From what? Russia is not planning to invade the EU.
Russia also loudly denied any plans to invade Ukraine until they rolled across the border. And they've been repeatedly caught committing barbaric atrocities against civilians in occupied territories.
So if the Poles want to sign up for military training, then more power to them. Being willing to defend your loved ones and your country is a noble endeavor. You don't even need a specific reason. And if the Poles want the ability to defend themselves without being utterly reliant on their NATO allies, that's their right.
End This War, not Endless War
End this War please
Whenever I dug in more deeply, Russia has warned about using nuclear weapons to preserve its own territorial integrity.
One could argue that declaring Donbass Russian is a semantic trick to "justify" using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. But where is the threat against EU countries?
The Russian ambassador to London has just declared that they won't use nuclear weapons in Ukraine (Sky News). Is he lying? Possibly, but that contradicts open threats.
Honestly, even waiting until the first rumblings of a possible invasion seems to start preparing contingency plans is too late, because once the rumbling start, people will complain that anything that visibly attempts to resist it is "too provocative."
Isn’t this the default mode of operation for the media? Are there any countries (Nordic?) where most of the media isn’t corrupt, fear mongering, clickbaity etc?
this is absolutely what I see in the USA .. all year
There's a reason why Russia's neighbors are suddenly eager to join NATO or increase military readiness.
Russia just wanted to remove the puppet installed by US and install their own puppet
Appeasing expansionist fascists never works. Europeans had started to forget that lesson (Western Europe more so than Eastern Europe, whose memory was much fresher), but they're rapidly relearning it.
Meh, guess HN needs additional rules against throwaway spam.
Finland gave Stalin a bloody nose in the Winter War, and then negotiated a peace treaty. That's not what appeasement is, that's warfare, that's why it's called the Winter War, not the Winter Appeasement.
Appeasement is the idea that you let the criminals take over your neighbors house and hope they won't want to take over your house next.
What? Nobody, besides this sockpuppet, called the Winter War "appeasement" because it would be fundamentally wrong to do so.
If someone calls a fire a flood and demands you build better drainage solutions to stop the fire, you don't argue the merit of drainage solutions for water, you tell them that a fire isn't a flood.
What's with the "let's just make up random bullshit and pretend it makes sense" approach?
I would agree that technically the use is wrong, but that's the climate we live in.
And please read the headline, it talks about Musk wanting to go for appeasement. Musk isn't Ukraine, he isn't even in Ukraine. That's exactly what appeasement is: Musk wants Ukraine to give up lands so Russia is satisfied. It's exactly what they thought when the Third Reich was invading its neighbors: "they haven't attacked us, so maybe we can stay out of the conflict if we just accept that they invade their neighbors". Russia 2022 and Germany in the 1930s even use the same language to argue for their claims.
That's something completely different than suggesting that negotiating with an invading army, and giving them what they want, is appeasement. Which is nonsense.
Hardly appeasement at all.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/10/12/musk-tw...
"Musk appeasement of Putin and China stokes fears of new Twitter policies"
Since the beginning of the war, there are literally hundreds of similar examples. Not calling it appeasement would earn you the title of "Russian asset".
> Since the beginning of the war, there are literally hundreds of similar examples. Not calling it appeasement would earn you the title of "Russian asset".
How does such a title matter?
[1] Even in Crimea, it is not clear that a majority of the population would have voted to become a part of Russia in a free & fair election. It's certainly clear that everywhere else in Ukraine, support for being a part of Russia extends no further than wherever Russian forces occupy.
I don't get the point of this. Are you looking for someone to place the blame on, or what? What is the point of throwing these arbitrary postulations in someone's face? Closing one's eyes and ears, and pretending that the cause-effect wasn't obvious serves what specifically?
> Even in Crimea, it is not clear that a majority of the population would have voted to become a part of Russia in a free & fair election.
It's wasn't clear in 1995 if they wanted to be dissolved into Ukraine[*]. And freshwater blockade for the most of the last decade clearly didn't bring any good sentiments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Crimea_(1992%E2%80...
> It's certainly clear that everywhere else in Ukraine, support for being a part of Russia extends no further than wherever Russian forces occupy.
Well, yeah, when you remove all the opposition, and then remove the voting rights from the people who didn't support your revolution, it certainly becomes "clear".
But then Russia supposedly took it too far and for some reason now everyone thinks it was Russia invading Georgia when it was actually Georgia invading Ossetian Tskhinval, which happened to have a defence pact with Russia, triggering the 5-day war.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-georgia-russia-report-idU...