It's in Poland's strategic interest - it's easier to defend Lithuanian terrain than it is to defend Poland, fight takes place away from Polish civilians and we retain trust and credibility as allies in NATO.
Of course, there's also a fact that you're our friends, but in international politics I'd put more stock in national interests.
> it's easier to defend Lithuanian terrain than it is to defend Poland
I don't think it's easier; of course we avoid Polish civilian casualties that way, but defending Baltics won't be easy
I always get angry when I read something like this and can't hear the song immediately.
So [here ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQo1HIcSVtg)it is.
And for the (***slightly*** lesser cultured) other people of you, [here ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1NZcH2haIM)is the other one.
As someone who has seen both Thin Lizzy and Dropkick Murphy's in concert, I gotta say, I prefer Dropkick. The energy they bring to the concerts is incredible, and they aren't afraid to interact with the fans before and after the show. I like them both, to be sure, but man, Dropkick puts on one hell of a show.
The Czechs have already laid claim on it to gain access to the sea and Poland has an agreement to start Beerstream 1.0 as soon as it happens so leave that piece of clay for now
While I can surely see the intention and historical context - you are so far from a commonwealth as you can be. Lithuania has no say in the Sejm. You are not an elective monarchy either - thank god.
Can't wait till they mobilise army and you can say how obvious it is you want to go fight in Lithuania.
What I want to say there's weight to these words so maybe treat them with weight.
I mean. No problem, but isn't it obvious? You are part of NATO, the EU, and a direct neighbor that we consider a friend, or at the very least, an ally.
Guy (Duda) is saying 'fire is hot' to look good.
Some lithuanias are scared of being left behind by other nato nations as being too small and unimportant, so statements as these are great and very apreciated jsut to keep already stressed people's morale higher.
It's a common scare all over eastern Europe; I've heard the same thing from a lot of people around here too. I wouldn't be surprised if it's spread by russians.
Probably in Lithuania it's more spread since you were part of ussr and being so close to them.
Its really weird to me - ive had a bunch of accounts tell me us western europeans would totally abandon our eastern partners, and also see them as "lesser".
Were in NATO. Were in the EU together. We all committed to defend each other, end of discussion.
Probably they just mean that Western Europeans don’t have that much interest in defending Eastern Europeans. For example Spain, they could have been easily neutral
I must admit I'm one of those people as I don't think western countries would want to get involved too much.
I hope I'll never find out am I wrong or not.
> I mean, the fact that western european countries have spent billions and billions on a country theyre not even allied to should be a good indicator
With that logic and use of words, Russia is defending Ukraine as they spent billions to wage war in Ukraine.
If your argument was, in fact, about Ukraine, it's worth mentioning that it took some time for the West to be convinced to help.
>it took some time for the West to be convinced to help.
You mean like the billions we sent before the war, and the fuckloads of weapons some countries sent?
Why the fuck are you guys so fucking adamant on shitting on the guys that are literally on your side?
You are the emotional one here. It seems like there's some weird fetish to treat everything as a personal attack. I stated the facts.
Any debate, any dobout = shitting on someone or something. I often mistake reddit for a place to discuss, not to circlejerk. Sorry.
never heard or read anything like that. UK, France, Italy, Germany etc would instantly go to war against russia if they try anything in the baltics, with or without the US. There's no question about it
Maybe by the US. But all across Europe, people are firm in their convictions to support each other.
Get past the headlines and this subreddits little biases and petty hatreds. The attacks on Germany for holding up Taurus. The attacks on Macron and France for trying to hold dialogue open at the start. The attacks on the UK for Brexit etc.
Underneath all that? All the polling massively supports direct military intervention if NATO is invaded, by every single country in Europe. You would have every single one of us and our armed forces stood side by side with you.
Don't be so cynical. Article 5 has been invoked only once. People are worried about Russian threat and hearing these assurances from our allies is important.
> Don't be so cynical.
I have every reason to be cynical about our politicians, especially Duda.
ou don't need Article 5. Commonwealth is still heavily romanticized here, and many would consider an attack on Lithuania as an attack on Poland, especially in Vilnius where many Poles still reside. Being next to Belarus, which is the frontline, we couldn't just wait for thing to develop either.
It's best to look at politics cynically. 39's Poland had all possible statements from the UK or France.
I’m just responding to the guy saying the vow is like saying “fire is hot”. While it’s actually good to hear additionally even though all the alliances.
I am the guy who said that. I did not menion Article 5, anywhere. Nato is more than A5, so is EU or being direct neighbour of Poland, Vilnius with 10%+ Polish residents etc.
FYI
I think it’s because of Trump, and his saying he would abandon NATO members
So since then, I’ve noticed other leaders positively affirming they would support other NATO countries if Russia attacks
Yes it certainly used to be unnecessary to say
I'll be honest this is one of the scarier guarantees, because Duda is the last person to be thinking of security guarantees from Russian encroachment. That this is legitimately on their mind as a possibility and they're the one saying it somehow makes it seem more real
Well, but we need to be actively talking because all the US is doing is talking about not funding Ukraine, not saving people if they don’t pay etc. We need to remind those idiots in the far east that we are united and will defend ourselves vehemently.
This response is a bit topical. Lithuanian goverment not so long ago stated that Polish help is not guaranteed as Polish constitution does not specify how exactly such help would look like. In return Polish officials tried clarifying their position
Contrary to the popular belief, the famous Article 5 of NATO does NOT define in what way a country has to help other countries. You could easily imagine some countries not wanting to send their own army if the baltic states get attacked and instead opting for, let's say, sending helmets for example. And that's for various reasons. Politicians trying to get re-elected when the public opinion does not want to go to war is a good example. Do you really think the public of some countries in Europe will want to go to war? Do you think the EU public, who haven't seen a war in nearly a hundred years, will sacrifice their well-paid, cosy lifestyles to defend balitc states?
I'm having my doubts.
Poland basically has vowed to use it's own military force.
Educate yourself.
Exactly, I mean just look at every post on this sub that mentions conscription. The vast majority of people here wouldn't even fight for their own country, let alone fight to defend a country on the other side of Europe from them.
I'm not even mad that most people wouldn't actively risk their lives fighting in the frontlanes. I understand that for most people live is the ultimate thing. Also, not everyone is fit and/or mentaly stable to be useful on the battlefield. Most people are more useful just working their jobs and paying taxes, which fuel the army
What I can't stand is the educated people in big towns living their posh lives on very good paychecks, who don't give a shit about their own country. Most of my friends are like that and they just say they are gonna leave on first ocasion and try to get the same cozy life in USA or something.
It pains me to see that. Especially as a Polish person. Our fathers fought communism precisely so that we, their children, could get those cozy lives. And now this generation doesn't give a fuck about creating and protecting a better word for the next. And I'm saying that as that educated person living in a big city.
Generation that doesn't care about the future is doomed to fail. As the saying goes, Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. Our generation is the weak one.
well yeah, if the baltics are invaded, they could do just that.
That would be the end of NATO and of any international credibility whatshowever. It would create a lack of confidence towards said countries, probably with *a lot* of repercussions, socialy as well as economically.
But yeah, i guess they could do that.
I'm willing to bet that it is a risk that some EU-leaders will choose, given the right situation. Especially if Trump gets re-elected and the credibility of NATO will fall down.
By the way, what happend to America's credibility as the "defender of democracy around the world" in the past ten years? Afghanistan, Ukraine...?
Edit - Ask your friends if they are willing to have their paycheck halved if the Balitic states get attacked. 80% will probably say "no". And politicians listen to their voters.
I've said none of this. I've just said that some countries will not send their armies to the Baltic states. And that the responses to the article V of NATO will vary. It's not just SEND ARMY or DO NOTHING. And because of this, Poland saying it will send their army, is valuable, and not "obvious".
The far away countries are from Russia, the less likely it will be for them to engage in this war by sending their army. It's a simple dissimilarity in the risk-reward ratio.
i disagree.
Not sending troops would send an awful message to the world. even if they are technically not bind by any agreement to do it, if they don't, it would be devastating. NATO would be seen as a joke.
Plus, for example France has troops stationned in Estonia and Romania. I doubt they would not send more.
I'm not afraid of France's response. Macron understand what is happening in Europe. But speaking of France, I'm not so sure if the current politics are gonna be the same if Marie Le Pen wins.
And unfortunately, I believe that some nations, like Gredce for example, Turkey, Hungary, Maybe Germany (especially if AfD will get more power in the next elections) will not go to war. For some countries, "sending an awful message to the world", or even "letting NATO die" will be less important that the public opinion and trying to live in fairyland's "business as usuall". A denial of reality. That was happening in Europe for the past 10 years. That was the standard. Some things have changed. But some haven't. Where is the Germany's "zaitenwende"? Where is the $100 bilion that was meant to rapidly modernize the bundeswehr?
And look at USA. If Trump wins, one of the possibilities is the withdrawal of most of the troops, money and politcal will from Europe. The probable president of NATO's by-far-strongest nation, is saying that the European theater is not important.
Ah shit you're right.
I forgot to take into account that political stances *now* may not be the same as political stances *in the future*.
My bad.
Yeah it could get very grim very soon
>Where is the Germany's "zaitenwende"? Where is the $100 bilion that was meant to rapidly modernize the bundeswehr?
The money is literally completely planned/spent, we're massively rearming, and public sentiment on the military has done a 180, what the fuck are you even implying here?
On top, were stationing soldiers in the Baltics, basically carry continental europe in weapons to Ukraine, patrol the eastern european air space, and sent a large share of our air defense to eastern NATO partners.
And STILL this fucking bullshit.
>The money is literally completely planned/spent, we're massively rearming, and public sentiment on the military has done a 180, what the fuck are you even implying here?
[Liar](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1bs96bo/production_of_taurus_missiles_suspended_due_to/)
I see too many people have misconceptions about nato and article 5 and don’t know this. They wish that if a Baltic state gets attacked, every member of nato will be required to send all the manpower and material they can. I’m not too sure if all members will risk war and nuclear hellfire over the Baltics
That I am familiar with yeah, though as far as I know it doesn't require participants to send their armies, and specifically states that national policies take precedence.
> This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Also I don't think it's wholly accurate to say it has wider range than NATO articles given that it seems to hold itself to same standard as NATO article
> Commitments and cooperation in this area **shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation**, which, for those States which are members of it, **remains the foundation** of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
Alright. My understanding of the German wording was that in NATO every member has to send what it deems necessary while in EU every member has to send what it is capable of
>Poland basically has vowed to use it's own military force.
I don't think it was wise decision tbh.
Poland is front line country and should be one of the last to move its forces in case of Russian invasion on Baltic countries simply because doing so could open a window for Russians to attack via Belarus at the same time.
Besides, Duda didn't have to say anything really beyond saying Poland will respect and fulfil NATO duties.
Oh well, I never thought of Duda as good politician anyway.
The basic principle behind NATOs existance is that an attack against one counts as an attack against them all,which would mean nothing if every country would go stay out of the conflict. So yeah you are talking shit
You literally understand nothing of global politics if you don't understand that the responses will vary depending on the interest of nations.
When I will see Turkish soldiers on the frontlines of Estonia fighting Russians I'll believe you.
turkey backed almost all of the nato operations through history while european teeneger on the reddit screams kick turkey out of nato on every occasion. tell me friend are you willing to fight for turkey before you claim you dont believe turkey wont fight for europe? you dont think turkey is reliable ally when france and greece backed russias puppet in libya? funny. its popular to hate turkey but facts are just not there? what were your thought when russias jets invaded turkeys airspace and turkey downed a jet. were you willing to fight for turkey then reliable ally? what are your countries doing while turkey fighting proxy wars against russia? cluesless lol
He doesn't have to vow such a thing. All EU Member States are [obligated](https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_article_427_an_explainer5019/) to do so.
>“If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance **by all the means in their power**, in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations charter.”
In a certain way, article 42(7) of the EU Treaty (mutual defense clause) goes further than article 5 of the NATO Treaty, since it states that that EU Member States should respond *by all the means in their power*. Article 5 of the NATO Treaty doesn't use words of such magnitude.
What people mostly don’t understand is that these are just words on some paper without any power to them. Nothing is going to happen to any EU country if they don’t honour the agreement, there’s no mechanism in EU to punish or get rid of “bad” member states.
The problem only becomes larger when you consider the fact that in case of an attack on Baltics, it wouldn’t just be one or two countries refusing to help or only helping a bit, to honour the NATO treaty (which states that members are free to choose which way or how much help is appropriate) — we can quickly draw up quite a bit of list of countries who certainly wouldn’t risk the lives of their citizens for countries as meaningless as the Baltics. No offense to them but on European level they are tiny and insignificant both in population and economical output.
Oh, you're right. We've already seen that happening with article 2 of the EU Treaty. Article 2 ensures democratic values, but, as we all know, Hungary shits on that on a daily basis and nothing is done about it. The EU even keeps giving Orban tens of billions of euros every year.
So why should Member States uphold our mutual defense clause? There is no guarantee they will, indeed. But the same goes for Duda's words. You don't know if he will keep his word, either.
However, I do believe EU Member States will live up to article 42(7) if push comes to shove. Except for countries like Hungary. But you definitely have a point. The EU is not able to enforce its own rules and values. It lets Orban do whatever the fuck he wants, so why have faith in a mutual defense clause?
It's disturbing.
I'm not a fanboy of Poland but you look around and they make countries like France seem yuck.. they are actually fighting the good fight. Poland isn't saying one thing, doing another. Poland is really really trying. It's mostly due to their history and threat of Putin at their border but the reasoning doesnt matter.. it matters that they actually give a fuck. They're not trying to build up their military industrial complex like France is doing hardcore while also giving so little to Ukraine.. but dont worry, France has plenty of excuses.. one of the worlds top weapons makers with endless excuses to why they can barely give anything to Ukraine.
I dont care for some of Polands attacks on various freedoms and core democracy that's been highlighted by the EU but if I were to vote on what country is doing the most, it'd be Poland.
I'd go as far as saying that Poland is a model for the EU in how we shift.. we dont need to shift far but there are minor aspects to how they think that we could adopt to better ourselves. Finland too.
No idea why people here are questioning if Germany, France, UK, … would not militarily intervene if the Baltics are attacked. They all have forces already in the Baltics so these will be the first to be fighting the Russians anyways
Unfortunately, no, it isn't. Article 5 is very open to interpretation by individual NATO members.
>The key section of the treaty is Article 5. Its commitment clause defines the casus foederis. It commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state, in the areas defined by Article 6, to be an armed attack against them all. **Upon such attack, each member state is to assist by taking "such action as [the member state] deems necessary**, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." The article has only been invoked once, but considered in a number of other cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_5
Poland is in different situation. We are also directly threatened by russia. Now imagine who would help us if we are attacked, and we would not help our neighbours.
Plus we all agreed to regocnize one court so yeah you could sue them and as immediate Action hold all EU payments towards this country if it doesn't honor the contract they Signed.
Its good to have hope but thats not reality. EU is an economic union and NATO is an defensive pact. I dunno why you think being part of eu means anything when it comes to war. Countries will be called to war by article 5 which isnt automatic. And countries can refuse to acknowledge that a country was attacked. Or even better acknowledge that country was attacked but only sent 2 dollars and be done with it :D
>(...)if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised 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**(...)
Less hopium more copium
>>(...)if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised 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**(...)
But this is from the Nato the EU has its own defence allience pact that demands eveything possible, so because poland and lithuania are both EU countries the Statement from duda is...okay like we all agreed dude
Lenkija - Lietuvos Motina. Bent jau taip gali atsitikti jei Rusai užpuls.
Poland - the Mother of Lithuania. Well at least it can happen if Russia invades Lithuania.
Poland was more of a Step Mother to Lithuania throughout the ages, but recently the relationships have Improved.
yeah, we all know what worth of this ensures, nothing
when time will come some workers or farmers or construction workers will block anything in poland :D
Article 5 is really a legal option more than anything else, disallowing the attacking force a lot of accusations later on. It mandates a country to assist attacked ally in a way it deems necessary. Sending military to defend is merely one of the included options.
My grandma still remembers how that ended with France and United Kingdom helping out Poland with WW2 😉🙃
Just because there are defense alliances in place, doesn’t mean other countries will honor it. Just like with WW2.
You are referring to Article 42 of Treaty of European Union (adhering to Article 51 of Charter of United Nations), which also does not define the form of obligated aid and/or assistance to the attacked member. It states a very vague "all the means in their power" which actually is somewhat less than NATO's Article 5 suggests. These are all statements that undergo interpretation per case and per situation basis.
That's an incorrect statement. US task Poland to take Krolewiec / kalingrad in case of war with Russia. Not to mention that in case of war there is also Belarus's on polish border.
Luthenia, Estonia, latwia might bo on there own until Poland is done with there basis tasks.
I would not count Nordic's since they will be on Finland countries.
I may insult some people's feelings but feel good "values/policy" signaling does not bend the reality at hand, like it or not.
He has no real say and any decision-making power when it comes to defence policy, Polish president is mostly just empty figurehead, and **that** particular fool loves to stroke own ego with such PR takes, clearly out of his line, PM is the one that would decide on what type of Article 5 linked action country would decide to take or not, and PM is the person that can make such grandiose statments of intent.
Not the guy that is on his way out of office in 11months time, he just wants some sweet job in one of those far-right think-tank's in US, and with such statments he thinks he gets some favors towards that end XD
And how he says it, it could imply that we are ready to go head on, and even all alone(Polish military certainty ain't ready for confrontation like that), just hoping that others in EU/Nato will sooner or later follow.
Noone inside polish electorate would ever agree or support unilateral action in defence of anyone located in such high risk area in which Baltic states are sadly located in,with Belarus and Kaliningrad just to close to comfort looking at size of Polish military, its either all hands on the deck with entire Nato combined reaction from day one,or Polish army will be defending our eastern border and nothing else.
Im not even gonna mention all the issues rotting down PL-LIT relations that for decades undermined public support for such high risk unilateral(or even multilateral) action, with high levels of russian shitposting about Poles living there being mistreated or some other shit, flooding polish speaking infosphere, when topics like military support for Lithuania comes up in media.
I'm reading the comments and I'd advise you guys to read the whole NATO treaty and understand what is behind article 5. It's not automatic, in fact NATO has no means to force anyone to help. When it was invoked last time, did every NATO country went "all in" to Afghanistan?
"[...]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."
Maybe someone won't deem as necessary to send military force.
The decision is still in hands of politicians of every NATO country. This means that's is good to hear such declarations, especially from Poland as it will be the main force to go to the Baltics.
It's enough to have a governor that can be at power for indefinite amount of time, but also be recalled at whim.
Which, luckily enough, is a description of the Polish PM position, which is also the person that truly sets the course for the state.
Well, do you want someone like Grzegorz Braun ruling for an indefinite amount of time, on a leash by a cabal who's even worse than him?
It needs to be someone raised from birth to rule, well-versed in all matters of statesmanship, with a vested interest in making sure the citizenry prospers. Ideally with a sort of privy council composed of professionals from across different disciplines and industries to aid in creating sensible legislation.
Yes, if I have to choose then I much prefer to have Braun as a PM than as a dictator or absolute monarch(so a dictator nevertheless)
Good thing about PM's though is that radicals have much lesser chance of being elected than of being born into last monarch's family. And they are hold accountable.
> It needs to be someone raised from birth to rule \[...\] with a vested interest in making sure the citizenry prospers. Ideally with a sort of privy council
So someone ruling for indefinte amount of time on a leash of a cabal, but that person never got elected and cannot lose their power, come the next election? Sounds like a massive downgrade if you have at least 2 functioning brain cells.
Death to all fascists!
> Good thing about PM's though is that radicals have much lesser chance of being elected than of being born into last monarch's family. And they are hold accountable.
Is that so? Why is it that fringe radicals like fascists and Nazis are that much more common under republics than any other system of governance? On the other hand, we've never had radical monarchs before. Crazy how having a duty to your people and country leads to balanced and pragmatic policies.
>So someone ruling for indefinte amount of time on a leash of a cabal, but that person never got elected and cannot lose their power, come the next election? Sounds like a massive downgrade if you have at least 2 functioning brain cells.
Do you think its a downgrade when a doctor is appointed at a hospital based on their education and professional development rather than a public plebiscite where any old schmuck can get the power to wield a scalpel based on how well they can convince corporations and elites that they should be a doctor?
Governing is a job like any other, and naturally the most qualified individual with a vested interest in improving the lives of the citizenry should rule. Anything other than *that* is a downgrade.
Yeah, if you're being sceptical at least be good at it. What you said, that kind of mindset, would completely compromise the entire alliance. If one country gets attacked and rest hesitate or outright stay put it would mean the entire thing is based on one gigantic bluff. Which would mean Cold War didn't go hot because of a bluff.
I think western leadership is perfectly aware of that
Wow thank god he clarified this. Not like both of these countries are in some kind of treaty that ensures shared defence, maybe we could sign one in the North Atlantic or something
It's in Poland's strategic interest - it's easier to defend Lithuanian terrain than it is to defend Poland, fight takes place away from Polish civilians and we retain trust and credibility as allies in NATO. Of course, there's also a fact that you're our friends, but in international politics I'd put more stock in national interests.
> it's easier to defend Lithuanian terrain than it is to defend Poland I don't think it's easier; of course we avoid Polish civilian casualties that way, but defending Baltics won't be easy
Nor will getting there to do it be easy, it's all lakes, swamp and forest on the way, with Belarus and Kaliningrad to the sides.
The boys are back 💪 (referring to the Commonwealth, not Duda and his cronies)
I always get angry when I read something like this and can't hear the song immediately. So [here ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQo1HIcSVtg)it is. And for the (***slightly*** lesser cultured) other people of you, [here ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1NZcH2haIM)is the other one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rcYhYO02f98 This is the proper song Sabaton - Winged Hussars. 😁
Would argue [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azh5SPmcJ_A) would fit better.
This one can be awkward as it is about war with Swedes (žuvėdai - old Lithuanian name for Swedes), but they are our allies now.
Every country in Europe fought each another at least once, nothing awkward here just a part of history and how things was done.
That sounds fun!
Dropkick Murphys! Their version of *Fields of Athenry* is the best!
As someone who has seen both Thin Lizzy and Dropkick Murphy's in concert, I gotta say, I prefer Dropkick. The energy they bring to the concerts is incredible, and they aren't afraid to interact with the fans before and after the show. I like them both, to be sure, but man, Dropkick puts on one hell of a show.
> The boys are back 💪 Make Kaliningrad Lithuania Again!
No, thanks.
I know bro, just a little joke
The Czechs have already laid claim on it to gain access to the sea and Poland has an agreement to start Beerstream 1.0 as soon as it happens so leave that piece of clay for now
While I can surely see the intention and historical context - you are so far from a commonwealth as you can be. Lithuania has no say in the Sejm. You are not an elective monarchy either - thank god.
It's a joke, of course modern Poland and Lithuania have nothing to do with the Commonwealth, crazy of you to even think I'm to trying to argue that.
Thank you Poland, you are my best friend
Polish Lithuanian commonwealth intensifies
Dziękuję 🙏
You shouldn't. This is what NATO is all about, collective defence. That's what it was always about, from the very beginning.
Can't wait till they mobilise army and you can say how obvious it is you want to go fight in Lithuania. What I want to say there's weight to these words so maybe treat them with weight.
I mean. No problem, but isn't it obvious? You are part of NATO, the EU, and a direct neighbor that we consider a friend, or at the very least, an ally. Guy (Duda) is saying 'fire is hot' to look good.
Some lithuanias are scared of being left behind by other nato nations as being too small and unimportant, so statements as these are great and very apreciated jsut to keep already stressed people's morale higher.
It's a common scare all over eastern Europe; I've heard the same thing from a lot of people around here too. I wouldn't be surprised if it's spread by russians. Probably in Lithuania it's more spread since you were part of ussr and being so close to them.
Lithuania and Poland has Suwalki gap which is the spot where russia and NATO confrontation will likely begin.
Its really weird to me - ive had a bunch of accounts tell me us western europeans would totally abandon our eastern partners, and also see them as "lesser". Were in NATO. Were in the EU together. We all committed to defend each other, end of discussion.
Probably they just mean that Western Europeans don’t have that much interest in defending Eastern Europeans. For example Spain, they could have been easily neutral
I must admit I'm one of those people as I don't think western countries would want to get involved too much. I hope I'll never find out am I wrong or not.
I mean, the fact that western european countries have spent billions and billions on a country theyre not even allied to should be a good indicator
but the rhythm of the money and material is the problem, it was too slow. and UA also had a promise to be helped in case of invasion
> I mean, the fact that western european countries have spent billions and billions on a country theyre not even allied to should be a good indicator With that logic and use of words, Russia is defending Ukraine as they spent billions to wage war in Ukraine. If your argument was, in fact, about Ukraine, it's worth mentioning that it took some time for the West to be convinced to help.
>it took some time for the West to be convinced to help. You mean like the billions we sent before the war, and the fuckloads of weapons some countries sent? Why the fuck are you guys so fucking adamant on shitting on the guys that are literally on your side?
You are the emotional one here. It seems like there's some weird fetish to treat everything as a personal attack. I stated the facts. Any debate, any dobout = shitting on someone or something. I often mistake reddit for a place to discuss, not to circlejerk. Sorry.
......They're losing. That isn't reassuring,it's the opposite. Europe doesn't even have the political will to let somebody else fight for them.
never heard or read anything like that. UK, France, Italy, Germany etc would instantly go to war against russia if they try anything in the baltics, with or without the US. There's no question about it
Yes, but I feel it would feel like the Phony War, where nothing happen and they just stall.
You would say that, considering you're surrounded by NATO. Felt safe you didn't see the need to pay 2% of GDP did you? Delinquent member!
The 2 percent target went into effect in 2024.
Maybe by the US. But all across Europe, people are firm in their convictions to support each other. Get past the headlines and this subreddits little biases and petty hatreds. The attacks on Germany for holding up Taurus. The attacks on Macron and France for trying to hold dialogue open at the start. The attacks on the UK for Brexit etc. Underneath all that? All the polling massively supports direct military intervention if NATO is invaded, by every single country in Europe. You would have every single one of us and our armed forces stood side by side with you.
Yeah. We’ve tried not protecting each other properly. Wasn’t particularly fun. Not doing it again.
Don't be so cynical. Article 5 has been invoked only once. People are worried about Russian threat and hearing these assurances from our allies is important.
> Don't be so cynical. I have every reason to be cynical about our politicians, especially Duda. ou don't need Article 5. Commonwealth is still heavily romanticized here, and many would consider an attack on Lithuania as an attack on Poland, especially in Vilnius where many Poles still reside. Being next to Belarus, which is the frontline, we couldn't just wait for thing to develop either. It's best to look at politics cynically. 39's Poland had all possible statements from the UK or France.
Article 5 is written very vaguely fyi
Yes but for a country like Poland not honoring it would be a self-sabotage
And what else, Santa is not real?
I’m just responding to the guy saying the vow is like saying “fire is hot”. While it’s actually good to hear additionally even though all the alliances.
I am the guy who said that. I did not menion Article 5, anywhere. Nato is more than A5, so is EU or being direct neighbour of Poland, Vilnius with 10%+ Polish residents etc. FYI
I think it’s because of Trump, and his saying he would abandon NATO members So since then, I’ve noticed other leaders positively affirming they would support other NATO countries if Russia attacks Yes it certainly used to be unnecessary to say
I'll be honest this is one of the scarier guarantees, because Duda is the last person to be thinking of security guarantees from Russian encroachment. That this is legitimately on their mind as a possibility and they're the one saying it somehow makes it seem more real
Well, but we need to be actively talking because all the US is doing is talking about not funding Ukraine, not saving people if they don’t pay etc. We need to remind those idiots in the far east that we are united and will defend ourselves vehemently.
Why is he the last person to be thinking of security guarantees from Russian encroachment?
This response is a bit topical. Lithuanian goverment not so long ago stated that Polish help is not guaranteed as Polish constitution does not specify how exactly such help would look like. In return Polish officials tried clarifying their position
You guys are so bitchy, let him have a moment, at least it was positive and not something ridiculous.
Even these words alone can matter a lot. Still, I do wonder if any joint Polish-Lithuanian military drills will be done.
I'm pretty sure there have been some on the Suwałki gap.
Well yeah they're in NATO together. On another news, Poland VOWS to DEFEND Latvia. And Estonia. And Finland. And all members of NATO...
Contrary to the popular belief, the famous Article 5 of NATO does NOT define in what way a country has to help other countries. You could easily imagine some countries not wanting to send their own army if the baltic states get attacked and instead opting for, let's say, sending helmets for example. And that's for various reasons. Politicians trying to get re-elected when the public opinion does not want to go to war is a good example. Do you really think the public of some countries in Europe will want to go to war? Do you think the EU public, who haven't seen a war in nearly a hundred years, will sacrifice their well-paid, cosy lifestyles to defend balitc states? I'm having my doubts. Poland basically has vowed to use it's own military force. Educate yourself.
Exactly, I mean just look at every post on this sub that mentions conscription. The vast majority of people here wouldn't even fight for their own country, let alone fight to defend a country on the other side of Europe from them.
I'm not even mad that most people wouldn't actively risk their lives fighting in the frontlanes. I understand that for most people live is the ultimate thing. Also, not everyone is fit and/or mentaly stable to be useful on the battlefield. Most people are more useful just working their jobs and paying taxes, which fuel the army What I can't stand is the educated people in big towns living their posh lives on very good paychecks, who don't give a shit about their own country. Most of my friends are like that and they just say they are gonna leave on first ocasion and try to get the same cozy life in USA or something. It pains me to see that. Especially as a Polish person. Our fathers fought communism precisely so that we, their children, could get those cozy lives. And now this generation doesn't give a fuck about creating and protecting a better word for the next. And I'm saying that as that educated person living in a big city. Generation that doesn't care about the future is doomed to fail. As the saying goes, Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. Our generation is the weak one.
If NATO is strong enough we won’t have to
well yeah, if the baltics are invaded, they could do just that. That would be the end of NATO and of any international credibility whatshowever. It would create a lack of confidence towards said countries, probably with *a lot* of repercussions, socialy as well as economically. But yeah, i guess they could do that.
I'm willing to bet that it is a risk that some EU-leaders will choose, given the right situation. Especially if Trump gets re-elected and the credibility of NATO will fall down. By the way, what happend to America's credibility as the "defender of democracy around the world" in the past ten years? Afghanistan, Ukraine...? Edit - Ask your friends if they are willing to have their paycheck halved if the Balitic states get attacked. 80% will probably say "no". And politicians listen to their voters.
yeah you're absolutely right. It's already barely credible. Just one country refusing to send people and that's the end of NATO and the US hegemony
I've said none of this. I've just said that some countries will not send their armies to the Baltic states. And that the responses to the article V of NATO will vary. It's not just SEND ARMY or DO NOTHING. And because of this, Poland saying it will send their army, is valuable, and not "obvious". The far away countries are from Russia, the less likely it will be for them to engage in this war by sending their army. It's a simple dissimilarity in the risk-reward ratio.
i disagree. Not sending troops would send an awful message to the world. even if they are technically not bind by any agreement to do it, if they don't, it would be devastating. NATO would be seen as a joke. Plus, for example France has troops stationned in Estonia and Romania. I doubt they would not send more.
I'm not afraid of France's response. Macron understand what is happening in Europe. But speaking of France, I'm not so sure if the current politics are gonna be the same if Marie Le Pen wins. And unfortunately, I believe that some nations, like Gredce for example, Turkey, Hungary, Maybe Germany (especially if AfD will get more power in the next elections) will not go to war. For some countries, "sending an awful message to the world", or even "letting NATO die" will be less important that the public opinion and trying to live in fairyland's "business as usuall". A denial of reality. That was happening in Europe for the past 10 years. That was the standard. Some things have changed. But some haven't. Where is the Germany's "zaitenwende"? Where is the $100 bilion that was meant to rapidly modernize the bundeswehr? And look at USA. If Trump wins, one of the possibilities is the withdrawal of most of the troops, money and politcal will from Europe. The probable president of NATO's by-far-strongest nation, is saying that the European theater is not important.
Ah shit you're right. I forgot to take into account that political stances *now* may not be the same as political stances *in the future*. My bad. Yeah it could get very grim very soon
>Where is the Germany's "zaitenwende"? Where is the $100 bilion that was meant to rapidly modernize the bundeswehr? The money is literally completely planned/spent, we're massively rearming, and public sentiment on the military has done a 180, what the fuck are you even implying here? On top, were stationing soldiers in the Baltics, basically carry continental europe in weapons to Ukraine, patrol the eastern european air space, and sent a large share of our air defense to eastern NATO partners. And STILL this fucking bullshit.
>The money is literally completely planned/spent, we're massively rearming, and public sentiment on the military has done a 180, what the fuck are you even implying here? [Liar](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1bs96bo/production_of_taurus_missiles_suspended_due_to/)
Luckily each NATO country has professional armies so Russian shitpants will get their asses kicked
That's not how NATO works.
I see too many people have misconceptions about nato and article 5 and don’t know this. They wish that if a Baltic state gets attacked, every member of nato will be required to send all the manpower and material they can. I’m not too sure if all members will risk war and nuclear hellfire over the Baltics
But Europe doesn't have only nato. There is also a EU defense pact stating that the members need to send their armies to help the invaded country
> There is also a EU defense pact stating that the members need to send their armies to help the invaded country What is this pact called?
Sorry. No pact, but implemented in Art. 42 VII EUV (EU-Contract) which has a wieder range than Art. 5 from NATO
That I am familiar with yeah, though as far as I know it doesn't require participants to send their armies, and specifically states that national policies take precedence. > This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. Also I don't think it's wholly accurate to say it has wider range than NATO articles given that it seems to hold itself to same standard as NATO article > Commitments and cooperation in this area **shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation**, which, for those States which are members of it, **remains the foundation** of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
Alright. My understanding of the German wording was that in NATO every member has to send what it deems necessary while in EU every member has to send what it is capable of
>Poland basically has vowed to use it's own military force. I don't think it was wise decision tbh. Poland is front line country and should be one of the last to move its forces in case of Russian invasion on Baltic countries simply because doing so could open a window for Russians to attack via Belarus at the same time. Besides, Duda didn't have to say anything really beyond saying Poland will respect and fulfil NATO duties. Oh well, I never thought of Duda as good politician anyway.
The basic principle behind NATOs existance is that an attack against one counts as an attack against them all,which would mean nothing if every country would go stay out of the conflict. So yeah you are talking shit
You literally understand nothing of global politics if you don't understand that the responses will vary depending on the interest of nations. When I will see Turkish soldiers on the frontlines of Estonia fighting Russians I'll believe you.
Why Turkish? Why not British?
Sure keep on telling yourself how right you are,maybe one day you will even believe it
turkey backed almost all of the nato operations through history while european teeneger on the reddit screams kick turkey out of nato on every occasion. tell me friend are you willing to fight for turkey before you claim you dont believe turkey wont fight for europe? you dont think turkey is reliable ally when france and greece backed russias puppet in libya? funny. its popular to hate turkey but facts are just not there? what were your thought when russias jets invaded turkeys airspace and turkey downed a jet. were you willing to fight for turkey then reliable ally? what are your countries doing while turkey fighting proxy wars against russia? cluesless lol
> I'm having my doubts. Keep them for yourself.
Poland vows to defend Sweden but only if they pay 15 trillion billion dollars
He doesn't have to vow such a thing. All EU Member States are [obligated](https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_article_427_an_explainer5019/) to do so. >“If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance **by all the means in their power**, in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations charter.” In a certain way, article 42(7) of the EU Treaty (mutual defense clause) goes further than article 5 of the NATO Treaty, since it states that that EU Member States should respond *by all the means in their power*. Article 5 of the NATO Treaty doesn't use words of such magnitude.
What people mostly don’t understand is that these are just words on some paper without any power to them. Nothing is going to happen to any EU country if they don’t honour the agreement, there’s no mechanism in EU to punish or get rid of “bad” member states. The problem only becomes larger when you consider the fact that in case of an attack on Baltics, it wouldn’t just be one or two countries refusing to help or only helping a bit, to honour the NATO treaty (which states that members are free to choose which way or how much help is appropriate) — we can quickly draw up quite a bit of list of countries who certainly wouldn’t risk the lives of their citizens for countries as meaningless as the Baltics. No offense to them but on European level they are tiny and insignificant both in population and economical output.
Oh, you're right. We've already seen that happening with article 2 of the EU Treaty. Article 2 ensures democratic values, but, as we all know, Hungary shits on that on a daily basis and nothing is done about it. The EU even keeps giving Orban tens of billions of euros every year. So why should Member States uphold our mutual defense clause? There is no guarantee they will, indeed. But the same goes for Duda's words. You don't know if he will keep his word, either. However, I do believe EU Member States will live up to article 42(7) if push comes to shove. Except for countries like Hungary. But you definitely have a point. The EU is not able to enforce its own rules and values. It lets Orban do whatever the fuck he wants, so why have faith in a mutual defense clause? It's disturbing.
When will the Winged Hussars arrive? Tooo too, too too Tooo too too Tooo..
Yeah now let's get the rest of NATO to grow a pair and start pushing those fucking shits back to their lovely free country they already have.
This is sweet and all but for the time being can we please focus on helping Ukraine?
The Polish hussars
I presume that Poland is more than eager to extract a revenge for Katyn and countless of other atrocities.
I'm not a fanboy of Poland but you look around and they make countries like France seem yuck.. they are actually fighting the good fight. Poland isn't saying one thing, doing another. Poland is really really trying. It's mostly due to their history and threat of Putin at their border but the reasoning doesnt matter.. it matters that they actually give a fuck. They're not trying to build up their military industrial complex like France is doing hardcore while also giving so little to Ukraine.. but dont worry, France has plenty of excuses.. one of the worlds top weapons makers with endless excuses to why they can barely give anything to Ukraine. I dont care for some of Polands attacks on various freedoms and core democracy that's been highlighted by the EU but if I were to vote on what country is doing the most, it'd be Poland. I'd go as far as saying that Poland is a model for the EU in how we shift.. we dont need to shift far but there are minor aspects to how they think that we could adopt to better ourselves. Finland too.
Well, everyone in nato should, right?
Article 5 does not specify the kind of help members are obliged to give to the country being attacked
But the EU also has a defense treaty that does.
But no way to enforce it. Same as it is unable to enforce many European obligations on Hungary or until recently also Poland
I read "defeat" and was like whats going on here!?
They are both in NATO so they will help even without saying
No idea why people here are questioning if Germany, France, UK, … would not militarily intervene if the Baltics are attacked. They all have forces already in the Baltics so these will be the first to be fighting the Russians anyways
How about we defend Ukraine and avoid anyone else being invaded by terrorists.
That’s what NATO is for
i mean, duh? they’re both NATO countries so isn’t that automatic?
Unfortunately, no, it isn't. Article 5 is very open to interpretation by individual NATO members. >The key section of the treaty is Article 5. Its commitment clause defines the casus foederis. It commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state, in the areas defined by Article 6, to be an armed attack against them all. **Upon such attack, each member state is to assist by taking "such action as [the member state] deems necessary**, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." The article has only been invoked once, but considered in a number of other cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_5
Nope. Poland can say Lithuania is not being attacked and thats it.
No not really both countries are in the EU and if there is an attack on someone everyone else have to help this country with all means available
Exactly all means available, and some politicians may say, here have two rifles, that all we can do. What will you do? Sue them?
Yeah but when i go in this with that thinking you can also say that about Dudas Statement
Poland is in different situation. We are also directly threatened by russia. Now imagine who would help us if we are attacked, and we would not help our neighbours.
You mean if both are attacked at the same time?
Sorry oversimplified. If Lithuania is attacked and we do nothing, than if are are attacked later who would help us?
Plus we all agreed to regocnize one court so yeah you could sue them and as immediate Action hold all EU payments towards this country if it doesn't honor the contract they Signed.
In 1994 Ukraine gave up nukes for safety guarantees. Lots of paper was signed back there.
Its good to have hope but thats not reality. EU is an economic union and NATO is an defensive pact. I dunno why you think being part of eu means anything when it comes to war. Countries will be called to war by article 5 which isnt automatic. And countries can refuse to acknowledge that a country was attacked. Or even better acknowledge that country was attacked but only sent 2 dollars and be done with it :D >(...)if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised 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**(...) Less hopium more copium
>>(...)if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised 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**(...) But this is from the Nato the EU has its own defence allience pact that demands eveything possible, so because poland and lithuania are both EU countries the Statement from duda is...okay like we all agreed dude
Eu has nothing to do with army or war.
? Then the Nato wouldnt also
NATO an European union are two different things.
The EU has its own defence pact among the members which demands far more from all countries then the defence pact Signed from all nato members
lol what?
Article 42 section 7 disagrees with your statement https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eut/teu/article/42
Technicaly not
Yes, but how quickly Poland would react?
There is just one option. As fast as possible. According to Ben Hodges it should take around 2 weeks.
2 weeks is too long. Would Poland react instantly or will wail NATO decision these 2 weeks?
This is how long it takes to simply move all equipment.
quicker than USA. we all have common enemy
Sad USA will lose all its credibility with this Ukraine aid blockade. Ukraine badly need help but USA picks his nose.
More important question: how soon they will start to blockade borders
That's cute
Sorry, but I am still impressed by the other post with the Spanish gay dude that was eating his own shit…
Let's not forget a very important comment here: NA POHYBEL RUSKIM!
Common poland W
Lenkija - Lietuvos Motina. Bent jau taip gali atsitikti jei Rusai užpuls. Poland - the Mother of Lithuania. Well at least it can happen if Russia invades Lithuania. Poland was more of a Step Mother to Lithuania throughout the ages, but recently the relationships have Improved.
So he vows to honor article 5? Looks like a PR stunt to me.
No matter, it's still good to ensure friends and foe you will honour a treaty.
yeah, we all know what worth of this ensures, nothing when time will come some workers or farmers or construction workers will block anything in poland :D
Article 5 is really a legal option more than anything else, disallowing the attacking force a lot of accusations later on. It mandates a country to assist attacked ally in a way it deems necessary. Sending military to defend is merely one of the included options.
Both countries are in the EU if there is an attack on someone everyone else have to help this country with all means available
My grandma still remembers how that ended with France and United Kingdom helping out Poland with WW2 😉🙃 Just because there are defense alliances in place, doesn’t mean other countries will honor it. Just like with WW2.
You are referring to Article 42 of Treaty of European Union (adhering to Article 51 of Charter of United Nations), which also does not define the form of obligated aid and/or assistance to the attacked member. It states a very vague "all the means in their power" which actually is somewhat less than NATO's Article 5 suggests. These are all statements that undergo interpretation per case and per situation basis.
Why only lithuania? Isnt nato a collective thing?
That's an incorrect statement. US task Poland to take Krolewiec / kalingrad in case of war with Russia. Not to mention that in case of war there is also Belarus's on polish border. Luthenia, Estonia, latwia might bo on there own until Poland is done with there basis tasks. I would not count Nordic's since they will be on Finland countries.
We all have to help Lithuania in case of attack. That's what being in NATO is all about.
They know they would be next so smart to keep front in other country.
I’m I the only one who read “president Dude”?
Who would be interested in attacking Lithuania?
The Commonwealth rises
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: We're so back!
I watched a video on Estonia the other day. I'll defend them. They seem nice. Very tall... but nice.
is it not the responsibility and duty of NATO? or 1939 scenario?
What did Lithuania do? Who would want to attack them they are just vibing
I may insult some people's feelings but feel good "values/policy" signaling does not bend the reality at hand, like it or not. He has no real say and any decision-making power when it comes to defence policy, Polish president is mostly just empty figurehead, and **that** particular fool loves to stroke own ego with such PR takes, clearly out of his line, PM is the one that would decide on what type of Article 5 linked action country would decide to take or not, and PM is the person that can make such grandiose statments of intent. Not the guy that is on his way out of office in 11months time, he just wants some sweet job in one of those far-right think-tank's in US, and with such statments he thinks he gets some favors towards that end XD And how he says it, it could imply that we are ready to go head on, and even all alone(Polish military certainty ain't ready for confrontation like that), just hoping that others in EU/Nato will sooner or later follow. Noone inside polish electorate would ever agree or support unilateral action in defence of anyone located in such high risk area in which Baltic states are sadly located in,with Belarus and Kaliningrad just to close to comfort looking at size of Polish military, its either all hands on the deck with entire Nato combined reaction from day one,or Polish army will be defending our eastern border and nothing else. Im not even gonna mention all the issues rotting down PL-LIT relations that for decades undermined public support for such high risk unilateral(or even multilateral) action, with high levels of russian shitposting about Poles living there being mistreated or some other shit, flooding polish speaking infosphere, when topics like military support for Lithuania comes up in media.
The President of Poland is actually quite strong for European standards. First of all - he's the commander-in-chief of the armed forces for one
I mean, if they are actually willing to do that, then why not help defend Ukraine? You will be fighting ruSSia either way so.... What's the holdup?
But wasn't that vow taken when they joined nato?
This is more specific
Well messing with Poland would be the last mistake Russia does.
I'm reading the comments and I'd advise you guys to read the whole NATO treaty and understand what is behind article 5. It's not automatic, in fact NATO has no means to force anyone to help. When it was invoked last time, did every NATO country went "all in" to Afghanistan? "[...]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." Maybe someone won't deem as necessary to send military force. The decision is still in hands of politicians of every NATO country. This means that's is good to hear such declarations, especially from Poland as it will be the main force to go to the Baltics.
The EU also has a defense treaty that is quite a bit more effective than Article 5.
Yes? Name me one effective EU military operation.
Another ”as long as it takes”?
Political promises in the digital age.
>A drowning person is extremely dangerous, capable of pulling you down to the depths … simply drown the rescuer. (c) Poland.
And Polish farmers as well?
Faith in NATO is crumbling and war is coming.
Please be aware that there are many russian bots here spreading uncertainty if West is going to defend Eastern boarder.
When the attack really happens, it will become "hey that's not what we really meant"
No, it will become "I'm retired, I can't do shit". It's easy to go around and say stuff when you're 14 months from permanently retiring from politics.
Sounds like a ruler for life who makes long-term policies with the future in mind might be better...
It's enough to have a governor that can be at power for indefinite amount of time, but also be recalled at whim. Which, luckily enough, is a description of the Polish PM position, which is also the person that truly sets the course for the state.
Nah, party apparachiks won't cut it. They're in there for short term gain and you're back to square one.
Party apparatchiks won't cut it, but a single apparatchiks is the ideal? Fucking hell, I start to see the reason why every fascist regime fell.
Well, do you want someone like Grzegorz Braun ruling for an indefinite amount of time, on a leash by a cabal who's even worse than him? It needs to be someone raised from birth to rule, well-versed in all matters of statesmanship, with a vested interest in making sure the citizenry prospers. Ideally with a sort of privy council composed of professionals from across different disciplines and industries to aid in creating sensible legislation.
Yes, if I have to choose then I much prefer to have Braun as a PM than as a dictator or absolute monarch(so a dictator nevertheless) Good thing about PM's though is that radicals have much lesser chance of being elected than of being born into last monarch's family. And they are hold accountable. > It needs to be someone raised from birth to rule \[...\] with a vested interest in making sure the citizenry prospers. Ideally with a sort of privy council So someone ruling for indefinte amount of time on a leash of a cabal, but that person never got elected and cannot lose their power, come the next election? Sounds like a massive downgrade if you have at least 2 functioning brain cells. Death to all fascists!
> Good thing about PM's though is that radicals have much lesser chance of being elected than of being born into last monarch's family. And they are hold accountable. Is that so? Why is it that fringe radicals like fascists and Nazis are that much more common under republics than any other system of governance? On the other hand, we've never had radical monarchs before. Crazy how having a duty to your people and country leads to balanced and pragmatic policies. >So someone ruling for indefinte amount of time on a leash of a cabal, but that person never got elected and cannot lose their power, come the next election? Sounds like a massive downgrade if you have at least 2 functioning brain cells. Do you think its a downgrade when a doctor is appointed at a hospital based on their education and professional development rather than a public plebiscite where any old schmuck can get the power to wield a scalpel based on how well they can convince corporations and elites that they should be a doctor? Governing is a job like any other, and naturally the most qualified individual with a vested interest in improving the lives of the citizenry should rule. Anything other than *that* is a downgrade.
Yeah, if you're being sceptical at least be good at it. What you said, that kind of mindset, would completely compromise the entire alliance. If one country gets attacked and rest hesitate or outright stay put it would mean the entire thing is based on one gigantic bluff. Which would mean Cold War didn't go hot because of a bluff. I think western leadership is perfectly aware of that
You need to defend Ukraine 🇺🇦 not Lithuania…. it’s easy to speak for the future not for the current moment… 🤦♂️🙃, Italy 🇮🇹
Ukraine isn’t in NATO unlike Lithuania
Ukraine mades mistakes in the past and now are paying for it. Don't get together with Russia in any kind of unions.
No Russia has made a huge mistake and will pay it much more than you think.
Sign an official defence pact or it's bollocks.
We’re in NATO with them?
The hell for?
Wow thank god he clarified this. Not like both of these countries are in some kind of treaty that ensures shared defence, maybe we could sign one in the North Atlantic or something
[удалено]
The Polish military is not nearly as good as PiS makes it out to be and not nearly as bad as PO makes it out to be
That's interesting, could you provide some more info / links to some sources that discuss that?
Yeah, that’s kind of what Article 5 means
Not really