[Goose]

The war in Ukraine makes us realise that, though history is a good teacher, it has some poor students. Several Western European politicians have forgotten the lesson offered by the Munich agreement of 1938. The analogies with the present situation are striking. The policy of appeasement, spearheaded by Britain’s prime minister at the time, Neville Chamberlain, was followed by the outbreak of the second world war within a year.

From an article written by the Polish prime minister in the economist.

https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/...id=1140839

Does that sound like the leader of a country that would roll over if hit by some Russian missiles?

BC

No, it sounds like the leader of a country that wants others to help him do what needs to be done. What does he do when they say no? If Putin actually invaded Poland, it would be a clear Article 5 case. If he threatens to hit a city and then does so when aid through Poland doesn't stop, what does Poland and the rest of NATO actually do? Concrete actions, not sentiments please. And how do those actions encourage Poland to continue to be an aid corridor? I realize this is a theoretical case, but it would be interesting to know what people think NATO and the EU/US would actually do about it.

Keep in mind that both Poland and Germany, as well as many other European countries are still using Russian gas, at least until the end od the year. That is Munich on steroids IMHO. AFAIK, some of that gas still flows through Ukraine. I wonder if Russia is still paying Ukraine? Anybody know?

[Goose]

The war in Ukraine makes us realise that, though history is a good teacher, it has some poor students. Several Western European politicians have forgotten the lesson offered by the Munich agreement of 1938. The analogies with the present situation are striking. The policy of appeasement, spearheaded by Britain’s prime minister at the time, Neville Chamberlain, was followed by the outbreak of the second world war within a year.

From an article written by the Polish prime minister in the economist.

https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/...id=1140839

Does that sound like the leader of a country that would roll over if hit by some Russian missiles?

BC

No, it sounds like the leader of a country that wants others to help him do what needs to be done. What does he do when they say no? If Putin actually invaded Poland, it would be a clear Article 5 case. If he threatens to hit a city and then does so when aid through Poland doesn't stop, what does Poland and the rest of NATO actually do? Concrete actions, not sentiments please. And how do those actions encourage Poland to continue to be an aid corridor? I realize this is a theoretical case, but it would be interesting to know what people think NATO and the EU/US would actually do about it.

Keep in mind that both Poland and Germany, as well as many other European countries are still using Russian gas, at least until the end od the year. That is Munich on steroids IMHO. AFAIK, some of that gas still flows through Ukraine. I wonder if Russia is still paying Ukraine? Anybody know?