Poland threatens Russia with war over Ukraine

[cosmicalstorm]

This is a statement from Poland is probably aimed at reducing the risk of an increased Russian invasion of Ukraine. I find this very worrying. This situation could easily escalate into the sky before anyone has time to back down and think about it.

(Reuters) - Poland's foreign minister Grzegorz Schetyna said on Thursday that Poland, along with other countries, may support Ukraine's defense capacities if the conflict in eastern Ukraine escalates.

"We cannot exclude that in case of renewed escalation of military actions, we will be forced, along with other countries that assess the situation similarly to us, to take a decision on stronger support for the Ukrainian state, including its defense capacities," he said in his policy speech.

Schetyna also said that Poland has applied to become a non-permanent member of United Nations Security Council in 2018-2019.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/ ... ZM20150423

[The Romulan Republic]

That sounds ambiguous. It could simply mean giving them more aid/supplies. I wouldn't call it an explicit threat of war.

Still, escalation is to be avoided.

[Irbis]

Schetyna is irrelevant idot who matters in politics only because Tusk choose to abandon ship and new party leadership is too weak to tell him to shut up. I wouldn't say his words have much weight, exactly, despite his position, he is just provincial politician too used to local PR (where you need to say most insulting, dumbest, scandalous thing to even exist in press). See his words comparing Ukraine to Polish colony that needs protection or that idiotic Auschwitz debacle I posted here a few months ago.

What is worrying, though, in all the hysteric Russophobia atmosphere both media and politicians are now totally disconnected from reality, a week or two ago I saw imbeciles in biggest Polish daily openly suggesting Poland should threaten Russia with vetoing NATO intervention against ISIS, because "it's close to Caucasus and if NATO pulls back Russia will have problems there, drawing troops away from Ukraine"

Edit: I read his full speech and that imbecile openly lobbied for TTIP for 5 minutes. Jesus

[cosmicalstorm]

I think they might have a problem forgetting that time when 20 % of their population was exterminated by the joint Russian-German meatgrinding-machinery.

[Broomstick]

Could we please not have another major war in my lifetime? Is that too much to ask?

[Irbis]

I think they might have a problem forgetting that time when 20 % of their population was exterminated by the joint Russian-German meatgrinding-machinery.

Uh, what?

I don't know if it's joke or ignorance, but according to these idiots, WW2 lasted from 17 IX 1939 to 1 V 1940, sooo...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Putin isn't a fool, he won't start a nuclear war if those four Polish divisions cross the border; they will just be militarily defeated (eventually--they can put up a hard fight) in the battles around Kiev. Since, of course, if Poland sends troops, the Russians will launch a full scale regular invasion of the Ukraine and they will keep going all the way to Transnistria.

[The Romulan Republic]

Putin might or might not fire the first nuke, but I'm willing to bet that if we get to the point where a NATO member is shooting it out with the Russian military, a nuclear exchange occurring is pretty much just a matter of time.

[Irbis]

...uh, what, again?

Popularity of sending troops to Ukraine hovers around steady 1% despite year long propaganda storm. What even 90% of Russophobes here means by 'support Ukraine's defense capacities' is selling offensive arms. Or rather, gifting them for free because Ukraine is bankrupt and out politicians love to fuck state finances without lube.

Even if president and prime minister were insane enough to try and send troops, they wouldn't find enough votes in parliament or so I hope and even if they did, thanks to idiot two decade long reforms reducing Polish Army to occupation helping annex to US Army we wouldn't be able to send 4 divisions, I'd even doubt 4 brigades would be possible. I can count war capable units on fingers of one hand.

So, yeah.

Putin might or might not fire the first nuke, but I'm willing to bet that if we get to the point where a NATO member is shooting it out with the Russian military, a nuclear exchange occurring is pretty much just a matter of time.

Um, NATO guarantee only works if said member is attacked, not if they attack first. Well, unless USA says otherwise, as other 28 countries are boot-licking vassal and arms markets in all but name. Does USA want war? No? Then there will be no war.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, I know their is no obligation for NATO to go to war if a member attacks someone. But that doesn't mean that they won't. NATO members still have close ties and would be unlikely to simply ignore a war between a NATO member and Russia (especially when they're making this big of a fuss over Russian involvement in the Ukraine, a country that isn't even part of NATO). How about you not assume I am ignorant?

And to dismiss the other members of NATO as simply "...boot-licking vassal and arms markets..." of the US is deeply insulting to those nations, which do not simply follow the US on every issue (see Canada's decision not to join Bush's invasion of Iraq).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Because you are ignorant. Nobody wants a nuclear war. The US directly fought Chinese troops in Korea and Vietnam, but that never escalated to a nuclear exchange. If we'd been using Australian troops instead, why would it be more likely? Oh right, it isn't. Grow up! You're just ignoring all of history to spout paranoid bullshit.

[Irbis]

Yeah, I know their is no obligation for NATO to go to war if a member attacks someone. But that doesn't mean that they won't. NATO members still have close ties and would be unlikely to simply ignore a war between a NATO member and Russia (especially when they're making this big of a fuss over Russian involvement in the Ukraine, a country that isn't even part of NATO). How about you not assume I am ignorant?

Close ties? Central and Eastern European NATO members also have close ties with Russia. Who exactly would support hypothetical Polish insane declaration of war? Baltics? Please.

About the only state that could force the issue is USA, and I'd wager it would still end up with (at best) some supporting words and applause, like in 1939.

And to dismiss the other members of NATO as simply "...boot-licking vassal and arms markets..." of the US is deeply insulting to those nations, which do not simply follow the US on every issue (see Canada's decision not to join Bush's invasion of Iraq).

Insulting? Please direct your complains to politicians of these nations, they support stuff like TTIP or total creeping transfer of all arms manufacturing to USA, see for example F-35. The fact you don't like reality doesn't change it.

Also, funny that, I seem to recall Canada sent troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq, with her current ruler, Stephen Harper, back then loudly protesting clandestine involvement (at first) in Iraq and declaring Canada should have joined fully immediately. And even that clandestine "we totally didn't do it" support outweighed all other coalition nations but UK and USA. If that is not bootlicking, I don't know what it is.

[The Romulan Republic]

Other nations working with the US on certain points does not equal complete subservience in all things, your tired simplistic anti-American tripe not withstanding.

You're right about at least one thing, though- "The fact you don't like reality doesn't change it." You should strive to be more self-reflective on that score.

Also, please provide a source for the claim that Canada sent troops to Iraq, much less the claim that Canada's involvement in Iraq was the third greatest of any country.

And as for Afghanistan, you cannot use that as proof of subservience to the US. As much as some like to treat Afghanistan as simply US imperialism, it seems to be a clear case of NATO obligations in response to an attack on a member- unless you are a 911 truther, in which case, I wish you the best of luck trying to prove that position.

[Simon_Jester]

That said, the point remains that it is quite unlikely for the US (or France or Britain) to voluntarily offer to use their nuclear arsenal in support of an ill-advised (and very unpopular) Polish military expedition into the Ukraine. So the part where "You're just ignoring all of history to spout paranoid bullshit" is, honestly, correct.

This is entirely aside from the point Irbis makes about a military expedition into the Ukraine being spectacularly unpopular in Poland itself.

This is a statement from Poland is probably aimed at reducing the risk of an increased Russian invasion of Ukraine. I find this very worrying. This situation could easily escalate into the sky before anyone has time to back down and think about it.

This is not threatening war, so the thread title is (again) an exaggeration. However, it IS creating a situation that could easily escalate out of control, and you're not wrong about that

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not saying that a Polish invasion of the Ukraine wouldn't be unpopular or that they would do it. I'm just saying that if they did, for some reason, I'd expect it to escalate into something very ugly.

[Channel72]

We got through the Cuban Missile crisis without firing nukes - I don't think anyone's firing nukes over this.

[The Romulan Republic]

Didn't say they would. I was talking about a hypothetical scenario in which Poland invades the Ukraine (an idea I did not create). I would appreciate it if people would read, understand, and respond to what I said, not the fantasies they've concocted.

That said, I think there's a danger to the certainty many people seem to have that a nuclear war won't happen.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You moron, that is what we're talking about. We're talking about Poland sending troops into the Ukraine, because I brought it up, and I'm telling you that your response to what I said, is MORONIC. I understand EXACTLY what you're saying, MORON. NATO is not automatically involved, a Russian-Polish conflict inside of the Ukraine does not activate NATO, the Russians could fight the Poles inside of the Ukraine without activating NATO, capiche? The nuclear tripwire only occurs if the Russians were to cross the frontier into the physical territory of Poland.

There are multiple historical examples of this kind of conflict not escalating.

So, you are a MORON, and you are WRONG.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is possible I misunderstood something- I believe I took Channel72's post as a general statement that nuclear war would not happen, rather than that it would not happen in the specific circumstance of a Polish invasion of the Ukraine. I may have been mistaken, but it is a rather minor and understandable error, I think. But apparently that makes me a "MORON" (because a point becomes stronger when written over and over again in all capitals rather than coming off as empty posturing).

Also, if you are suggesting that I am claiming NATO would be obligated by treaty to fight if Poland invaded the Ukraine, I am not, I already addressed that when Irbis made the same accusation, and you are a fucking liar or didn't bother to read what I posted.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If I cared about what people thought about me on the internet, I wouldn't be posting here.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not saying that a Polish invasion of the Ukraine wouldn't be unpopular or that they would do it. I'm just saying that if they did, for some reason, I'd expect it to escalate into something very ugly.

Strictly true- but it is ill-advised to spend too much time barking at shadows.

[cosmicalstorm]

This is a statement from Poland is probably aimed at reducing the risk of an increased Russian invasion of Ukraine. I find this very worrying. This situation could easily escalate into the sky before anyone has time to back down and think about it.

This is not threatening war, so the thread title is (again) an exaggeration. However, it IS creating a situation that could easily escalate out of control, and you're not wrong about that

Should have made it "Limited war".

[CaptHawkeye]

Could we please not have another major war in my lifetime? Is that too much to ask?

We should start by sidelining people with a political outlook circa 1962.

[SVPD]

Could we please not have another major war in my lifetime? Is that too much to ask?

Amazing as it may seem, avoiding offending you with a major war is not an actual foreign policy goal.

[Broomstick]

Ah, but it SHOULD be!