Poland's aid to Ukraine if Russia invades - part 22

Mostly empty words from them, a place with a poor record of seeing anything through and a stellar record of talking the talk rather than walking the walk.


Until Orban vetoes the next round.

In life, there are things you can depend on and things you can't. France comes into the latter category.

I wouldn't mind it if instead the UK was offering to extend its' nuclear umbrella, but it is what it is. France is the only option we have. We should have started seriously negotiating with Macron years ago when he first made that offer, but we failed to do so. Now it is hopefully not too late.


He hasn't vetoed the last 17 rounds. Because Macron and Scholz have kept him in line, that is what leadership looks like.

It is pretty clear that the relationship with the EU next to NATO is the main priority for Kiev while negotiating with its' Western allies.

The UK can't do anything about Trump vetoing Ukraine's membership in NATO, it has no say in matters regarding the EU, it is not leading the effort in supporting Ukraine and it has so far not stepped up in deterring Russia. And there are currently no signs of that changing. Those are facts. That is why the UK is not leading Europe, and why Starmer is not the leading politician in Europe. Pretending otherwise is just silly. Never mind that Starmer has been PM for less than a year by now, and experience is what also contributes to a leaders' standing (which is also why it will take time for Merz reassert his role).

How about asking Israel to extend their umbrella?

Britain has apparently 200 warheads, and Israel has 120.

As reparations for stuffing them into ovens by the trainload, you should offer them to resettle the Palestinians on the Pomeranian coast.

In return, they will bomb Moscow on your behalf if it so much as dares to look at you sideways.

Obviously, it's not about what you mind or don't, however would you know what is being discussed by the various heads of state and government?


Until he or Fico or another does.


Thing is, that's what he is. Unlike any other leader of a large country, he's got a huge and unassailable majority, and will be around for a long time. BYW, he doesn't lack leadership experience, having served at a high level. His record's pretty good so far.

Certainly good enough for r*SSia to target him personally.

They can also ask the French for that umbrella and, in return, take in all the Muslims from France.

How about this - the leaders of all the big European countries are aligned and all doing what is possible within their own electoral politics - clear to me that Macron, Starmer, Merz, Tusk, Meloni are all on the same page. So are Korea, Japan, Canada, Australia and NZ, Czech,Romania and all the Baltics

Shame on Trump, Scholz, Modi, Ramaphosa - democratic leaders who are prevaricating.

And let's not even mention the 3 ruritanian clowns - Orban, Vucic and Fico.

An imbecile, a bureaucrat, a nationalistic theocrat and a desperate one.

All it needs is for Modi to go into Pakistan and Trup to start fighting with China over Taiwan and WW3 starts.

Are you suggesting that there are talks about the UK providing Eastern Europe with a nuclear umbrella?


Which doesn't mean much when there is little he can do with it. Leaving aside that historically speaking, British PMs have a tendency of being taken out by their own party, like I explained above, the means of the UK are limited by its' position and budget restrains.

That majority won't help him on the issue of NATO and the EU, and it is my understanding that there are no plans of significanly increasing the aid for Ukraine either.


Which experience does he have on the diplomatic stage? Or indeed at the highest level of governance, e.g. a minister?

Those are the things that are usually considered when head of governments are talking with each other. A leader like Macron whos has spent several years at the highest level is naturally at an advantage there.


Would be great if that was the case. But Tusk is now being sabotaged by PiS, Italy is doing little to actually support Ukraine with their ressources, Korea refuses to provide Ukraine with weapons (while NK is fighting for Russia).

Rhetorically they are on the same page, but whether or not that materializes on anything meaningful remains to be seen.

Maybe I am too pessimistic here, but the Western track record is really not all that great when it comes to Ukraine.

Are you suggesting that you know even 1% of what is discussed privately at leader - leader level?


Why "little"?

BTW, what Labour PM has ever been "taken out" by their own party???


He has served at that level, and served well.

Because there is little what he can do with that majority beyond what the UK is already doing. Or at the very least, there is little he has done with the majority so far. Certainly not enough to justify a position of leadership on Ukraine.


Which ministry did he lead?

Really? Why do you think that?

I'm still tickled about your " tendency of being taken out by their own party", something Labour has never ever done.

And you've got 9 years to get used to him.

Its fvcking laughable how some people actually have confidence in any of the weakest EU leaders. France and Germany arent going to do shlt if Russia does anything. All bark and no bite. Poland has way more balls than either of them. With a new President, along with Hungary and Italy, with more on the way, the EU is not going to look the same in two years.

Job 1:

Get rid of migrants before they multiply like New York rats when garbage collectors are on strike...

Labour hasn't exactly been in power much in the last 40+ years so that is not really telling much. Even Blair didn't serve his final term completely.

Maybe Labour will act differently than the Tories, who knows.

Things aren't looking particulary good for them at the moment though.

Labour's poll ratings have plummeted - so is Starmer's future in question?

theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/31/labours-poll-ratings-drop-is-starmer-future-in-question

Maybe he'll pull through, mabye not, but it is certainly not a sure thing at the rate the polls are looking right now.


So much balls that they already ruled out providing peace keepers to Ukraine and just elected a president who campaigned against Ukrainians.

Through the 60s, half the 70sand the from the mid 90s first decade of this century. Tony stood down on schedule; the transfer had been agreed at the Granita meeting a decade earlier.

Don't make assumptions.


No. He has a supermajority and no rivals. And trawling the web for newspaper articles adds little. You can always find one saying pretty well anything.


It's very much a sure thing: he's here for another 9 years.

I rarely agree with Tacitus, but these are good points.

One can argue that the initial "ramp" for Nawrocki was harping on about Banderites.

Ukraine in many ways made Nawrocki.

So people in Poland exactly voted for less help to Ukraine.

that.... what is known as a 'reach'....

You could put it this way. Although it is a little more complex than that.
Funny, though, because the US would like Poland to be more involved.

Ukraine has too much 'Ruski Mir' mentality in their diplomacy, they can only lose a lot with their dealings with Poland.

The bottom line is that the people in Poland have had enough being taken for a ride by Ukraine, and Polish politicians are just wobbling like a puppet on a string here and there, but don't dare to offend people too much.

Got any polling data on that?

Considering recent Ukrainian accomplishments, rational countries would want Ukraine on their side.

And you don't seem to want Poland to have any allies except russia.... (how has that ever worked out for Poland?")

I'd say it adds more than just saying that he'll stay for another 9 years because trust me bro.

I follow British media so I know that Starmers' low ratings are seen as a problem.

Just as our migrants made Trump.

Conclusion: All evil starts with well-meaning women. They welcome migrants, love deficits, hate numbers, and abhore fact-based thinking as cold-blooded and hateful...

Stupid men follow this idiocy to get laid or at least for a good-boy pat on the back...and women's votes later on...

Another video for all the stupid Russian ar$e lickers;

Whose ass was BJ licking when he went to Z in 2022 and told him to forget that peace thingy and fight till the last Ukrainian?

That peace, BTW, would let U keep everything except Crimea. And no NATO.

That was then...Unhappily for U, that deal is off the table now.

Now Russia will keep a lot more. Wanna bet?

That was stupid...to kiss US MICC ass, wasn't it?

and Donbas.

It really doesn't. The government are doing very well. You shouldn't depend on online articles that are intended to be read by people who have some or a great deal of context.


So you ever get the feeling that there's something going on that isn't being said?

Differences between Ukraine and russia, part 62 of a continuing series....

Ukraine: mourns the loss of children killed byt russian armed forces....

x.com/NAFOvoyager/status/1930150462398882239

russia: dresses babies up like wounded soldiers

x.com/igorsushko/status/1782315266766217567

Ukraine stands for life and russia stands for death.

Make your choice.

Aparently the 40 bomber number that was floated is actually 14 destroyed. Not nearly as desasterous for Russia as orignally reported. And now reports are coming out that Putin has told the military to ready launch pads for ICBM's. The US, and NATO had no clue the mission Ukraine planned, and now things look to be escalating again, just when Russia is going into Sumy and Khakiv is once again a target. Still no answer for the manpower shortage in Ukraine. Yep, everything is just coming up roses for Ukraine.

41 wrecked nicely

In other words. Trump failed.

After Biden administration leaks to russia and Trump's refusal to criticize russia in any way mean they have no right to information about what Ukraine plans with Ukraine made weapons.

Trump failed.

russia still wants war and stupid Trump is trying to tempt putin with money and is ready to walk away bvtthurt because he couldn't bully Ukraine into surrendering.

Trump failed.

Even if ukraine surrendered that would just ramp up civilian killings in 'filtration camps' and worse. Is that what you want?

russia put Ukraine on death ground and nothing Trump could do could change that.

What's your plan to make russia not want to kill Ukrainians?

@mafketis
You need an intervention. How did Trump fail when he didnt know Ukraine had implemented this strike that would escalate things? Your really delusional to blame Trump for all things. Maybe Trump is to blame for Ukraine not making its loan payments on its soveriegn debt too?