Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak said 10,000 soldiers would ultimately be deployed to the border area. He made the announcement in a state radio interview a day after a different official said Poland was sending 2,000 additional troops to the border over the next two weeks, essentially doubling its military presence there.

  • Jeena@jemmy.jeena.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is obviously terrible but probably necessary when we look at how the whole thing is developing. Once you look aggressive enough you might be lucky so bullies leave you alone.

      • Jeena@jemmy.jeena.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        What do you think? Wouldn’t be the first time. But at least this time the Germans seem to be holding back.

        Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

          • ErC@lemmy.cryptoriot.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Does anybody seriously think that Russia or Belarus would gain anything by attacking a NATO country? It doesn’t make any sense at all. This is just a government trying to use fear to gain consent. Which is the way of doing politics of the last 50 years.

        • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

          I hate this saying. It’s not explicit, and logical consequence isn’t bidirectional, but it implies that those who do remember the past somehow won’t repeat it. Which is blatantly false. Many people, even those who intimately know history, want to repeat it. Either because they think material conditions are just different enough to lead to a different result this time, or that the precise way the actions in the past was carried out was subpar and with tiny tweaks it would lead to a different result, etc. I do generally agree with the explicit statement[1], but I strongly disagree with the implicit statement.


          1. And even on the explicit statement I still have reservations. Sometimes material conditions are different enough, or the precise manner in which actions are carried out are different enough that those who know nothing about the past aren’t condemned to repeat it: what those who know nothing about the past do is only superficially similar to the past, and can have radically different outcomes. ↩︎

          • Jeena@jemmy.jeena.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I appreciate your sentiment but the implication is just not really there, it doesn’t express anything about those who do remember the past.

            • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Read my edited footnote. I do not fully agree with the claim itself either.

              • Jeena@jemmy.jeena.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think you’re taking it too literary. It’s a cautionary tale to not keep doing the same mistakes over and over again but instead to learn from the past mistakes of others.

        • Ooops@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          For Russia, or in this case their puppet, to invade a NATO country? Yes, it actually would be the first time.

          • Jeena@jemmy.jeena.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            For Russia, or in this case their puppet, to invade Poland? No, it actually would not be the first time.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                17
                ·
                1 year ago

                Once you read the article 5, you’ll find out that it says that in case a NATO member is attacked then NATO will convene and each country will decide individually what level of support it will provide. There is no obligation for countries to send troops or get directly involved. And of course if Poland is stupid enough to attack Belarus or intervene in Ukraine then there is no obligation to do anything at all.

                Of course, even if NATO did agree to fight all together, it’s pretty clear that NATO is in a dire shape having sent much of what it has to Ukraine at this point. US has literally admitted to running out of basic stuff like artillery shells now.

                Y’all can downvote all you like of course, but that’s not going to alter reality. Maybe it’s time for people to reflect on the past two years of war in Ukraine and how everything western media claimed about the conflict has now turned out to be completely wrong.

                • flying_monkies@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s amazing how many people who say “you need to read xxx” have never actually read it…

                  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 and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

                  Thats from the NATO website. Doesn’t say they need to convene, it says that any member is allowed to respond in any manner they deem necessary.

                  NATO countries have more than 10,000 troops deployed in Poland. The last time Russia played a game of FAFO with the US,it ended poorly. Repeating that with NATO would be infinitely worse.

                  And no, despite Russian fanboy insistance, the US isn’t low on ammo. From the Secretary of the Army’s testimony to congress:

                  “[the Army is] comfortable that the amount of lethal assistance we’ve been providing is not eroding our readiness, but we keep a close eye on that.”

                  There may be issues with the amount of excess the US has to give away, I’ll believe that when I see the US govt stop sending it.

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    9
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s amazing how you didn’t even read the thing you quoted evidently:

                    if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

                    What do you think" exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence" and “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” means exactly?

                    It means that individual countries get to decide the level of support they provide ranging from nothing to getting involved militarily.

                    And no, despite Russian fanboy insistance, the US isn’t low on ammo. From the Secretary of the Army’s testimony to congress:

                    US aims to go from making 14,000 155mm shells each month to 20,000 by the spring and 40,000 by 2025. This is the amount of shells Russia uses per day in Ukraine.

                    And of course, the problem for US is the state of its industry you can’t just create factories, supply chains, and trained workers out of thin air the way you print money.

                    It’s pretty clear that people who believed all the bullshit before the war have learned absolutely nothing throughout the war.

            • Firemyth@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s yog again. Take a peek at his profile and it’s readily evident what he’s all about. 6k posts/comments in 4 years. He’s literally on here on average every day usually posting some new easily disproven/rabidly biased/propaganda. And when he does bother to argue it takes 30 seconds to deconstruct his argument after which he resorts to name calling and finally blocking you. Lol.

              Still nothing to see here and likely never will be anything to see here.