Why should Poland consider pursuing a strategic alliance with Russia?

Even if true, which it is not, it is like comparing the brilliance of a supernova to that of a red dwarf.


Even if this were true, which it is not, it would be akin to comparing the brilliance of a supernova to that of a red dwarf.

Johnny, what a coincidence! That is exactly my line of thinking as well.

Johnny, what a coincidence, that exactly mine line of thinking

Learn how to post, Plastic Pole. LOL!

Jim, Delph definitely got RIGHT inside your head! You are obsessed with him....LOL!!!!

Yeah, he is just too obvious after reading his posts for ten years.
He has been allowed to have several sock puppets here now being the membership is so low.


More like, We here think that Myhole is obsessed with me by the way he is allowed to stalk my every post.LOL !!!!!
Meanwhile to get back On-Topic again which is:

Maybe someday but certainly not in our lifetimes.
Once Putin and his regime (the Russian Swamp) is drained, it would be of no benefit for Poland to get sucked into such a corrupt government.
The Polish citizens and Russian citizens are both lovely people however the Russian underworld would destroy the Polish values and pursuit of happiness of the Polish citizens.
Putin will be dead soon so wait and see what replaces him first.
Poland is growing very fast in the right direction all by themselves is my way of thinking.

This war at least would eventually end. I doubted not for a moment that, if the war ended, the side of the angels would somehow come out victorious. Ukraine, if for no other reason than the fact that it stood opposed to Russian imperialism, is definitely the side of the angels.
The good guy always wins. It may seem as though evil is victorious at times, but in the end, evil will always fail and right will eventually prevail. Such a victory might take longer to be achieved than any of us will ever live to see, than any of us might even imagine; but, in the final analysis, there can be no other way.

Considering your IQ, I'm not surprised that you don't get it. Hint - you bore me.

Growing during peacetime is one thing, Johnny. Properly preparing for war is another.

Poland should already be building Swiss-style territorial defence and train (re-train) adult population for military service. Unfortunately, it's not happening. HIMARSes, Apaches and K2s won't win the war - it is the grey soldier that decides any prolonged conflict. Poland is, to a large extent, a victim of her own success - a G20 economy and practically non-existent unemployment make military service unattractive to majority of suitable men, and it is men in uniform, trained and ready to fight, that Poland needs the most.

Maybe the Slovaks and Hungarians got it right? The USA is not going to invade them, Russia might, so why take any chances?

I am shamelessly bumping the thread because the title question is still valid - do we risk more being allied to Russia or being eternally hostile towards her? Food for thought...

Poland can prepare for a war with Albania, not Russia.

Or Germany.

If in 1939 Poland had no army the outcome would be the same except that the Poles who died defending Poland would have lived and Warsaw would be like Krakow in 1945.

Poland's participation in WW2 was a good movie material but irrelevant.

Place the combined forces of the US and the USSR on the mil power scale and then add Poland...See my point or not yet?

Oh, so you're that azzhole who flunked geography.


... and then add Afghanistan. See my point or not yet?

No, becauase your points are pointless.

If you are slow today, I can expand on mine if you ask...

My point is that if Afghan sheepshaggers could defeat the invaders from both Soviet Union and the USA, then perhaps not all is lost for the rest of us.


No, thank you. You already wrote all you wanted to write here a cuntillion and eight times; no point writing it again for the cuntillion and ninth time.

Neither was an invasion like the one so brilliantly executed by Germans on September 1, 1939.

Both were half-ass SMOs or police actions

Ours was worse...Our guys were not allowed to observe Afghanistan villages at night since that would violate the villagers' privacy. No, I am not making it up...

Another one...When our guys noticed that the bad guys were meeting at one place they asked for permission to drop a couple on these motherfcckers.

The response from the DC: Don't you dare!!! The meeting is at a cemetery!!! A Holy place!!!

Holy shlt...so why did we send our men there? To make sure that A girls can get education.

Yeap...That's how insane sane Americans can be...We spent trillions on this kind of crap and that's why we lost a war that could have been won in three days.

You are welcome. I win.

We will never see invasions like the one in 1939 again. Way too expensive for today's bankrupt world and way too many young men taking part in them for today's demographically collapsing nations (both Russia and the West).

Half-arsed SMOs is all that we will get, and repelling a half-arsed SMO is not beyond the capabilities of a determined and brave medium-size nation like Poland.


I would tell you what you win but I decided to be nicer to people.

You mean like in Iraq? That was brilliant and a reason to be proud of the US military...,

Then the lawyers took over and turned a victory into a pile of nothing.

What did we get for the trillions? Saddam's and his sons' dead bodies?

You can't be stupid and a winner...One or the other...The US is both too often.

Like in Afghanistan or Ukraine.

Desert Storm is ancient history; different world, different wars.

If Desert Storm is ancient what is Katyn?

Super duper mega ancient? If so why does it still come up as a sore point for the Poles ... and a lot more often than Auschwitz...Russia didn't pay as much as Germany?

Not for me.

Soviet Union under Gorbatchev (1990) admitted responsibility and expressed regret for the executions, and later (2010) Russia did the same.
Putin was the first Russian leader to attend a memorial ceremony at Katyń.

Good enough for me. That Georgian c*nt, Stalin, killed more Russians than Poles.


They paid with the lives of 600,000 soldiers who died kicking nazis out of Poland.

Can anyone answer the question already?

No?

OK, I will give you more time to think. Just don't take too long... until the answer is more than obvious.

I guess there are two answers possible....a consequence of ones wants and wishes and mentality, whats really important to him....just survival? You can surely live your life within a victorous russian-new Chinese-Empire, whatever....but I guess at least as many people prefer to live in a victorious West!

So....the question is, whom do you want to win? There ist you answer...

If only it was so easy, BB. If only.

It's not like we have to tick a box: (A) victorious Russia (B) victorious West, and that's it. There are many shades of grey between and a different option is good for Portugal and different for Poland. Hungary and Slovakia are conducting strongly pro-Russian policies. Are they being invaded by the West because of it? No, but they are safeguarding their interests in case of Russia going full retard.

We have much more to lose in case of the ever-more-likely war with Russia than we have to win in case of Ukrainian "victory" (whatever that means, and which doesn't exclude Polish-Russian or Polish-Ukrainian war anyway). Especially that Ukraine was never friendly towards Poland - they were your pupils, your Waffen-SS boys (they still cherish the tradition!) and today they even refuse to acknowledge the genocide they commited against Poles.

It's not all that black-and-white.

Thats the thing, I truly think it is....if you see the world with a view of a new developing Cold War, then Ukraine is only one of many coming proxy wars. Every victory, every loss draws the borders of this new world new. One side gains a point, the other loses that point, but it doesn't end that new global rivalry. The next "match" is already in the planning, somewhere...maybe even near(er) you....

When you cut out all the propaganda, all the arguments....which side (and not only Ukraine or any other pawn in this new chess game for the world) would you want to win in the end (even probably decades we most probably wouldn't even be alive anymore to see)?

It isn't about Ukraine alone...not really....

That's the point. The Cold War was when the USA and Soviet Union made proxy wars somewhere in Asia or Africa and we read about it in newspapers. When Ukraine is invaded and soon maybe Poland, then there is nothing cold about it - indeed it is very hot!


It all depends on the price. I shall ask again: is the West invading (or in ANY meaningful way punishing) Hungary and Slovakia? No? Then why should Poland not conduct similar policies: remaining the part of the West while maintaining friendly relations with Russia? If Slovaks and Hungarians can, why can't we?

As I said, it depends on the price. If the victorious West means millions of Poles dead and Poland razed to the ground once again, then I suppose I'll take a rain check.

The former Cold War lines and sides weren't so clear cut chosen from the beginning either, Torqi!

And the West is still in the starting boxes....confused, arguing, scratching heads...some even haven't acknowledge this new realties yet.....and even back then there were also the so called neutral states.

What I think would happen when Ukraine loses is motivating Russia to repeat that game move....here...in Europe...in our neighbourhood....after all they just gained a big point, why not trying it again? Our future safety would depend on the mood in the Kremlin!

On the other hand with Russia losing, that would send a clear signal...not here....not Europe...make your proxy wars elsewhere again, but not in our 'hood!

That would mean Ukraine would become the first clearly drawn border of the so called new world...and all behind would be safe.

Exactly!

When Ukraine loses Donbass and invades Poland to regain "Закерзоння" and compensate for the loss in the east, the West will be so confused that they will probably still send Ukraine weapons and money before they realise what's happening.


Can you realistically see Russia losing - with the USA no longer giving too much of a toss and European NATO being what it is?


It will always depend on the mood in the Kremlin unless at least 4 EU countries (Poland, Germany, Finland, Romania) develop their strong and independent nuclear forces.


Oh, your eternal optimism, BB! :)

Usually Donbas.

:)

....but what I mean is better not making the past between your peoples the one and only viewpoint from where to watch the development, but look at all of the movements on that chess board called world politics!

Uhm yeah, ever since they didn't take Kiev. Couldn't take it then. Can't take it now, Ukraine is far more suited to combat Russia then at the beginning.

It's a war of attrition the west happily will keep stale and long lived. Why you think U.S.A just doesn't send all it has? Cause it's not good for it to crush or invade Russia and trigger a nuclear strike. They just wanna swamp the entire area until Russia realises what a gigantic drain they willingly set to drown everything they got in to it.

When Russia realises the blunder. A deal or a peace treaty can be signed. Until then it's just gonna be theatrics for the audience that doesn't know any better

I try to, but it makes me dizzy sometimes!


Another optimist. :)

Oh, well... I really hope you're right, guys. *fingers crossed*

You are correct...The West won the war against its own people.

Hence the mosques, the rapes, the slashed throats, the deficits, the garbage, the homeless, the crime, the filth, the pride flags in kindergartens, Africans where there were none a while back...

Did I miss anything?

Because they decided not to while hoping for Minsk 2. Naive Russians...

I would start with Z's assassination and bombing flat every government building in Kiev to end this war before it would start...

But that's just me...a cold-blooded SOB who sees a future terrorist in every cute Muslim child...

Did you know that Hitler was cute when he was 5?