Poland`s aid to Ukraine if Russia invades - part 5

@Bratwurst Boy
By nuking Kiev, Putin would admit of Russia not being the continuation of Kiev Rus. Why would he want to nuke "his own city"

Britain?

Not a chance unless putler wants his cities turned to ash.

And as a full member of NATO, he also knows that to attack Poland would be a fatal mistake for him.

@jon357
Another delusional assumption. When England was at war in the Faulkland islands Article 5 was not enacted. A bomb does not make a war. A bomb does not make a world war with the US riding in to save Europes a$$es again. Putin could easily send one little nuke as a message to London to back off. Article 5 would not be invoked, the Black Sea fleet would be detroyed or something along those lines.

It is hilarious to read people thinking Article 5 is automatic. It is not. This war has about 24 months maximum of support from the US before it becomes an election issue and a liability politically. Anyone thinking Ukraine will keep Biden in office is delusional. The Republicans in the US dont GAF about Europes troubles unless they directly impact the US ability to do business. The only thing that motivates the American public to support a war, is if the US is attacked directly. Either an attack at home or on a military base or something along those lines. England having a bomb dropped on them is not going to get the US to join WW3.

If that's the official American stance, then I hope it will be a wake up call for Europe to greatly increase our nuclear potential.

I've been saying this forever: Poland should have enough nuclear weapons to be able to cause more damage with them to outweigh all the hypothetical benefits that an aggressor could ever hope to achieve.

England has never been at war in the Falklands. Britain however sucessfully defeated an invasion of the islands. The UK government, by the way, did not invoke Article 5 during the conflict.

Article 5 does not relate to attacks on Overseas Dependencies rather than on member states themselves.


And you're trying to accuse others of being delusional?

Were Putler to attack a nuclear power like the UK or France it would be a fatal mistake for him. Were he to attack the capital of one, his own capital would cease to exist.

Were he to attack Poland, Poland could choose to invoke Article 5 and all NATO member states would be obliged to respond as if it were an attack on their own soil. That is the point of NATO and to respond is mandatory for all NATO members including its three nuclear powers

About the Black Sea Fleet? It has always been understood that is destruction is an option were Putler to use a tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Were he to use a strategic nuclear weapon on a city anywhere, it has always been understood that the response would be in kind.


If a member state is attacked and chooses to invoke Article 5, all other NATO members are obliged to respond as of it were an attack on their own soil.

@GefreiterKania
I agree with the concept. Poland should be armed like no other country. This is the front line if things get too crazy. All the ordered hardware is not here now. Poland should be buying up every piece of used US equipment possible. All the A10 Warthogs sitting in the desert should be in Poland. All the retired Abrams not going to Ukraine should be in Poland.

PiS has done one thing perfectly. And that is to tell everyone about the Russian threat. No one listened, and PiS did not listen to themselves and take action. While I dont think war is coming soon, I do not believe for one second that if Russia is allowed to keep any of the Ukraine land that they will stop. It will only take a few years till another location is bombed.

@jon357
No jon. All member states are required to decide upon what response is to be made if any. you might want to educate yourself on the process;

nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

Excellent article here;

fpri.org/article/2022/12/article-5-for-the-next-decade-of-nato/#:~:text=Enshrined%20within%20Article%205%20of,5%20has%20been%20formally%20invoked

There is no automatic equal response by all of NATO. There is no automatic pressing the button scenario.

...and you are right not to believe it. This guy Felshtinsky was spot on when he said that "the only way for the West to stop this war is to win it".

@PolAmKrakow
As Article 5 states, "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all".

The idea that a strategic or tactical nuclear weapon used against Ukraine, Poland or any other member state would not lead to a significant escalation is bizarre.

Used against any if the three nuclear powers in NATO. The response from any of them would certainly be nuclear.

There are three nuclear powers in NATO and all have both jointly and severally gamed every possible escalation scenario. All three have the option of acting individually or jointly and all three have a range of options and contingencies.

You know that and I know that... but I'm afraid some European politicians don't believer that..... or worse yet.... don't want to believe that....

@jon357
Reading comprehension class jon. An armed attack does not trigger an armed defense. An armed attack only triggers Article 5 and a discussion as to the appropriate response to the armed attack.

The United States is not going to send in its heavy arms, nuclear or otherwise without first being attacked. Unless American lives are lost, US citizens targeted and killed, the US is going to tell the other NATO member that they support what ever they chose to do on their own and that the US will supply them weapons too. There is zero appetite for more US soldiers dying for other countries.

On the flip side though, if Putin were to try to attack a shipment in Poland being carried out by US soldiers, the response would be very fast and it would not involve Article 5. Article 5 is for Europe, not the US. No one is dumb enough to attack the US other than a terrorist. So the only purpose is to protect Europe. Ukraine was not invited to join NATO because of Article 5 ramifications, and they wont be invited in the future.

Yes, you need one. A response is triggered if Article 5 is invoked.

It seems that you are trying to argue for the sake of it; this is a serious matter, the largest armed conflict since WWII.

Regarding the US, you keep missing the point that there are three nuclear powers in NATO, all of which can act either independently or jointly. All three have gamed every possibility involving r*SSian aggression and have been doing so for years. For every action by r*Sia there are branches of a decision tree.


Article 5 is for NATO; and should there be an attack on Polish territory, Poland would certainly invoke Article 5.

With r*SSi's moving nuclear weapons to Belarus, there has already been an escalation. Since there are nukes already in Kaliningrad Oblast, moving them to an unstable rogue state has one or bvoth of two meanings. One is sabre-rattling. The other is (according to Felshtinsky) for them to be used.


Ukraine is not a current NATO member for several reasons. One is the escalatory risk. Another is that like Moldova it has current territorial disputes. Further reasons are connected with its democratic institutions and also that it is unlikely that all 30 NATO members would agree to them joining.

It's hard to understand you guys. Russia is supposedly on its last feet. Sanctions have choked us of all critical components necessary in arms manufacture. Our people are restless, and random bombings proliferate across the land. The next UKR offensive will finally do us in.

Yet, you're discussing how if Russia is allowed to walk away from this it will repeat the same thing a few years down the line (how? are we not already permanently weakened?). Furthermore, you're talking about us dropping nukes in Warsaw and London. What's the logic here, exactly?

@jon357
Again jon you miss the obvious. There is zero obligation for the US to join in any response other than to discuss what response is appropriate. Like all other members did after 9/11, and not every NATO member participated in the actions that came after. Your lack of comprehension of the obvious is pretty impressive.

In your mind Belarus is an escalation. Not in the minds of American citizens who do the voting.

Poland can invoke Article 5 when it happens. It does not mean that the US or any other ally will agree with what Poland wants to do. It only means it will be discussed. I can invoke the the words of Christ and it doesnt mean anything more than invoking words unless other people agree.

@Bobko
honestly man I would rather take jabs at each other than discuss things with some left wing idiots here. Article 5 baby! Its going to save Europe. LMFAO

Logic? There's no logic in this war in the first place, so all scenarios have to be considered.


Hey, PolAm - what's your interest in undermining the sanctity of Article 5, especially on a board read also by enemies? Do you want to raise mistrust between allies or encourage Russians to more bold actions? What's the purpose exactly? Are you on a Russian payroll now? If so, happy gulag biatch. :-/

@Bobko
Only one country has state media who have talked about "dropping nukes in Warsaw and London". Yours.


Or zero need to. You're missing the obvious; that there are three nuclear powers in NATO (I think it's the third time I've mentioned that today). Each can act alone or with one or both of the others.


And in the mind of most commentators in Ukraine, Poland and Europe, including the ISW and also Josep Borrell who described it as "an irresponsible escalation and a threat to European security,"


We're not talking about them. They do not have a veto on the other 29 NATO countries' actions.

And it should be at least five (the current ones plus Poland and Germany), and the four European countries should have a nuclear potential equal to that of Russia. Costly? Sure, but as we can see necessary - with even PolAm undermining the Article 5. We have to be capable of MAD without the US participation.

If you want to see Poland and Germany experience a North Korea/Iran type of sanctions regime - be our guests.

Russia and China will not accept a nuclear Poland. France and the UK will not accept a nuclear Germany. If you want to, in one fell swoop, lose the accumulated credibility of Germany and Poland in pursuit of this pipe dream, you would be doing us Russians the greatest favor.

Remember, in 1991 Ukraine had the world's third largest nuclear arsenal after Russia and then the United States. The reason the Budapest Memorandum came into existence is because the responsible actors could not countenance the existence of a nuclear Ukraine.

Ukraine having nukes is less of a problem than Germany or Poland possessing nukes. You can be sure that if you pursue this avenue, the world's attention will quickly shift from Ukraine to you.

Britain and France have 60 years proving they are responsible players. No such confidence exists in regards to hysterical Poles and murderous Germans.

We are capable of that now with the existing European nukes.

And the true number of nukes held by the two European nuclear powers is generally assumed to be larger than disclosed; especially since one that have been retired are assumed to be held in storage, unprimed, ready to be primed if needed.

Poland is now emerging as one of the great powers, and yes, if its land army is to be so large and effective Poland should have its own weapons as well as being supported by others/ Non-proliferation is the ideal goal however in the face of the r*SSian threat, Poland needs to be armed.

Have you read this article? I think you'd like it.
telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/03/30/poland-is-now-the-new-great-power-of-europe/

....I would want a promise by K not to nuke Berlin first please!!!

Otherwise that is the much more realistic option as that nukes getting stationed in Germany. Then we would be flanked by two neighbours with nukes, totally sufficient in the eyes of most Germans!

Under German or American command?

@jon

Thanks for the link but I can't read it - it's for subscribers only. Anyway, what's the point of having a huge army if it can be nuke without retaliation. We have to get our own nukes.

Why german command? They would never be used with german command...totally useless!

Well, in that case what's the point if Americans, as PolAm claims, are going to sh*t on article 5?

Another reason for Poland to get nukes pronto. Nuking Berlin? Why would K nuke a Polish city? ;)

Nobody is going to sh*t on article 5 if the situation arrives....that would be the end of NATO.... And nobody wants that. Especially not in these times as the world is being split in influence-blocs again, like Cold War II.

But at the same time nobody really thinks anybody will use nukes....planning scenarios/propaganda movies/dick talks by power mad idiots notwithstanding!!!


😎

That's a huge problem because we are definitely going to ask Russia and China for permission. No... wait a minute...


Cry me a river. Never again will genocide be commited on Polish people. Never again will barbarous invaders murder our children. If we go, they go with us. We are definitely getting nukes. Yippee ki-Sarmatian-yay, motherf*ckers.

He, he :)

I just copied and pasted it and sent it by PM


Exactly.


A few centuries longer than that; and Poland's army is among the best on the continent anyway. Certainly superior to Muscovy's.

t.me/hotptakes/6764

Almost 60% of young men in Poland are voters of Konfederacja, a party that takes strong positions on issues of race, nation, religion and is anti-NATO and anti-EU.

@Crnogorac

Young voters are almost always anti-establishment and more susceptible to manipulation.

Luckily, the support for Konfederussia falls to 27% in the 18-39 age group. With older voters their support is negligible and they are those who turn up for the elections in larger numbers, so don't get your hopes too high.

Konfederacja has weird funding from Russian-aligned organisations, keeps in touch with actual Russian agents, its party members attack Ukrainians from day one and shill for ns2 to reopen, a number of political commentators and local politicians they supported escaped Poland after 24/2

Im sure they're just a grassroots movement LOL.

There was anti-Ukrainian demonstration last year - and nobody but organizers (Konfederacja) had shown up. It was really sad sight ... Next time they should offer free beer and sausages.The general atmosphere is "kill every Russian, kill pro Russian people in Poland, expel konfederacja, bomb Moscow, total war now, article 5"

@GefreiterKania
It is not an undermining, it is simply the truth. If anyone thinks the US is going to go to war directly with Russia to protect Europe then they do not understand the US. NATO is formed for the benefit of Europe. The US does not need NATO, thats just a fact. The US is fine on its own and if directly attacked has no problem defending itself or going after the attacking country. Europe on the other hand has big problems without the US. I live in Poland and its time for people to opem their eyes to what is real and possible in regard to NATO. Sweden and Finland joining are great for Europe, and means nothing for the US. Asking if I support Russia is like asking if I want to bang your great grandmother. Dont insult me and I wont insult you.

I dont support the idiotic idea that if Article 5 is used at some point by a NATO member that it automatically includes a US component. It simply does not automatically happen, and American nukes are not at the disposal of any agrieved NATO member. Rational thinking people are not about to start a nuclear war or WW3 in order to protect craisants in Paris or bangers and mash in London.

You probably (just probably) took the simile a bit too far, but I get it.


How about schabowe and bigos in Warsaw?