption is the highest are also the ones where bone problems (such as osteoporosis) are the most commonly found. Calcium can be found in non-animal products.
Homo sapiens is an omnivore and a diverse, balanced diet is his best choice.
This is very true. A diverse and balanced diet is one of the keys to a good health. But meat consumption is not vital. A diverse and balanced diet without animal products can be very healthy.
Homo sapiens is an omnivore indeed. Which means that we, humans, CAN eat everything (more or less). Not that we HAVE TO.
Humans have always adapted their diet to what their environment could "produce". Most of humans are lactose intolerant. While others eat insects.
We eat too much meat. And emerging countries like China and India tend to eat more and more meat. Which will cause great environmental and ethical problems.
Polson
25 Apr 2016
Food / Vegetarian/Vegan restaurants in Warsaw [18]
I see. Unfortunately, I can't help you. I can recommend a good veggie restaurant in Gliwice, but that's a little too far from Wawa ;)
Good luck anyway.
I actually found that online list already but am looking for actual recommendations from experience.
I see. Unfortunately, I can't help you. I can recommend a good veggie restaurant in Gliwice, but that's a little too far from Wawa ;)
Good luck anyway.
Polson
25 Apr 2016
Food / Vegetarian/Vegan restaurants in Warsaw [18]
This website gives you a list of vegetarian/vegan restaurants (sorted by areas) in Warsaw:
wege-warszawa.pl
Are you a vegetarian or is it just your guests? ;)
This website gives you a list of vegetarian/vegan restaurants (sorted by areas) in Warsaw:
wege-warszawa.pl
Are you a vegetarian or is it just your guests? ;)
Polson
23 Apr 2016
Polson
23 Apr 2016
Language / Short Polish<->English translations [1033]
Hi Isa. I can try, but I'm not fluent enough to assure you this is gonna be correct...
Anyway.
Czy masz moje zdjęcia? (=do you have my pictures?)
Or, Czy masz zdjęcia o mnie? (=do you have pictures of me? Not sure about this one...)
Czy możesz wysłać te zdjęcia? (=Can you send these pictures?)
Hi Isa. I can try, but I'm not fluent enough to assure you this is gonna be correct...
Anyway.
Czy masz moje zdjęcia? (=do you have my pictures?)
Or, Czy masz zdjęcia o mnie? (=do you have pictures of me? Not sure about this one...)
Czy możesz wysłać te zdjęcia? (=Can you send these pictures?)
Polson
21 Apr 2016
News / Poland -- Europe's only counterweight to Russia [271]
Don't be ridiculous. I'm French-Polish. I have no connection whatsoever with Russia. Now back on topic.
The 1979 mess? The Americans did everything to provoke a Russian intervention (Brzezinski). They wanted the Russians to have their own "Vietnam war".
It seems that without Russia, the US-led coalition would have bombed Syria a long time ago. Not sure this would have helped the situation. And I'm not even talking about the thousands of dead such a brutal intervention would have caused.
Of course, I won't tell you that there are the bad Westerners on one side and the good Russians on the other. It's always more complex than that. Of course, Russia has its own interests in Syria. But these interests make them [the Russians] defend stability in the area, while our Western governments just want another regime change, at all costs. No matter how unsuccessful and tragic the previous regime change attempts have been.
I hear what you're saying, but could you prove me that that's actually what Russia thinks/feels?
The other side is too busy attacking sovereign countries ;)
Si vis pacem, para bellum. Yeah, I don't like it. That's good for the people who actually want war. If you want peace, work for it. Fixing problems doesn't always requires the use of lethal means.
This would actually turn Poland into a buffer zone in case of a war with Russia. Poland would be seriously damaged, but Germany (and most American/European important investments) would be safe.
Anyway, since I don't believe that Russia has any interest in attacking Poland, NATO is indeed useless. It just adds fuel to the fire. NATO needs conflicts to survive. Peace is not good.
I know, it sounds ridiculous. Still, that's what they pretend. Russia is an even bigger threat than ISIS.
The Polish government and Polish medias generally are.
You mean even territories in what is now Eastern Ukraine?
Because they consider it important for their national identity?
I'm talking about today's Poland. Poland is just an economic (possibly cultural) partner. Nothing else. I don't see how Poland threatens Russia today.
It is important. Because America plays with Polish people's fears about Russia in order to achieve its own interest, and many Poles still believe America is their good friend.
Russia was weak 20 years ago. Right after the collapse of the USSR. Things have changed. Russia is slowly regaining its position as a global power. And we'll have to deal with it. As long as they don't invade Poland (or the Baltic States)... ;)
No, clearly, this is not obvious to me. Any evidence of this?
Yes.
And yes. Russia's intervention in Syria is legal. No matter what the White House says.
He's another Russian paid-for Troll.
Don't be ridiculous. I'm French-Polish. I have no connection whatsoever with Russia. Now back on topic.
Actually, mess in Afghanistan was started by Russia
The 1979 mess? The Americans did everything to provoke a Russian intervention (Brzezinski). They wanted the Russians to have their own "Vietnam war".
"free world" is a negative factor over there but Russia is no better
It seems that without Russia, the US-led coalition would have bombed Syria a long time ago. Not sure this would have helped the situation. And I'm not even talking about the thousands of dead such a brutal intervention would have caused.
Of course, I won't tell you that there are the bad Westerners on one side and the good Russians on the other. It's always more complex than that. Of course, Russia has its own interests in Syria. But these interests make them [the Russians] defend stability in the area, while our Western governments just want another regime change, at all costs. No matter how unsuccessful and tragic the previous regime change attempts have been.
Otherwise they feel "threatened" and "provoked".
I hear what you're saying, but could you prove me that that's actually what Russia thinks/feels?
Since over a decade Russians have been on the offensive and if the other side does nothing, they will keep it going.
The other side is too busy attacking sovereign countries ;)
Ever heard "If you want peace, prepare for war" ?
Si vis pacem, para bellum. Yeah, I don't like it. That's good for the people who actually want war. If you want peace, work for it. Fixing problems doesn't always requires the use of lethal means.
to drag them here and force them to react if shyt hits the fan
This would actually turn Poland into a buffer zone in case of a war with Russia. Poland would be seriously damaged, but Germany (and most American/European important investments) would be safe.
Anyway, since I don't believe that Russia has any interest in attacking Poland, NATO is indeed useless. It just adds fuel to the fire. NATO needs conflicts to survive. Peace is not good.
Hence I doubt very much that USA regards Russia as a biggest threat to the US interests rather regards them as a nuisance.
I know, it sounds ridiculous. Still, that's what they pretend. Russia is an even bigger threat than ISIS.
Poland is not 'Russophobic' that is BS.
The Polish government and Polish medias generally are.
Poland didn't annex no lands that didn't belong to Poland before.
You mean even territories in what is now Eastern Ukraine?
Really? so why they would set their national holiday or some such День народного единства on the 4rd October commemorating "liberation" of Moscow from Poles in 1612. Eh?
Because they consider it important for their national identity?
I'm talking about today's Poland. Poland is just an economic (possibly cultural) partner. Nothing else. I don't see how Poland threatens Russia today.
It has nothing to do with our debate. We are talking Poland - Russia.
It is important. Because America plays with Polish people's fears about Russia in order to achieve its own interest, and many Poles still believe America is their good friend.
So the right answer is they are afraid that the world will see them for what their are at the moment weakened and vulnerable.
Russia was weak 20 years ago. Right after the collapse of the USSR. Things have changed. Russia is slowly regaining its position as a global power. And we'll have to deal with it. As long as they don't invade Poland (or the Baltic States)... ;)
No, they see Poland as a board piece to be played not as an opponent or a possible partner and here is the crux of t he problem. Is that is not obvious to you.
No, clearly, this is not obvious to me. Any evidence of this?
Syria basically invited Russia to stop ISIS and probably NATO.
Yes.
And yes. Russia's intervention in Syria is legal. No matter what the White House says.
Polson
17 Apr 2016
News / Poland -- Europe's only counterweight to Russia [271]
Dammit, I'm outnumbered ;) I don't have much time but I'll try to answer everyone.
I don't know. But I know that Afghanistan, Irak, and Libya were not destroyed by Russia. They were destroyed by (y)our free world. The one who officially respects countries' borders and territorial integrity.
No, many countries in Europe are not as russophobic as Poland is (who is probably urged by some US advisors, like Brzezinski). Many countries are actually getting tired of the sanctions. France, Italy, the Czech Rep., Slovakia, etc.
How can Poland or Latvia be viewed as a threat to Russia's security?
Could you explain me the concept? Never heard of it before.
As long as Russia aligns itself behind Washington, right? Views seem to vary a lot (among US analysts I mean). Indeed, some say that Russia could be a stabilizing factor, others say that Russia is America's biggest threat (a threat to its national security). Unfortunately, I'm afraid the latter view currently prevails among US leaders.
You know, back in the golden days of Poland, Polish troops invaded and annexed eastern lands too. They even almost reached Moscow.
We like to see Poland as a poor eternal victim, always. But give Poland the means to fulfil its ambitions, and see what happens.
That may have been true. But not anymore. Let's be pragmatic. Poland is part of the EU and NATO. As long as I know, Poland doesn't want to invade Russia, nor does it want to impose any ideology or anything. Poland is nothing to Russia. Except a trading partner. Today, Poland is clearly in the American sphere of influence. There's not much Russia can do about it. Invading Poland wouldn't help.
BUT if Russia annexes the whole of Ukraine and maybe Belarus, then okay, we'd have something to worry about.
It's all political, and playing with each other's pride. Yes, it's a little game between nuclear powers (kinda risky). "If I do this (stationing troops and weapons close to your border), what will you do? What will your answer be? Will you be scared and show the rest of the world how "weak" you are? Or will you play with us, show your muscle, and station your own troops on the otherside of the border, facing our own troops, and see what happens next?"
It's never good when powers start showing their muscle. Because you never know if anyone will dare say stop before it's too late.
Talking about "allies", America doesn't care much about Poland. In case of a war, Poland would suffer the most. America is far away, it's easy for them to play with fire as long as it's far from their own territory and population. As always. As they did during WW2.
I'd rather have a real independent European (defensive) army than having NATO troops stationing everywhere.
Russia doesn't recognize the status of Poland as a free country?
Indeed. Also, a war would be detrimental for both Russia and Europe.
I have to go quick. Talk later, guys.
Dammit, I'm outnumbered ;) I don't have much time but I'll try to answer everyone.
You think Russia is more credible than the free world???
I don't know. But I know that Afghanistan, Irak, and Libya were not destroyed by Russia. They were destroyed by (y)our free world. The one who officially respects countries' borders and territorial integrity.
in Europe it very much is just that - as has been explained to you before.
No, many countries in Europe are not as russophobic as Poland is (who is probably urged by some US advisors, like Brzezinski). Many countries are actually getting tired of the sanctions. France, Italy, the Czech Rep., Slovakia, etc.
Russia feels threatened by the sole existence of Poland, Latvia etc.
How can Poland or Latvia be viewed as a threat to Russia's security?
that is the essence of EUnuchism
Could you explain me the concept? Never heard of it before.
USA regards existence of a strong Russia in geopolitical terms as a stabilizing factor in this part of the world.
As long as Russia aligns itself behind Washington, right? Views seem to vary a lot (among US analysts I mean). Indeed, some say that Russia could be a stabilizing factor, others say that Russia is America's biggest threat (a threat to its national security). Unfortunately, I'm afraid the latter view currently prevails among US leaders.
To Poland a neighboring country with a strong military and a history of aggressive policy towards Poland that proved to be many time over to be hostile to Poland
You know, back in the golden days of Poland, Polish troops invaded and annexed eastern lands too. They even almost reached Moscow.
We like to see Poland as a poor eternal victim, always. But give Poland the means to fulfil its ambitions, and see what happens.
They don't think like that for them Poland need to either part of Russian sphere or at lest to be a vassal state.
That may have been true. But not anymore. Let's be pragmatic. Poland is part of the EU and NATO. As long as I know, Poland doesn't want to invade Russia, nor does it want to impose any ideology or anything. Poland is nothing to Russia. Except a trading partner. Today, Poland is clearly in the American sphere of influence. There's not much Russia can do about it. Invading Poland wouldn't help.
BUT if Russia annexes the whole of Ukraine and maybe Belarus, then okay, we'd have something to worry about.
What is Russia so afraid of? Are they seriously think that the NATO troops will invade Russia?
It's all political, and playing with each other's pride. Yes, it's a little game between nuclear powers (kinda risky). "If I do this (stationing troops and weapons close to your border), what will you do? What will your answer be? Will you be scared and show the rest of the world how "weak" you are? Or will you play with us, show your muscle, and station your own troops on the otherside of the border, facing our own troops, and see what happens next?"
It's never good when powers start showing their muscle. Because you never know if anyone will dare say stop before it's too late.
Talking about "allies", America doesn't care much about Poland. In case of a war, Poland would suffer the most. America is far away, it's easy for them to play with fire as long as it's far from their own territory and population. As always. As they did during WW2.
I'd rather have a real independent European (defensive) army than having NATO troops stationing everywhere.
Either Russia recognizes Poland's status as a country free in its own right
Russia doesn't recognize the status of Poland as a free country?
Anyway there is no war possible at the movement.
Indeed. Also, a war would be detrimental for both Russia and Europe.
I have to go quick. Talk later, guys.
Polson
17 Apr 2016
News / Poland -- Europe's only counterweight to Russia [271]
Easy, buddy. I never insulted you.
So giving Russia a good reason to feel threatened by stationing NATO troops in Poland is a good idea?
Do you see the contradiction or should I explain a little more?
Shut up nasty EUnuch.
Easy, buddy. I never insulted you.
Russia always feel threatened and provoked unless one commit suicide or becomes a Russian puppet state.
So giving Russia a good reason to feel threatened by stationing NATO troops in Poland is a good idea?
Do you see the contradiction or should I explain a little more?
Polson
17 Apr 2016
News / Poland -- Europe's only counterweight to Russia [271]
Indeed, our western powers belong to the less credible ones, given our history.
Individual politicians only represent their own ideology too. Still, they can reach millions of people and influence their opinion. It doesn't make it a "good" opinion either. A good number of the persons who commented (those who disagree with you) are also the ones who dig a little deeper and compare different sources to have the most accurate opinion. They don't want Putin to invade Poland, they want Poland to stay independent, they may even want Poland to remain a member of NATO, but they don't like this situation. And I understand them. I too don't like having politicians who can't stop crying wolf.
At least I try to give you real answers. Not just a few one-sentence evasive ones, as you do.
Geopolitically speaking, you really sound like the most naive of the two of us. Your only argument is: Russia is public enemy number one. And when I ask for details, you always seem to have a hard time providing them. Talking about weak examples...
I'm still waiting for details about these so-called threats. I need solid evidence, not your ideological emotionally-driven feeling of the situation.
I don't care about Russia being disliked or not. This is not the point here.
As to your quotations, if you still rely on what that silly Waszczykowski (and the Pentagon) says, there's nothing I can say. These people are the most hysterical of all. I don't know if there's a precedent where more weapons and troops ready to fight = security and peace.
But the worst part is that, since Russia has very probably never planned to attack neither Poland nor the Baltic states, the bunch of hysterical mentioned above will congratulate themselves from preventing a Russian aggression (that wasn't going to happen anyway).
Are NATO troops going to be sent to Slovakia too? If not, does it mean that Slovakia is in danger?
Come on, let's go back to reality and stop this craziness. It would be funny if it wasn't that ridiculous and dangerous.
And some are less credible than others.
Indeed, our western powers belong to the less credible ones, given our history.
People who comment on articles are representative of nothing.
Individual politicians only represent their own ideology too. Still, they can reach millions of people and influence their opinion. It doesn't make it a "good" opinion either. A good number of the persons who commented (those who disagree with you) are also the ones who dig a little deeper and compare different sources to have the most accurate opinion. They don't want Putin to invade Poland, they want Poland to stay independent, they may even want Poland to remain a member of NATO, but they don't like this situation. And I understand them. I too don't like having politicians who can't stop crying wolf.
Evidently not that much, given the rather weak 'examples' you tried to give.
At least I try to give you real answers. Not just a few one-sentence evasive ones, as you do.
Geopolitically speaking, you really sound like the most naive of the two of us. Your only argument is: Russia is public enemy number one. And when I ask for details, you always seem to have a hard time providing them. Talking about weak examples...
Russia is disliked in Poland and has made threats
I'm still waiting for details about these so-called threats. I need solid evidence, not your ideological emotionally-driven feeling of the situation.
I don't care about Russia being disliked or not. This is not the point here.
As to your quotations, if you still rely on what that silly Waszczykowski (and the Pentagon) says, there's nothing I can say. These people are the most hysterical of all. I don't know if there's a precedent where more weapons and troops ready to fight = security and peace.
But the worst part is that, since Russia has very probably never planned to attack neither Poland nor the Baltic states, the bunch of hysterical mentioned above will congratulate themselves from preventing a Russian aggression (that wasn't going to happen anyway).
Are NATO troops going to be sent to Slovakia too? If not, does it mean that Slovakia is in danger?
Come on, let's go back to reality and stop this craziness. It would be funny if it wasn't that ridiculous and dangerous.
Polson
17 Apr 2016
News / Poland -- Europe's only counterweight to Russia [271]
That's what any country in the world would say... ;) Every country respects other countries' borders. Of course they do.
Speak for yourself, Jon. Didn't you read the comments of the article? These are Polish people from Poland, and they seem to disagree with you. And I'm not sure that Poland is filled with putinists, really.
I do follow geopolitics quite a lot. Enough to know that we should be very careful when a "rival" state of Russia says that Russia is a bigger threat than ISIS.
Again, Russia has NO reason to attack Poland. NO tiny reason whatsoever. There would be no possible justification for such an aggression. Unless Poland keeps provoking Russia with more and more NATO troops stationing on its territory, clearly aiming at Russia, which could eventually make a legitimate casus belli for Russia to defend itself. Is that really what Poland wants? Another WW2 on its soil? To give Russia a good reason for a preventive war à l'américaine?
The major threat doesn't come from Russia but more from hysterical individuals like you and your irrational fears. Let's face it, you don't serve Poland's interests with such a behaviour, unfortunately. You're actually throwing Poland into the lion's mouth by maintaining and even fueling tensions, instead of trying to ease them, which would be beneficial for everyone (except the ones who can't get enough of wars).
That's how wars break out. When the different parties cannot stop the escalation, until they reach the point of no return. Then it's too late.
I wish we had learned from past mistakes.
there's no territorial ambition for Lwow and Poland respects Ukraines borders...
That's what any country in the world would say... ;) Every country respects other countries' borders. Of course they do.
It does however exist for the rest of us.
Speak for yourself, Jon. Didn't you read the comments of the article? These are Polish people from Poland, and they seem to disagree with you. And I'm not sure that Poland is filled with putinists, really.
You don't follow geopolitics much, do you, given that one is a near satellite, another is a rival, one is a buffer and the most developed of them has very strained relations...
I do follow geopolitics quite a lot. Enough to know that we should be very careful when a "rival" state of Russia says that Russia is a bigger threat than ISIS.
Again, Russia has NO reason to attack Poland. NO tiny reason whatsoever. There would be no possible justification for such an aggression. Unless Poland keeps provoking Russia with more and more NATO troops stationing on its territory, clearly aiming at Russia, which could eventually make a legitimate casus belli for Russia to defend itself. Is that really what Poland wants? Another WW2 on its soil? To give Russia a good reason for a preventive war à l'américaine?
The major threat doesn't come from Russia but more from hysterical individuals like you and your irrational fears. Let's face it, you don't serve Poland's interests with such a behaviour, unfortunately. You're actually throwing Poland into the lion's mouth by maintaining and even fueling tensions, instead of trying to ease them, which would be beneficial for everyone (except the ones who can't get enough of wars).
That's how wars break out. When the different parties cannot stop the escalation, until they reach the point of no return. Then it's too late.
I wish we had learned from past mistakes.
Polson
17 Apr 2016
News / Poland -- Europe's only counterweight to Russia [271]
Until the day they get the chance to take Lwów back into Poland... Maybe they wouldn't care so much about "Ukraine's territorial integrity" if that day ever comes ;)
I'm not sure they really care about Ukraine. I think they just need to complain about Russia. Over and over again.
Yeah, yeah. Poland will keep buying American weapons to protect itself from a danger that doesn't exist (to me). This is money they will never see again. Total waste.
To me, ISIS is a much greater threat to Europe (and even Poland) than Russia will ever be.
The only reason I see for Russia to attack Poland is if Poland attacks Russia first. Which, hopefully, won't happen. *fingers crossed*
Indeed, it's much wiser (some would say more cowardly) to attack countries who can't really defend themselves. And if they have oil reserves, it's even better ;)
I don't know. Finland, Belarus, Mongolia, and China seem to be fine.
though there is one thing that all major political parties in Poland agree on - their support for Ukraine's territorial integrity
Until the day they get the chance to take Lwów back into Poland... Maybe they wouldn't care so much about "Ukraine's territorial integrity" if that day ever comes ;)
I'm not sure they really care about Ukraine. I think they just need to complain about Russia. Over and over again.
their awareness that Russia is a threat.
Yeah, yeah. Poland will keep buying American weapons to protect itself from a danger that doesn't exist (to me). This is money they will never see again. Total waste.
To me, ISIS is a much greater threat to Europe (and even Poland) than Russia will ever be.
The only reason I see for Russia to attack Poland is if Poland attacks Russia first. Which, hopefully, won't happen. *fingers crossed*
plus of course the scale of the threat.
Indeed, it's much wiser (some would say more cowardly) to attack countries who can't really defend themselves. And if they have oil reserves, it's even better ;)
And nobody likes to share a border with Russia, do they?
I don't know. Finland, Belarus, Mongolia, and China seem to be fine.
Polson
16 Apr 2016
News / Poland -- Europe's only counterweight to Russia [271]
Indeed, the same ones who used the sacred values of democracy, free world, the holy fight of the good vs the evil, etc. as a justification for their criminal actions ;)
Poor guy, I'm not sure one can be more ridiculous than that, really. I'm really concerned about some Polish politicians' mental health.
Good that you mentioned Slovakia though. Slovakia's government seems much wiser and smarter about the situation. And I think the same goes with the Czechs.
I read this article from Onet (generally quite russophobic) yesterday, here:
wiadomosci.onet.pl/swiat/msz-slowacji-rosja-strategicznym-partnerem-europy/yf9qp3
I don't know if you speak any Polish, so let me translate the very first sentence of the article:
-Rosję musimy traktować jako strategicznego partnera do rozwiązania globalnych problemów, a nie jako część problemu.
-We must treat Russia as a strategical partner to solve global problems, and not as a part of the problem.
(Miroslav Lajčák, head of Slovakia's diplomacy)
Onet's Polish readers don't seem to agree with Waszczykowski, if you give a look at the comments right below the article.
Poles do not all give up to the mass hysteria. Phew.
Then let's be consistent with our sacred values and let's go and destroy Saudi Arabia, and maybe Turkey and North Korea. What do you think? Who cares about what will happen after the destruction of these countries, and the millions of dead and refugees. If we decide what's good for them, they will probably understand.
Sorry to say it, Jon, but you're the fascist here.
it was destroyed by American politicians with bankers and their lobbyists/influence groups pulling the strings and egging them on.
Indeed, the same ones who used the sacred values of democracy, free world, the holy fight of the good vs the evil, etc. as a justification for their criminal actions ;)
Russia is more dangerous than Islamic State, Poland's foreign minister Witold Waszczykowski, told reporters during a visit to Slovakia.
Poor guy, I'm not sure one can be more ridiculous than that, really. I'm really concerned about some Polish politicians' mental health.
Good that you mentioned Slovakia though. Slovakia's government seems much wiser and smarter about the situation. And I think the same goes with the Czechs.
I read this article from Onet (generally quite russophobic) yesterday, here:
wiadomosci.onet.pl/swiat/msz-slowacji-rosja-strategicznym-partnerem-europy/yf9qp3
I don't know if you speak any Polish, so let me translate the very first sentence of the article:
-Rosję musimy traktować jako strategicznego partnera do rozwiązania globalnych problemów, a nie jako część problemu.
-We must treat Russia as a strategical partner to solve global problems, and not as a part of the problem.
(Miroslav Lajčák, head of Slovakia's diplomacy)
Onet's Polish readers don't seem to agree with Waszczykowski, if you give a look at the comments right below the article.
Poles do not all give up to the mass hysteria. Phew.
Doing the destroying of course. If it's gotta go, it's gotta go.
Then let's be consistent with our sacred values and let's go and destroy Saudi Arabia, and maybe Turkey and North Korea. What do you think? Who cares about what will happen after the destruction of these countries, and the millions of dead and refugees. If we decide what's good for them, they will probably understand.
Sorry to say it, Jon, but you're the fascist here.
Polson
15 Apr 2016
News / Poland -- Europe's only counterweight to Russia [271]
This is the first time you actually answered the question, congratulations!
That's not true. Before the Ukrainian crisis, the relations between Russia and the EU were good and actually getting better.
But the US cannot stand the idea of us, Europeans, having close ties with Russia, because in such a case, we (EU+Russia) would become America's rival on the global scene and challenge US hegemony. Some American analysts have clearly suggested the US governement to prevent any "alliance" between Germany and Russia, because it would seriously endanger America's hegemony.
When you think about it, the Ukraine crisis arrived right on time (pure coincidence I guess), and now Europe "hates" Russia almost as much as America does ;) But, as I said, this is a lose-lose situation. For Europe and Russia. Not for America.
Where was the "free world" when Irak and Libya (for instance) were destroyed?
Also, please give me the definition of the "free world". It didn't have much sense during the Cold War, I'm wondering what it can possibly be today...
Frequently and ad nauseam.
This is the first time you actually answered the question, congratulations!
it is an enemy of Poland and the rest of the Union
That's not true. Before the Ukrainian crisis, the relations between Russia and the EU were good and actually getting better.
But the US cannot stand the idea of us, Europeans, having close ties with Russia, because in such a case, we (EU+Russia) would become America's rival on the global scene and challenge US hegemony. Some American analysts have clearly suggested the US governement to prevent any "alliance" between Germany and Russia, because it would seriously endanger America's hegemony.
When you think about it, the Ukraine crisis arrived right on time (pure coincidence I guess), and now Europe "hates" Russia almost as much as America does ;) But, as I said, this is a lose-lose situation. For Europe and Russia. Not for America.
that the free world stands together against Russian expansionism, authoritarianism and aggression.
Where was the "free world" when Irak and Libya (for instance) were destroyed?
Also, please give me the definition of the "free world". It didn't have much sense during the Cold War, I'm wondering what it can possibly be today...
Polson
15 Apr 2016
News / Poland -- Europe's only counterweight to Russia [271]
As demonstrated already? When? And how? ;)
The economic sabre-rattling works both ways.
As Adrian said, it's not as simple as it seems. Again. Many countries don't recognise its sovereignty, but since most of these countries don't belong to the Western world, I guess they don't count as much.
As to the sanctions against Russia, even countries inside the EU have different views on them. These sanctions will probably not last. It's a lose-lose situation.
Russia doesn't "need" Poland either. Except that with today's free market and globalization, all countries are more or less interdependent. Economic sanctions harm both Russia and Poland, and the first ones to suffer from them are the people from Russia and Poland.
I'm thinking, maybe the Polish government has something to gain from playing the russophobia card. I mean they (and some European/American/Polish companies) may want to invest in Ukraine. And to do so, they may need to send Russian companies in Ukraine back home... But that's just my little theory ;)
They've actively threatened Poland as demonstrated already. Not to mention the economic sabre-rattling...
As demonstrated already? When? And how? ;)
The economic sabre-rattling works both ways.
Kosovo's sovereignty is recognised by most countries including yours and mine.
As Adrian said, it's not as simple as it seems. Again. Many countries don't recognise its sovereignty, but since most of these countries don't belong to the Western world, I guess they don't count as much.
As to the sanctions against Russia, even countries inside the EU have different views on them. These sanctions will probably not last. It's a lose-lose situation.
Poland doesn't need Russia, and the response of Poland to aggressive Russian expansionism and sabre-rattling does prove that it's an important part of the European counterweight.
Russia doesn't "need" Poland either. Except that with today's free market and globalization, all countries are more or less interdependent. Economic sanctions harm both Russia and Poland, and the first ones to suffer from them are the people from Russia and Poland.
I'm thinking, maybe the Polish government has something to gain from playing the russophobia card. I mean they (and some European/American/Polish companies) may want to invest in Ukraine. And to do so, they may need to send Russian companies in Ukraine back home... But that's just my little theory ;)
Polson
13 Apr 2016
News / Poland -- Europe's only counterweight to Russia [271]
To Poland? I said "a threat to POLAND's security". Poland is no Ossetia or Crimea. You really can't answer my question, can you?
No, I shouldn't be the one to check YOUR sources.
As Kosovo was a part of the same sovereign state. As Irak was a sovereign state when it was invaded and destroyed in 2003, which was a violation of international law.
Why aren't there sanctions to all countries who "break" the rules?
See all posts above, pointing out the recent occasions in which Russia has demonstated itself to be a threat.
To Poland? I said "a threat to POLAND's security". Poland is no Ossetia or Crimea. You really can't answer my question, can you?
Don't be silly, google it yourself...
No, I shouldn't be the one to check YOUR sources.
And all regions of Ukraine are part of the same sovereign state. this is acknowledged by Poland and the world community, hence the sanctions on Russia.
As Kosovo was a part of the same sovereign state. As Irak was a sovereign state when it was invaded and destroyed in 2003, which was a violation of international law.
Why aren't there sanctions to all countries who "break" the rules?
Polson
12 Apr 2016
News / Poland -- Europe's only counterweight to Russia [271]
There's nothing rhetorical in "please tell me what threat Russia represents to Poland's security nowadays".
You keep telling me that it's obvious, but you can't tell me why. You should ask yourself some questions, Jon ;)
Again, you only mentioned Google, and we both agreed, Google is not a "source". Give me valid sources.
That's true especially for western regions of Ukraine. Not as much in the East.
Historically, Western Ukraine has "always" been pro-EU, while Eastern Ukraine tends to be more pro-Russia. This alone can explain why the situation is not as simple as we may think, and why all Ukrainians were not pro-Maidan.
(Btw, Ireland's history as a nation/state is much longer than Ukraine's, but it's not really relevant here, I must admit ;))
Who is it?
I only answer real questions, not rhetorical ones.
There's nothing rhetorical in "please tell me what threat Russia represents to Poland's security nowadays".
You keep telling me that it's obvious, but you can't tell me why. You should ask yourself some questions, Jon ;)
All there in black and white.
Again, you only mentioned Google, and we both agreed, Google is not a "source". Give me valid sources.
As does Ukraine. A history and culture of which they are very proud.
That's true especially for western regions of Ukraine. Not as much in the East.
Historically, Western Ukraine has "always" been pro-EU, while Eastern Ukraine tends to be more pro-Russia. This alone can explain why the situation is not as simple as we may think, and why all Ukrainians were not pro-Maidan.
(Btw, Ireland's history as a nation/state is much longer than Ukraine's, but it's not really relevant here, I must admit ;))
Looks like their next Prime Minister, assuming his appointment is ratified, is one of the good guys too.
Who is it?
Polson
11 Apr 2016
News / Poland -- Europe's only counterweight to Russia [271]
You really don't want to answer my questions, do you?
You're incapable of questioning your own certainties and there's no way to make you see things from a different perspective. Pity. Really. We could have had an interesting conversation, instead of this never-ending childish game.
How could I know? I don't know where your quotations came from, except that you found them on Google.
Ireland was not created a few decades ago. Ireland has its own history and culture. Ireland's population is not 50% English. As of 2011, there are more people originating from Poland in Ireland than from the UK. Should I go on?
Not comparable.
Also, if Russia really wanted to invade and annex the whole country, they would be done by now.
And they are quickly disappointed ;) It's always nicer on TV.
There are at least as many migrants in the EU as there are in the US anyway.
People around the world are more and more wary about the US. America used to be seen as a positive power. But these times are long gone. Too many questionable and criminal wars, and too much blood on your hand, my friend.
Poland doen't support Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. Leaders of both parties are clear on this.
You really don't want to answer my questions, do you?
You're incapable of questioning your own certainties and there's no way to make you see things from a different perspective. Pity. Really. We could have had an interesting conversation, instead of this never-ending childish game.
And the content cited to you was respectable and neutral
How could I know? I don't know where your quotations came from, except that you found them on Google.
So what? Most people in Southern Ireland have English as their primary language. Would that excuse us invading them again?
Ireland was not created a few decades ago. Ireland has its own history and culture. Ireland's population is not 50% English. As of 2011, there are more people originating from Poland in Ireland than from the UK. Should I go on?
Not comparable.
Also, if Russia really wanted to invade and annex the whole country, they would be done by now.
Now America, everyone wants to come to America.
And they are quickly disappointed ;) It's always nicer on TV.
There are at least as many migrants in the EU as there are in the US anyway.
People around the world are more and more wary about the US. America used to be seen as a positive power. But these times are long gone. Too many questionable and criminal wars, and too much blood on your hand, my friend.
Polson
9 Apr 2016
News / Poland -- Europe's only counterweight to Russia [271]
It's not really about corruption, but more about the fact that we supported another regime change in an independent country (talking about sovereignty), and promising its population a better life (like eventually joining the EU and NATO) which obviously we cannot provide. So, we used and reused the argument of corruption to justify our meddling (and the ousting of the previous government), but when we look at the situation as it is now, we can see that we failed, big time.
Yes, by citing them, telling me you found them on Google, which is not a source per se, as we both agreed.
You're right, you shouldn't use it.
This shows how naive you can be. A search engine's role is not to index "reliable" contents, but just ANY contents, billions of them.
Russian sources are indexed on Google too, sources you wouldn't find "reliable" for sure.
So, for the umpteenth time, in what way does Russia CURRENTLY (not 40 years ago) threaten Poland?
In other words, what would Russia benefit from invading Poland?
Yes, close ties. Most people in Eastern Ukraine (which covers a vast area) have Russian as their primary langage, and/or are of Russian descent, and/or are married to Russians, and/or work with Russians, etc. If you can't understand that the country isn't homogeneous as Poland is, and that its relations with Russia (historically, economically, culturally, etc.) are strong, then you can't understand the situation in Ukraine.
I told you, it's not just another cowboy story. The good guy on one side VS the bad guy on the other side.
And talking about being brutal, ask the populations of Odessa or Donetsk what they think of the government forces.
Indeed. The same can be said, unfortunately, about the relationships between Poland and Western Europe. There is no such thing as "friendly states".
but really it's neither here nor there in relation to Ukraine's sovereignty.
It's not really about corruption, but more about the fact that we supported another regime change in an independent country (talking about sovereignty), and promising its population a better life (like eventually joining the EU and NATO) which obviously we cannot provide. So, we used and reused the argument of corruption to justify our meddling (and the ousting of the previous government), but when we look at the situation as it is now, we can see that we failed, big time.
Hide sources in what way? By citing them?
Yes, by citing them, telling me you found them on Google, which is not a source per se, as we both agreed.
I don't much like the phrase 'LOL' but it really does fit here.
You're right, you shouldn't use it.
Unless you still pretend that any source that has been put online and indexed by a search engine is not infact reliable.
This shows how naive you can be. A search engine's role is not to index "reliable" contents, but just ANY contents, billions of them.
Russian sources are indexed on Google too, sources you wouldn't find "reliable" for sure.
So, for the umpteenth time, in what way does Russia CURRENTLY (not 40 years ago) threaten Poland?
In other words, what would Russia benefit from invading Poland?
A brutal and bloody invasion 'close ties'?
Yes, close ties. Most people in Eastern Ukraine (which covers a vast area) have Russian as their primary langage, and/or are of Russian descent, and/or are married to Russians, and/or work with Russians, etc. If you can't understand that the country isn't homogeneous as Poland is, and that its relations with Russia (historically, economically, culturally, etc.) are strong, then you can't understand the situation in Ukraine.
I told you, it's not just another cowboy story. The good guy on one side VS the bad guy on the other side.
And talking about being brutal, ask the populations of Odessa or Donetsk what they think of the government forces.
What Poland gets from this relationship, other than cheaper vodka, and cheap labor, is difficult to understand.
Indeed. The same can be said, unfortunately, about the relationships between Poland and Western Europe. There is no such thing as "friendly states".
Polson
8 Apr 2016
News / Poland -- Europe's only counterweight to Russia [271]
No, no, no... Maybe if I spoke French you'd understand better what I'm saying ;)
I was ONLY saying that the previous government was corrupt, and the new one, supported by the West (as "democratic") is at least as corrupt if not more. SO, the "revolution" that we supported (and even sponsored) didn't make the situation any better in Ukraine. It may have made it even worse.
Indeed, but I didn't want to believe that you'd use such a bad word in a grown-up conversation ;)
I expect people who debate with me to check their sources and share them with me, and not hide them. Otherwise, the argument is null and void.
How and when? You still haven't answered that question.
If it had, it would only concern Crimea, which is a very specific case.
Talking about "friendly states" (which doesn't mean much in international affairs), the ties between Ukraine and Russia are much, much closer than between Ukraine and Poland. You should have a closer look at Ukraine's population and history on that matter.
Yes, and you touted corruption levels under the former Putinist government as a reason for Putin to invade the now! Classic...
No, no, no... Maybe if I spoke French you'd understand better what I'm saying ;)
I was ONLY saying that the previous government was corrupt, and the new one, supported by the West (as "democratic") is at least as corrupt if not more. SO, the "revolution" that we supported (and even sponsored) didn't make the situation any better in Ukraine. It may have made it even worse.
As a French speaker you have probably figured out why...
Indeed, but I didn't want to believe that you'd use such a bad word in a grown-up conversation ;)
Do you expect everyone that call you out to pop down to the National Library and pore through archived manuscripts?
I expect people who debate with me to check their sources and share them with me, and not hide them. Otherwise, the argument is null and void.
Russia openly threatens Poland.
How and when? You still haven't answered that question.
has invaded a sovereign state friendly to Poland.
If it had, it would only concern Crimea, which is a very specific case.
Talking about "friendly states" (which doesn't mean much in international affairs), the ties between Ukraine and Russia are much, much closer than between Ukraine and Poland. You should have a closer look at Ukraine's population and history on that matter.
Polson
7 Apr 2016
News / Poland -- Europe's only counterweight to Russia [271]
I'm talking about Ukraine.
No, there are many powerful people in Russia (or abroad) who could have sponsored these crimes for their own interests. I can't say who was behind these murders, because I truly don't know. And that's the main difference between you and me: I don't pretend I know, when you seem to know all the truth about everything, especially about Russia. Which is obviously not the case anyway. You should doubt more, Jon.
Again, simplistic. Yanukovich was indeed closer to Russia than Poroshenko is, but I'm not sure he was a "Putinist puppet".
And it's not the point anyway. The point is: the previous government was corrupt, the current one is at least as much corrupt.
Seriously, it's a sickness. You can't talk without mentioning Putin's name (that you spell incorrectly by the way) all the time.
Could you be more ridiculous that that? I wonder... Yes, Jon, I know that Google is a search engine, and that's EXACTLY why I was asking for REAL sources, and not random quotations you found from a random research. Do you understand what I'm saying or should I start speaking French?
Since I'm a good guy, I'll try to explain better with an example (don't thank me, I'm glad I can help). I too could make some research on Google and find, among millions of results that, for instance, Italy is planning to invade Vatican city. Does it mean it's true? Does it mean we should believe this "information" without digging a little deeper?
And don't tell me you're "cool", because you're clearly not. You cannot refrain from calling me names, even though I'm just trying to debate with you. It's a chance I'm not like you. This conversation would look even more childish.
And for your information, I'm partly Polish. Why would I "defend" Russia if I believed it was a credible threat to Poland's security?
I support a smart and peaceful approach to international relations, which means avoiding panic and paranoia, especially when it could lead to a nuclear war. I'll repeat once again what I've already said a bunch of times: to me, Russia doesn't constitute a threat to Poland's security and integrity. But an hypothetical war between Russia and the West would put Poland in the front line of an unprecendented world disaster.
And Russia isn't?
I'm talking about Ukraine.
They are also murderous, as the poisoning of Aleksander Litvinienko in Londan and the unnatural and untimely deaths of so many of his pponents proves.
No, there are many powerful people in Russia (or abroad) who could have sponsored these crimes for their own interests. I can't say who was behind these murders, because I truly don't know. And that's the main difference between you and me: I don't pretend I know, when you seem to know all the truth about everything, especially about Russia. Which is obviously not the case anyway. You should doubt more, Jon.
BTW, when you say "the previous (pre-Maidan) governement was corrupt", one presumes you mean the the previous (pre-Maidan) Putinist puppet regime.....
Again, simplistic. Yanukovich was indeed closer to Russia than Poroshenko is, but I'm not sure he was a "Putinist puppet".
And it's not the point anyway. The point is: the previous government was corrupt, the current one is at least as much corrupt.
And so is a huge chunk of the dicrator Putain's gang.
Seriously, it's a sickness. You can't talk without mentioning Putin's name (that you spell incorrectly by the way) all the time.
Meaning they don't actually produce the websites (like this one) that come up on the search engine.
Could you be more ridiculous that that? I wonder... Yes, Jon, I know that Google is a search engine, and that's EXACTLY why I was asking for REAL sources, and not random quotations you found from a random research. Do you understand what I'm saying or should I start speaking French?
Since I'm a good guy, I'll try to explain better with an example (don't thank me, I'm glad I can help). I too could make some research on Google and find, among millions of results that, for instance, Italy is planning to invade Vatican city. Does it mean it's true? Does it mean we should believe this "information" without digging a little deeper?
And don't tell me you're "cool", because you're clearly not. You cannot refrain from calling me names, even though I'm just trying to debate with you. It's a chance I'm not like you. This conversation would look even more childish.
And for your information, I'm partly Polish. Why would I "defend" Russia if I believed it was a credible threat to Poland's security?
I support a smart and peaceful approach to international relations, which means avoiding panic and paranoia, especially when it could lead to a nuclear war. I'll repeat once again what I've already said a bunch of times: to me, Russia doesn't constitute a threat to Poland's security and integrity. But an hypothetical war between Russia and the West would put Poland in the front line of an unprecendented world disaster.
Polson
6 Apr 2016
News / Poland -- Europe's only counterweight to Russia [271]
Which is totally understandable, of course. Being cautious is fine. Paranoid is not ;)
Jon, the previous (pre-Maidan) governement was corrupt, and that was one of the official reasons for the "revolution". Today's government is at least as corrupt, if not more. Is that Putin's fault too?
You must have seen that Panama Papers story. Mr. Poroshenko is on the list of the current world leaders involved in tax evasion.
Is that what Ukrainians really wanted?
So? The USSR has collapsed. Poland has changed. It's part of both the EU and NATO now. And as far as I know, the relations (in terms of diplomacy and economics) between Poland and Russia have been good since then. That's what I'm trying to say. There is no reason, in my opinion, to expect any aggression of Poland from Russia. Poland has no significant Russian minority, it has no oil and gas reserves... Russia could not justify such an aggression and would lose most of its allies.
Sources? Google is not a valid source, Jon.
As I wrote above, being wary is okay, but being paranoid is not. Because that's when you do the biggest mistakes.
You can repeat that as many times as you want, but it won't make it more accurate.
I'm not a "Putinist apologetics", I just try to have a more distant look on events, which you have a hard time doing, obviously.
Your vision of the Ukraine crisis seems quite simplistic. We're the good guys. Everything is the Russians' fault.
Yeah, there's nothing better than a common enemy to create a strong sense of identity. It doesn't have to be rational. It rarely is actually.
As far as Polish society though, we've endured far too much throughout our entire history with Russia to not be russophobes. We're always going to be cautious.
Which is totally understandable, of course. Being cautious is fine. Paranoid is not ;)
the collapsing economy caused by Putin invading their main industrial region...
Jon, the previous (pre-Maidan) governement was corrupt, and that was one of the official reasons for the "revolution". Today's government is at least as corrupt, if not more. Is that Putin's fault too?
You must have seen that Panama Papers story. Mr. Poroshenko is on the list of the current world leaders involved in tax evasion.
Is that what Ukrainians really wanted?
You realise we're only at the start of this one? Maybe not...
So? The USSR has collapsed. Poland has changed. It's part of both the EU and NATO now. And as far as I know, the relations (in terms of diplomacy and economics) between Poland and Russia have been good since then. That's what I'm trying to say. There is no reason, in my opinion, to expect any aggression of Poland from Russia. Poland has no significant Russian minority, it has no oil and gas reserves... Russia could not justify such an aggression and would lose most of its allies.
Found in 1.5 seconds on google
Sources? Google is not a valid source, Jon.
Would any country be anything other than very wary indeed about a has-been and would-be superpower who has just invaded and is currently at war with their neighbour and close ally?
As I wrote above, being wary is okay, but being paranoid is not. Because that's when you do the biggest mistakes.
Bizarre and sad to see Putinist apologetics here.
You can repeat that as many times as you want, but it won't make it more accurate.
I'm not a "Putinist apologetics", I just try to have a more distant look on events, which you have a hard time doing, obviously.
Your vision of the Ukraine crisis seems quite simplistic. We're the good guys. Everything is the Russians' fault.
Anyone who isn't anti-Russian isn't a Polish. Its as simple as that.
Yeah, there's nothing better than a common enemy to create a strong sense of identity. It doesn't have to be rational. It rarely is actually.