Statement from Poland on providing airplanes to Ukraine
gov.pl
gov.pl
They need to buy fighters not dependent on Russia and the US is a logical place to turn to. The F-16 is likely to be well within their budget today, since they plan to purchase F-35s in the future anyways.
They already own ~50, so that's a safe assumption. I'd suspect this trade involves free replacements from the US, too.
Poland has been quite successfully maintaining their MiGs, and even tried selling their services and hardware to other countries ( IIRC Croatia), and got sued by Russia for reverse engineering.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/biden-admin-talks-polan...
"The Biden administration is holding talks with Poland about a possible deal to help provide Soviet-era fighter jets to Ukraine, a White House spokesperson said."
Imagine being Polish politician and learning from US media you are in some kind of talks while none are taking place. US is making Poland look like a fool and forcing its hand. This is the result.
What is the alternative?
We have drastically increased our defense spending but it will take at least 5 years for Europe to be able to take on Russia by itself (with enough dominance that it will not destroy everything). Russia on the other hand is also not ready. And with the sanctions they can't afford to become ready.
Any American calling for appeasement or somehow suggesting this is all actually the US fault's. It's not at all. It's not about NATO, it's not about America.
It's about Russia being run as an authoritarian imperialistic etno state. The true demand is: we govern you and you join our war against the west: economically, politically and militarily. You either speak Russian or you die. You either become the property of the FSB, the oliargs and Putin or you die. Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakie, Latvia, Finland.. they are all next in line. And they are not making a secret of this!
The idea that there is anything but a full out war that will stop the Russians is ridiculous. We have no chill for more appeasement or supposed neutrality or diplomacy. You are not negotiating with a France or an America. You are negotiating with people who see any type of 'giving in' as weakness and encouragement to take more. We are not going to wait until the Russians our on our front doors as well.
At this rate within the next decade Europe will be spending more on its defenses than the US. That may be a good thing. But please, Americans, understand, this is a loyalty check for Europe and a strenght check for all your enemies. Don't blink. When talking about Russia only growl.
Everytime the US appeases, Russia is encouraged to do more violence, more aggression. The more clarity the US gives on when and how it will enter war, the less likely it is for the war to take place. And we really just need you guys to have the discpline for the next few years, and then we won't ever need US soldiers patrolling our borders, which seems fair and important (because there are more threats in this world than just the Russians!)
I think it depends very much on how interested they are in foreign affairs, and their particular political views.
I don't really fit "Democrat" or "Republican", but I definitely tend to lean more to the "Republican" side on this topic. Trump's platform included trying to get NATO members to "pay their fair share." Like most everything Trump says, that's unnecessarily confrontational, but the point is valid - Europe has been reliant upon US defense spending for decades. Because they know the US is there, they've cut defense spending. As you pointed out, that means they are currently incapable of effectively defending themselves without US intervention.
> It's about Russia being run as an authoritarian imperialistic etno state.
I think you're likely exactly correct here. More importantly, even if your analysis of Russia's motivations aren't quite right, you're "close enough." Their actions are consistent with this view.
> Everytime the US appeases, Russia is encouraged to do more violence, more aggression.
Because Russia currently sees the US as "Europe's military", you're absolutely correct.
> The more clarity the US gives on when and how it will enter war, the less likely it is for the war to take place. And we really just need you guys to have the discpline for the next few years, and then we won't ever need US soldiers patrolling our borders, which seems fair and important (because there are more threats in this world than just the Russians!)
Unfortunately, that's just not how the US political system works. We almost always have a fairly drastic change in leadership (and therefore foreign policy) every eight years. We often have it happen every four years.
There is a reason that Russia occupied Crimea in 2014, then didn't move on to annex more (or all) of Ukraine until 2022: the US had a leader that was unpredictable and relatively aggressive from 2016-2020. With Biden replacing Trump, Putin began spooling up the Russian war machine for the attempt. He'll take what he can take right now, then pause. He'll give Americans time for Ukraine to fade from the popular consciousness before our next election cycle. If Biden is re-elected, I expect he'll almost immediately move to take more territory. If it's someone else, he'll likely wait a few months to observer their policy decisions and decide whether to move or not in ~late 2025 and act in ~mid 2026.
Basically, Europe should plan on the US remaining passive until 2025 at the earliest. The only time you may have is while Putin is integrating Ukraine into Russia (or the "Russian sphere of influence", á'la Belarus). If I were the leader of a European power, I'd be putting defense at the highest possible priority short of a war footing. If I were the leader of an ex-Soviet state, I would be looking to build strong relationships with European states with stronger economies and militaries.
The 2020s are going to be rough for Europe.
Yeah, as a Dutch person, this always annoyed me to no extend. We have our wealthy liberal paradise, where spoiled pacifists spend their time making easy judgement about war decisions and sacrifices others make. Without any self realization that it is american troops and defense dollars patrolling the borders of our paradise enabling both the free speech & the prosperity to do so.
Thankfully, now that reality came knocking on the door, people realize and understand. But we do need to hold out a few years, before we have scaled it all up.
It definitely is the fault of governments and cultures like mine, but i'm going to give the Germans' a free pass on this, because their hesitation was more understandable. They can't invest in bombs without the world getting stressed and asking whom they are for. Now they can, because no one needs to ask.
>the US had a leader that was unpredictable and relatively aggressive
That made it harder for us to trust him as well, but yeah, in terms of dealing with foreign aggression, "crazy" is not a "crazy" strategy.
But please realize that much of the polarization within the US is of Russian design. Feeding into it is one way we all would loose. It is not just Europe that has an enemy here. Quite the opposite. We are just physically closer, but we don't live rent free in their FSB minds, the way the US does.
But this is not a war against NATO or even America. It is a war against Europe.
...actively sabotaging NATO, so there was no time pressure motivating the high-risk strategy of invasion.
Do people and pundits have memory of a goldfish?
Trump was literally impeached for blackmailing Zelensky, and witholding US arms and support, unless he opened an investigation into Biden (which Zelensky refused). If it wasn't for Trump, Ukraine would be better prepared today. There is also ample evidence of Trump's links to Russia that go all the way to the top, records of him admiring Putin, etc.
It should be obvious that the reason war started now is gas shortages in Europe - Puting thought EU would place their cozy safety over solidarity with Ukraine, and he thought the war would be over so quickly, the beurocratic sanction-machine wouldn't get a chance to get going. He miscalculated.
> Europe has been reliant upon US defense spending for decades.
This is a myth - Europe has more soldiers, planes, tanks and missiles than Russia. There is no asset except nukes where Russia has an advantage.
Russian military spending is 5% of Nato. Reminded that US spending is not 95% of nato. Their current issues in Ukraine should make it clearer for anyone who wasn't convinced.
Europe perfectly capable of holding it's own when it comes to defence - what's lacking is a unified military structure and command, as that was always done through Nato.
I was mostly on the same page until this part. I don’t buy this.
Like “Trump wouldn’t have let Afghanistan fall”. It’s being repeated often on the right without acknowledging the events of his admin that suggest otherwise or ignoring that administration’s possible contributions to the outcome.
Trump’s public-comments and actions would have seemed to encourage rather than discourage Putin.
Regardless, this explanation also feels too US-centric. Isn’t the election of Zelensky rather than a pro-Russian candidate among other things a likely reason for escalation?
> 141 countries vote to condemn Russia at UN
> Between the lines: Serbia, which has close historical ties with Russia, surprised many observers by voting in favor of the resolution.
[1] https://balkaninsight.com/2021/02/16/in-serbia-states-ties-t...
[2] https://www.occrp.org/en/openlux/serbian-presidents-best-man...
Trade with Russia is not that significant for Serbia, 5-8%. And we mostly import oil and gas. As long as EU keeps buying that from Russia there are no issues there. We export food to Russia, and we can probably have a barter trade if banking system is completely cut off.
All of this is pretty much insignificant and mostly about diplomatic "are you with or against us". Serbia is too small to make any kind of real difference either way.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/26/poll-trump-r...
Poll the public on general relativity or quantum physics and they’ll likely get it wrong. The same is probably true for complex geopolitical questions.
I thought that would be clear without the need for any explanation. Maybe the fact that explanation is needed gives an indication of the sorry state of the democratic process.
It’s an insanely silly way of assessing “what would Putin have done in an alternate timeline”.
Everything written is in such contradiction to reality outside my window, I can't help but wonder what are you smoking?
On foreign policy - specifically, with regard to the tone of the US's involvement in NATO - I believe Trump was much better than Biden. On other issues, Trump was often... "suboptimal".
The biggest issue I have with Trump is what the person you're replying to said: "He was a dumpster fire." It's difficult to lead a country when the very tone of your rhetoric angers half of it. He anger the Democrats enough that many voters would have elected _anyone_ to replace him.
On the other hand, Trump's bombastic personality and over-the-top rhetoric is probably the only way a Republican could have been elected in 2016. I'm not sure it was a solvable problem.
Perhaps the invasion was planned for a second term, and COVID threw a giant wrench in the works.
N=1, 2008. Russia invades/attacks Georgia[1]. US President: George W. Bush; US Vice President: Dick Cheney.
N=2, 2014. Russia annexes Crimea[2]. US President: Barack Obama; US Vice President: Joe Biden.
N=3, 2017-2021. No invasion of Ukraine. US President: Donald Trump; US Vice President: Mike Pence.
N=4, 2022. Russia invades Ukraine[3]. US President: Joe Biden; US Vice President: Kamala Harris.
Since Russia/Putin has attacked its western neighbors during three of the last four US president's terms, it appears Trump constrained Putin's expansionism, regardless of whether we liked Trump's manner of diplomacy or not. And Biden was in office during the annexation of Crimea, so he can be the "control group" for pre- and post-Trump policies toward Russia.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai...
-edited for readability.
False; Russian forces were continuously involved in Ukraine (even outside of Crimea) in the Donbas war, with no significant, even transitorily successful, ceasefire until late 2020.
> Since Russia/Putin has attacked its western neighbors during three of the last four US president's terms, it appears Trump constrained Putin's expansionism,
Since in fact that happened in four of the four last presidential terms, that doesn't work even if you ignore that the logic here is simply very weak correlation even if the premises were correct.
1. This is kind of funny when you think about it. I mean is Russia going to all of a sudden be very confused and think that the Americans gave Ukraine MIG-29s? No. Poland did. What's the point of the roundabout way of doing this? Maybe Poland is worried about intermediate range missiles targeting Polish airbases. But that seems like an escalation that Russia isn't interested in, unless they're in it for all the marbles.
2. This is further severing of ties between Russia and NATO-aligned countries. I expect other former Soviet Union states to follow and also acquire U.S. aircraft. They don't want to be reliant on Russian parts or technical know-how, and this further strengthens NATO around common aircraft and components. Expect American defense contractors (and some European ones as well) go get more business from countries such as Poland.
As I am thinking about this I think #2 is really what this is all about, but that Poland doesn't want to deal with transferring the aircraft to Ukraine and the Americans are glad to do it.
1. Ukraine forces know how to pilot MIG29s
2. Poland has MIG-29s, USA does not
3. Poland has time to retrain on newer equipment, Ukraine does not
4. Poland doesn't want to be defenseless, if it gives aircraft to Ukraine.
So Poland gives Ukraine exactly what they need right now... USA agrees to aid Poland in replacement aircraft.
This isn't about "USA didn't give Ukraine aircraft", Poland did! It's about getting Ukraine the aircraft they know how to use right now
My guess is that this transfer of the MiGs to the U.S. is to facilitate this exchange in a rapid manner that would take too long through regular procurement processes.
Poland can't afford to donate it's air power so readily, but the USA allows them to with this move. It will also shift their military to be more on spec with other NATO countries.
If the Americans give the Ukrainians jets and Russia has a problem with it, they can fight it out with the Americans. They're both further-removed and a much larger adversary. Furthermore, it says more-emphatically, "Poland didn't give them those planes, NATO did it together. Don't like it? Come get some."
The point is that Russia has specifically threatened any country whose territory hostile flights are deployed out of and, implicitly, particularly the specific bases; in case the direct flight of the planes to Ukraine is viewed as hostile, Poland wants them deployed out of a US base in Germany, not out of Poland.
> But that seems like an escalation that Russia isn’t interested in, unless they’re in it for all the marbles.
Sure, but Russia being in it for all the marbles isn’t a possibility that can be ruled out, and neither is miscalculation if that is not the case, and neither (if you are Poland) can the possibility of a failure or insufficiency of NATO response to an attack on Poland be ignored.
The risk of Russia thinking they can get away with it, and the risk of an inadequate NATO response, and the risk to Poland in any circumstance are all mitigated by moving the focus to a US base in Germany.
The US state department is saying they were not informed of Poland's decision [1].
Poland has already called out the US state department for "fake news" when the US said Poland was sending those MIGs to Ukraine [2].
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/u-says-wasnt-pre-consulted-202635492.... [2] https://twitter.com/PremierRP_en/status/1500345167211114497
I'd guess the US is gonna put some resources into refurbing and arming these planes, so it's simpler to just give them to the US up-front and send them to a US airbase.
I've been assuming they're stuck on Soviet weapons and with upgraded, but still outdated, electronics, but if that's not the case, it changes things a lot.
Comms etc not sure, these must have been somewhat matched.
This. Biden said on 24 Feb that the US will be 'involved' if [Putin] moves into NATO countries. Now we're to believe NATO wants to move Migs into Ukraine?
This isn't [yet] NATO vs Russia. Let's not make it that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/us/politics/us-ukraine-we...
What do you think all those Russian tanks were blown with.
From that angle, an aircraft is only a small step upward.
It really does make a difference who is flying the plane or pulling the trigger, in both real-world capability and scope.
Source?
A few days ago Zelensky was quoted as saying that "NATO [has] provided nothing but 50 tons of diesel"
Zelensky is, of course, trying to goad NATO into directly intervening. Ukrainian messaging has been remarkably consistent and well orchestrated.
I'm happy that the americans are willing to help in general, but I don't like their direct involvement without being provoked (too scared of another total mess).
/1 When buying 48 F-16 in 2002 Lockheed Martin declared almost $10B cross military gear imports and technology transfers, then it melted down to $6B with minimal militry gear imports and zero technology transfer, and finally ended up with US taking over mayor Polish military aviation companies - PZL Rzeszow (parts) went to UTC/Pratt&Whitney, PZL Mielec (heli/light transport planes) again to UTC/Sikorski then Lockheed Martin with Poland being charged extra for service parts coming out of those factories.
I would guess Moldova, considering that it's not a NATO member and Russia already has a presence as peacekeepers protecting the breakaway province of Transnistria. And Moldova is closer to the Balkan countries that Russia is keen on.
For comparison, at the start of the conflict Ukraine had about 70 fighters and Russia about 900.
[1] https://defence24.pl/technologie/kto-przekaze-ukrainie-swoje...
[2] https://twitter.com/komadovsky/status/1498403101258231830
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_militar...
Let's be precise here...
The reluctance of Poland to do this directly is completely understandable, as it borders both Belarus and Russia,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶a̶t̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶i̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶w̶a̶r̶ ̶(̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶i̶g̶n̶o̶r̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶'̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶m̶ ̶l̶i̶t̶t̶l̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶o̶h̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶r̶a̶m̶b̶l̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶o̶i̶n̶t̶)̶.
Getting some replacement F-16s out of all this is also important: who in their right mind would want to reduce the air force just as three of your neighbors are at war?
The relevant statement I'd read had to do with letting Ukraine operate from air bases in other countries, not with supplying aircraft, which seemed to be a carefully crafted statement to avoid calling aircraft transfers an act of war, since it came out right around the (second) time this started to be talked about. Was there another?
That's already moot since Romania is letting Ukrainian aircraft come here. 1 Su-27 previously and 9 helicopters today: https://universul.net/update-ukrainian-helicopters-land-in-r...
From the article you linked. If that's accurate, the warning is very narrowly about letting Ukraine fly combat missions from other countries' airfields. They seem to have staked that out as their "OK, do what you like, but go past this line and we'll be big mad" position.
Secondly weapons are useless without trained operators. I imagine Ukrainian military does not have experience operating NATO weaponry.
It looks like a very thinly veiled attempt at denying direct involvement. Everyone knows those MIGs are going to be given to Ukraine.
> The former German planes are not only the most worn out, but also have been adapted by the Luftwaffe to the western standard, so it would be more difficult for Ukrainian pilots to control
Nobody wants to technically be the excuse Putin needs to use his nukes or whatever he's going to do next. But what difference does it make, Putin is going to do whatever he wants, trying to tiptoe around these lines drawn in the sand isn't going to change things.
When you read https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/biden-admin-talks-polan...
>The Biden administration is holding talks with Poland about a possible deal to help provide Soviet-era fighter jets to Ukraine, a White House spokesperson said.
>The deal would involve Poland donating its old Russian-made MiG fighters to Ukraine, and then replacing them with the purchase of U.S.-made F-16 jets.
>“We are working with the Poles on this issue and consulting with the rest of our NATO allies,” a White House spokesperson said.
>Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sunday confirmed that the discussions are underway but said the timing is still unclear.
and at the same time those very "talks" are Blinken merely suggesting the possibility of working something later down the road "but we must act now", and you already got screwed by US to the tune of $10B on military deals (initial F-16 purchase), then you know to tread carefully.
Not to mention surprised pikachu face https://mobile.twitter.com/ak_mack/status/150129250400772096...
>Undersecretary of State Toria Nuland, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, just said this statement was not pre-consulted with the U.S. Seems to have come as a bit of a surprise."
So Biden officials leak "advanced talks" to the press while Undersecretary of State doesnt know anything about it and is not in the loop.
EDIT: And there it is https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/296018... here come the weasel words:
"We will continue consulting with our Allies and partners about our ongoing security assistance to Ukraine, because, in fact, Poland's proposal shows just some of the complexities this issue presents.
We will continue to consult with Poland and our other NATO allies about this issue and the difficult logistical challenges it presents, but we do not believe Poland's proposal is a tenable one."
Typical US goading others to do the dirty work, but when push comes to shove "its complicated and untenable"
Putin wants to test boundaries to find spongy contours. The more clear cut a situation is, the better.
And kill NATO personnel in the airbase. Russia has now murdered American and Polish soldiers on Polish soil. It's pretty clear cut what happens next.
No, it's not. Does NATO let the ICBMs fly? Does NATO switch to conventional war mobilization and march into Ukraine? Shoot some conventional missiles at Russian targets in Ukraine? How about if Russia issues a statement that the strikes were against legitimate Ukrainian targets, they do not intend to attack any more NATO territory, and they will pay reparations for Polish casualties? If Russian military activity demonstrates an adherence to that statement, it technically renders article 5 mutual self defense less applicable.
To avoid escalation, there is give and take at any level of aggression, just as when a fighter jet violates airspace. A posteri the destruction of Ukrainian jets at a Polish airfield, the desire to avoid nuclear war remains the same. The best thing is to avoid getting into the situation in the first place - by making attacking the in-transit Ukrainian jets a direct attack on the largest NATO power, the US.
If we apply this logic fully, Russia can invade Poland, Germany, France, all of Europe, and nobody will dare defend out of fear of nuclear war.
NATO reciprocates hitting back with cruise missiles the originating place.
Also you guys only have MiG 21s and I think they’re looking for 29s.
As honourable as the current Polish support for Ukrainians is, I’m almost sure it would be different if they weren’t fighting Russia and instead, say, were affected by a famine.
The first MiG-21 that came off the assembly line isn't really comparable to the variants being flown by Romania today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-2...
“ The authorities of the Republic of Poland, after consultations between the President and the Government, are ready to deploy – immediately and free of charge – all their MIG-29 jets to the Ramstein Air Base and place them at the disposal of the Government of the United States of America.”
If Russia wants to retribute, it will have to attack the US and Germany, which it ends up in ww3 territory.
Basically, any additional move, will end up being such escalatory, that it will have to think twice about it. Especially the lower level troops that will be ordered to carry any such attacks.
Deploying one single NATO aircraft from NATO territory into Ukraine is escalatory. It doesn't make any difference if it's a Mig or an F16, or whether it flew from an airbase in Germany or Poland.
Russia is shelling civilian buildings. I'm concerned that the line will be drawn at some point after the genocide starts. That's too late.
"Two American MIG-29's intercepted a Russian bomber and escorted it out of NATO airspace today."
Just has a strange ring to it.
https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1501334216851828737
> BREAKING - Pentagon response to Poland's proposal on jets: "We will continue to consult with Poland and our other NATO allies about this issue and the difficult logistical challenges it presents, but we do not believe Poland’s proposal is a tenable one.”
- Phil Stewart (Military & Intelligence Correspondent@Reuters)
For now, there is no functional difference between destroyed equipment and disabled equipment. Turning this disabled equipment into destroyed equipment carries risks for no immediate gains. (Granted, this might look like a poor decision in hindsight)
IANA… not L, but anyway. Maybe they're trying to attack a few bits and pieces so the convoy locks up lots of Russians and their equipment and can't be either resupplied or moved. (Tankers and other trucks would need to refueld the entire convoy.)
Small Air forces normally have multiple pilots on a training rota for each jet, the multiple can be several times over depending on how tight your air force budget is. So yes between active pilots and reservists they will most likely have pilots for all of them.
Won't Russia see any aircraft entering Ukrainian airspace as hostile and 1) Attack it 2) Attack wherever the aircraft came from?
Seems such a risky thing that really won't have much impact on the outcvome of the conflict :-(
Countries that don't have people willing to die for them are just lines on a map.
And Russia does have systems to take down low-flying aircraft, it's just not very effective as you need to be in the right place at a right time. Mid-to-high altitude flights would be pure suicide against Russian AA systems.
There are US forces in Poland:
https://news.yahoo.com/us-fighter-jets-land-poland-173812228...
Poland is a member of NATO.
An attack on Poland would invoke NATO Article 5 without question.
EDIT: and remember 1939. They can simply drag their feet on actual military retaliation until the immediate threat subsides. A Russian invasion of Poland is highly unlikely. It’s not an objective of theirs. And without the threat of an invasion that would directly threaten larger economic powers, is a conflict with Russia even rational? NATO will simply absorb the hit.
If Russia attacks Poland with ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and NATO failed to respond then it would effectively make the NATO articles nothing more than words on paper. An attack on any NATO member would cross the line. The NRF has been activated and stands ready to act:
"Following Russia’s unjustified and unprovoked attack on Ukraine, February 2022, and in line with its defensive planning to protect all Allies, NATO is taking additional steps to further strengthen deterrence and defence across the Alliance. This includes the activation of elements of the NRF for the first time in a deterrence and defence role. Allies have placed thousands of additional troops – along with armoured vehicles, artillery units, ships and aircraft – at high readiness earmarked for the NRF, ensuring that it continues to have the speed, responsiveness and capability to defend NATO territory and populations."
Source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
>> EDIT: and remember 1939. They can simply drag their feet on actual military retaliation until the immediate threat subsides.
2022 is not 1939. NATO did not exist in 1939.
>> A Russian invasion of Poland is highly unlikely. It’s not an objective of theirs. And without the threat of an invasion that would directly threaten larger economic powers, is a conflict with Russia even rational? NATO will simply absorb the hit.
Neither an invasion nor economic threats are required to trigger Article 5. Conflict with Russia is not rational, but neither is Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
Poland feels _more_ comfortable doing this than the alternative, though. If Russia stands unopposed in Ukraine, who do you think is next?
No they didn't. The only country that broke it is Russia.
"4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;"
We've had plenty of nuclear threats at this point; fear of escalating to nuclear war is precisely what limits Ukraine's ability to get aid. A condemnation, as the US raised, is not "action."
You think that Germany considers Russia a reasonable partner? German newspapers that used to praise Merkel now don't criticize her for making Putin stronger? The government doesn't drop plans with Nordstream 2, also no plans appear to search for an alternative to russian gas?
I'm sorry if the rhetoric I've chosen here sounds passively aggressive, but the "purely rational perspective" you described is very far from what I consider rational.
This is a really smart move to finally solidify the power of NATO - or get rid of it if it doesn't actually have that power.
Of course it's not certainty as you wrote but the thought at the back of the head about history repeating itself and possibility of being considered as just the buffer zone and potential battle ground for western europe countries is there for many people - and that's why in addition to having borders with countries at war Poland may be perceived as treading twice as carefully in this situation.