The last thing that Trump wants is for the US to be drawn back into another war with Russia after “Pivoting (back) to Asia”, let alone a direct one instead of the proxy war that they’ve recently resolved to end, but the chances of this happening would spike if Poland obtained its own nukes.
One of the original ideas underlying the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, the ancestor of the European Union, was to bring lasting peace on our continent, especially between France and Germany, by merging their respective economies. As we can see today, this idea of lasting peace is no longer the priority of the EU, to put it mildly. One of the countries whose inclusion has helped changing the DNA of the European Union in this respect is Russophobic and Germanophobic Poland. It seems that the Poles keep on living in the past, in the glorious days of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, when their country was among the great powers in Europe. They are one of the main sabre rattlers in Europe, and, as I read, they apparently even dream of having nuclear weapons... Sometimes I understand why its neighbors partitioned Poland three times in the 18th century, until nothing was left of it.
I don't think that Poland's quest for nukes is realistic for the reasons that I explained, but its political Germanophobia and Russophobia -- which is distinct from the ethno-national dimensions of such phobias as are all such phobias such as Russia's Anglophobia for example -- are based on historical facts.
The ruling liberal-globalists are very pro-German though they've felt pressured by the public ahead of May's presidential election to make a pretense of being more pro-Polish/patriotic, at least regarding Polish policy towards Ukraine, which in some ways is more hardline than the former conservative government's.
The conservatives are traditionally much more politically Germanophobic and especially Russophobic, while the populists represented by Confederation's Mentzen are more pro-Polish/patriotic but still skeptical of both larger neighbors and historical rivals, so the socio-political situation in Poland isn't as clear-cut as you described it.
I agree that both governments -- the former conservative one and the current liberal-globalist one -- are both saber-rattlers and have a shared interest in promoting political Russophobia, but these developments are completely separate from the three 18th-century partitions.
Those processes took place amidst the three neighboring empires' security dilemma with one another over the first "sick man of Europe", the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which had turned into a de facto Russian protectorate since the early 18th century but gradually tried to reassert its sovereignty at the expense of Russia's security interests.
Unilateral Russian moves inside its de facto protectorate could have risked a conflict with Prussia and Austria (which wasn't yet the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary by that time), hence the need to coordinate its partition, which was actually Frederick the Great's idea and then he and Catherine the Great convinced the Austrians to get involved too.
Poland by that time wasn't objectively a threat to any of those three, but the plans to restore its practical sovereignty vis-a-vis Russia were a perceived as a threat to Russia, and Russia's predictably corresponding actions could have been perceived as a threat to Prussia and/or Austria if carried out unilaterally without coordination between all three.
Prior to Poland becoming a de facto Russian protectorate in the early 18th century, it was already a shell of its former self following the disastrous events of the mid-17th century, namely Khmelnitsky's Uprising and The Deluge (joint Swedish-Russian invasions), it just took Russia's later manipulation of its dysfunctional political system to neutralize it.
Going back even further, it was on the eve of those abovementioned disastrous events that Poland could objectively be described as a threat to Russia (at that point still the Tsardom of Russia), whose capital of Moscow it occupied for two years from 1612-1614, becoming the first and only country to ever do so for any prolonged period of time.
Poland was also a threat to the Ottoman Empire and its allied Crimean Khanate, both with whom it had warred multiple times during that era and the preceding one, which represented the historic zenith of Polish power at home (given its socio-cultural developments) and abroad.
What later became Prussia was even a Polish fief for some time but gained independence following the disastrous events of the mid-17th century. Poland wasn't ever a threat to the Hapsburgs, however, who were reluctant to partition it in the late 18th century since they saw it as a buffer against Russia and an ally against the Turks (Poles saved Vienna in 1683).
What I'm trying to convey is that popular narratives about the Polish Partitions aren't really grounded in fact but are the product of German and Russian historical narratives that naturally predominated in Europe and beyond from that point onward due to them being the victors and much stronger Great Powers overall in terms of history.
The oft-repeated claim about how Poland "deserved" to be partitioned and the innuendo that it "deserves" the same yet again also totally ignores the interests of the Polish people, who had no influence over the foreign policy of those who ruled over them and were largely against forcible incorporation into any of the three neighboring empires.
This attitude is confirmed by them retaining their ethno-national uniqueness despite 123 years of partition and then successfully reviving and immediately afterwards defending the independence of their state after the full-scale Bolshevik invasion right after World War I upon winning the Battle of Warsaw ("Miracle at the Vistula").
I encourage you and anyone else who'd like to learn more about the objectively existing facts about Polish history and not the German or Russian distortions thereof that are so popular across the world nowadays to read either or both of these books, which can be found for free by doing a quick Google search:
The reality of what happened before, during, and after the Partitions is very different than how the public at large outside of Poland understands it. Poland has a very rich and proud history, but it's downplayed, ignored, and even at times distorted by self-interested political actors whose narratives regrettably went mainstream to the detriment of truth.
Ok, I admit that it was wrong to have mentioned the three partitions of Poland, which have indeed nothing to do with the present political situation and about which I am indeed very poorly informed. Sorry for that. It is also true that Europe must be very, very grateful to King John III Sobieski and his Polish winged hussars for having saved Vienna from the Ottomans. The point I was trying to make is that the present Polish elite is among the chief warmongers in Europe. If we keep on trying to settle old scores, there will never be peace in Europe.
And just two short years later in 1686 the Polish were represented again in a large international army to take Buda back from the ottomans. (Present day Budapest) This was actually the second attempt to take Buda as the earlier 1684 march there was not successful by the Holy League.
Thank you. This is another instance of what Europeans should do. That is: standing together against external threats, instead of destroying each other, as now happens in Ukraine.
That would indeed be nice, but we should not be naive in thinking that a true unification of Europe would be something that outside forces such as USA or U.K. would let simply slide. It's their chief geostrategic principle to prevent unification of Eurasia, because that would be fatal to their interests and potentially their existence in the long term.
No problem, it's perfectly alright, so many people don't have much of an understanding about Poland. It's normal actually. I'm glad that you enjoyed my detailed response. Have a nice weekend.
I think, unfortunately, we are entering a multi-decade era where such pronouncements ("they were always X", "they deserved to conquered because of Y") will be becoming more and more commonplace in Europe from all sides, as countries fall back on nationalism with the withdrawal of Americans to off-shore balancing. It's likely that such rhetoric and even accompanying provocations that promote strife inside Europe will be heavily bolstered by the agents of those want to submit it.
Please correct/add - Poland-Lithuania was a state in Central and Eastern Europe from 1569 to 1795.
"Poland saved Vienna in 1683" - To rescue the city, for the first time troops of the Holy Roman Empire allied with those from Poland-Lithuania, so not only the Poles. It was also the time of the "Bloody Flood"
There's nothing to correct since the Poles' indispensable role in that battle, which is acknowledged by all respected historians, doesn't detract from the contributions of others.
What I wrote didn't imply that it was only the Poles who fought there, just that they did indeed make all the difference. There's also no reason to add that the Commonwealth existed from 1569-1795, that's irrelevant to what I wrote.
Okay das kann man so sehen, ich meine aber trotzdem das immer alles in seiner Gesamtheit betrachten muß. Das Problem der heutigen Zeit ist ja gerade das verkürzen und damit entsteht immer der Eindruck, den wir auch heute im ukrainischen oder Gazakonflikt erleben. Aber wie gesagt Jeder soll seine Sichtweise haben aber es gibt nun mal nicht die eine richtige, wie sagt man so schön jede Medaille hat 2 Seiten.
Poland ain’t gettin’ nukes. France isn’t giving them any and the US sure as shit isn’t putting on Poland soil. Being a nuclear power isn’t about threatening to use them it’s about NEVER having to use them. The US isn’t going to allow these globalist liberals the chance to create any situation where they drag IS troops into WWIII. Fuck NATO too. It’s 60 years past the point where Europe starts getting off the American tit. China represents a much bigger threat to the world than Russia does and shifting towards a softer stance with Russia is what they have always wanted. Jeffrey Saks was right 35 years ago. Had we taken a softer stance when Russia collapsed none of this would be going on right now. Why everyone has done nothing but provoke Russia makes zero sense. They should have been brought into the European community when they were collapsing instead a hard line was instituted which gave rise to Putin and here we are.
Giving nukes to Poland under the present circumstances would be equaling to starting a nuclear war. I keep arguing long-long years ago that denying the incorporation of Russia into the West after 1991 was a self-destructive act and a calculated one as well. Had that been taking place the Chinese would be still producing pig iron in their backyards.
Jeffrey Saks was right. He had the agreement written up and ready to sign but it was denied. It’s not known who actually killed the deal as H. Bush might not have been involved in this decision. Otherwise the “thousand points of light” would have turned out different.
This whole Ukraine in NATO gambit is spinning out of control and it's all America's fault because it didn't accept peace back in 1991 and close NATO.
The U.S. still wanted to defeat Russia. And now U.S. foreign policy is probably more belligerent than it has ever been. The European tail is wagging the U.S. dog that it is attached to.
And with European countries now openly rigging their elections it seems things can only get worse. I highly doubt that Putin will get Gorbachev's dream of an all encompassing European security blanket accomplished.
What I find slightly exotic is that all kinds of countries elevated themselves to reproduce the 80 year old Manhattan Project but Poland did not. North Korea is already a nuclear power. Even South Africa, Libya and Iran initiated nuclear programs. Maybe the best would be to turn back toward a gradual nuclear disarmament program after the Ukraine experience.
There was a degree of stability there as long as the local regional forces ruled the land. The intrusion of Western Europe and America dismissed the sanity there during the 20th century.
One of the original ideas underlying the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, the ancestor of the European Union, was to bring lasting peace on our continent, especially between France and Germany, by merging their respective economies. As we can see today, this idea of lasting peace is no longer the priority of the EU, to put it mildly. One of the countries whose inclusion has helped changing the DNA of the European Union in this respect is Russophobic and Germanophobic Poland. It seems that the Poles keep on living in the past, in the glorious days of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, when their country was among the great powers in Europe. They are one of the main sabre rattlers in Europe, and, as I read, they apparently even dream of having nuclear weapons... Sometimes I understand why its neighbors partitioned Poland three times in the 18th century, until nothing was left of it.
I don't think that Poland's quest for nukes is realistic for the reasons that I explained, but its political Germanophobia and Russophobia -- which is distinct from the ethno-national dimensions of such phobias as are all such phobias such as Russia's Anglophobia for example -- are based on historical facts.
The ruling liberal-globalists are very pro-German though they've felt pressured by the public ahead of May's presidential election to make a pretense of being more pro-Polish/patriotic, at least regarding Polish policy towards Ukraine, which in some ways is more hardline than the former conservative government's.
The conservatives are traditionally much more politically Germanophobic and especially Russophobic, while the populists represented by Confederation's Mentzen are more pro-Polish/patriotic but still skeptical of both larger neighbors and historical rivals, so the socio-political situation in Poland isn't as clear-cut as you described it.
I agree that both governments -- the former conservative one and the current liberal-globalist one -- are both saber-rattlers and have a shared interest in promoting political Russophobia, but these developments are completely separate from the three 18th-century partitions.
Those processes took place amidst the three neighboring empires' security dilemma with one another over the first "sick man of Europe", the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which had turned into a de facto Russian protectorate since the early 18th century but gradually tried to reassert its sovereignty at the expense of Russia's security interests.
Unilateral Russian moves inside its de facto protectorate could have risked a conflict with Prussia and Austria (which wasn't yet the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary by that time), hence the need to coordinate its partition, which was actually Frederick the Great's idea and then he and Catherine the Great convinced the Austrians to get involved too.
Poland by that time wasn't objectively a threat to any of those three, but the plans to restore its practical sovereignty vis-a-vis Russia were a perceived as a threat to Russia, and Russia's predictably corresponding actions could have been perceived as a threat to Prussia and/or Austria if carried out unilaterally without coordination between all three.
Prior to Poland becoming a de facto Russian protectorate in the early 18th century, it was already a shell of its former self following the disastrous events of the mid-17th century, namely Khmelnitsky's Uprising and The Deluge (joint Swedish-Russian invasions), it just took Russia's later manipulation of its dysfunctional political system to neutralize it.
Going back even further, it was on the eve of those abovementioned disastrous events that Poland could objectively be described as a threat to Russia (at that point still the Tsardom of Russia), whose capital of Moscow it occupied for two years from 1612-1614, becoming the first and only country to ever do so for any prolonged period of time.
Poland was also a threat to the Ottoman Empire and its allied Crimean Khanate, both with whom it had warred multiple times during that era and the preceding one, which represented the historic zenith of Polish power at home (given its socio-cultural developments) and abroad.
What later became Prussia was even a Polish fief for some time but gained independence following the disastrous events of the mid-17th century. Poland wasn't ever a threat to the Hapsburgs, however, who were reluctant to partition it in the late 18th century since they saw it as a buffer against Russia and an ally against the Turks (Poles saved Vienna in 1683).
What I'm trying to convey is that popular narratives about the Polish Partitions aren't really grounded in fact but are the product of German and Russian historical narratives that naturally predominated in Europe and beyond from that point onward due to them being the victors and much stronger Great Powers overall in terms of history.
The oft-repeated claim about how Poland "deserved" to be partitioned and the innuendo that it "deserves" the same yet again also totally ignores the interests of the Polish people, who had no influence over the foreign policy of those who ruled over them and were largely against forcible incorporation into any of the three neighboring empires.
This attitude is confirmed by them retaining their ethno-national uniqueness despite 123 years of partition and then successfully reviving and immediately afterwards defending the independence of their state after the full-scale Bolshevik invasion right after World War I upon winning the Battle of Warsaw ("Miracle at the Vistula").
I encourage you and anyone else who'd like to learn more about the objectively existing facts about Polish history and not the German or Russian distortions thereof that are so popular across the world nowadays to read either or both of these books, which can be found for free by doing a quick Google search:
https://www.amazon.com/Poland-History-Adam-Zamoyski/dp/0781813018
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/concise-history-of-poland/99A5EC8F7CE8C93CDACB890F1DDFD502
The reality of what happened before, during, and after the Partitions is very different than how the public at large outside of Poland understands it. Poland has a very rich and proud history, but it's downplayed, ignored, and even at times distorted by self-interested political actors whose narratives regrettably went mainstream to the detriment of truth.
Ok, I admit that it was wrong to have mentioned the three partitions of Poland, which have indeed nothing to do with the present political situation and about which I am indeed very poorly informed. Sorry for that. It is also true that Europe must be very, very grateful to King John III Sobieski and his Polish winged hussars for having saved Vienna from the Ottomans. The point I was trying to make is that the present Polish elite is among the chief warmongers in Europe. If we keep on trying to settle old scores, there will never be peace in Europe.
And just two short years later in 1686 the Polish were represented again in a large international army to take Buda back from the ottomans. (Present day Budapest) This was actually the second attempt to take Buda as the earlier 1684 march there was not successful by the Holy League.
Thank you. This is another instance of what Europeans should do. That is: standing together against external threats, instead of destroying each other, as now happens in Ukraine.
That would indeed be nice, but we should not be naive in thinking that a true unification of Europe would be something that outside forces such as USA or U.K. would let simply slide. It's their chief geostrategic principle to prevent unification of Eurasia, because that would be fatal to their interests and potentially their existence in the long term.
No problem, it's perfectly alright, so many people don't have much of an understanding about Poland. It's normal actually. I'm glad that you enjoyed my detailed response. Have a nice weekend.
That was quiet a history lesson and the issue on hand is rather complex, thanks.
I think, unfortunately, we are entering a multi-decade era where such pronouncements ("they were always X", "they deserved to conquered because of Y") will be becoming more and more commonplace in Europe from all sides, as countries fall back on nationalism with the withdrawal of Americans to off-shore balancing. It's likely that such rhetoric and even accompanying provocations that promote strife inside Europe will be heavily bolstered by the agents of those want to submit it.
Hello Mr Korybkos
Please correct/add - Poland-Lithuania was a state in Central and Eastern Europe from 1569 to 1795.
"Poland saved Vienna in 1683" - To rescue the city, for the first time troops of the Holy Roman Empire allied with those from Poland-Lithuania, so not only the Poles. It was also the time of the "Bloody Flood"
There's nothing to correct since the Poles' indispensable role in that battle, which is acknowledged by all respected historians, doesn't detract from the contributions of others.
What I wrote didn't imply that it was only the Poles who fought there, just that they did indeed make all the difference. There's also no reason to add that the Commonwealth existed from 1569-1795, that's irrelevant to what I wrote.
Okay das kann man so sehen, ich meine aber trotzdem das immer alles in seiner Gesamtheit betrachten muß. Das Problem der heutigen Zeit ist ja gerade das verkürzen und damit entsteht immer der Eindruck, den wir auch heute im ukrainischen oder Gazakonflikt erleben. Aber wie gesagt Jeder soll seine Sichtweise haben aber es gibt nun mal nicht die eine richtige, wie sagt man so schön jede Medaille hat 2 Seiten.
Poland ain’t gettin’ nukes. France isn’t giving them any and the US sure as shit isn’t putting on Poland soil. Being a nuclear power isn’t about threatening to use them it’s about NEVER having to use them. The US isn’t going to allow these globalist liberals the chance to create any situation where they drag IS troops into WWIII. Fuck NATO too. It’s 60 years past the point where Europe starts getting off the American tit. China represents a much bigger threat to the world than Russia does and shifting towards a softer stance with Russia is what they have always wanted. Jeffrey Saks was right 35 years ago. Had we taken a softer stance when Russia collapsed none of this would be going on right now. Why everyone has done nothing but provoke Russia makes zero sense. They should have been brought into the European community when they were collapsing instead a hard line was instituted which gave rise to Putin and here we are.
Giving nukes to Poland under the present circumstances would be equaling to starting a nuclear war. I keep arguing long-long years ago that denying the incorporation of Russia into the West after 1991 was a self-destructive act and a calculated one as well. Had that been taking place the Chinese would be still producing pig iron in their backyards.
Jeffrey Saks was right. He had the agreement written up and ready to sign but it was denied. It’s not known who actually killed the deal as H. Bush might not have been involved in this decision. Otherwise the “thousand points of light” would have turned out different.
This whole Ukraine in NATO gambit is spinning out of control and it's all America's fault because it didn't accept peace back in 1991 and close NATO.
The U.S. still wanted to defeat Russia. And now U.S. foreign policy is probably more belligerent than it has ever been. The European tail is wagging the U.S. dog that it is attached to.
And with European countries now openly rigging their elections it seems things can only get worse. I highly doubt that Putin will get Gorbachev's dream of an all encompassing European security blanket accomplished.
A much simpler answer- when Trump was seeking to exit Ukraine, the Polish leadership talked peace and de-escalation.
Now that Trump has been brought back around, Poland is back to more provocation.
Sounds like a mental disease, but I suspect that it's so common among the breed that it's not recognized as such.
What I find slightly exotic is that all kinds of countries elevated themselves to reproduce the 80 year old Manhattan Project but Poland did not. North Korea is already a nuclear power. Even South Africa, Libya and Iran initiated nuclear programs. Maybe the best would be to turn back toward a gradual nuclear disarmament program after the Ukraine experience.
Eastern Europe seems to have been hit hard with psychopathy for at least the last few thousand years
There was a degree of stability there as long as the local regional forces ruled the land. The intrusion of Western Europe and America dismissed the sanity there during the 20th century.