First line of defence against threat of Russian invasion: Poland's preppers are ready for Putin


#1

mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/first-line-defence-against-russian-8541627

From urban defence strategies to foraging and woodcraft, Poland’s amateur paramilitaries have been going all out to prepare for the threat of Russian invasion


#2

Humans just can’t keep the Peace &. Live in harmony ,
We hadn’t improved much since the world wars ,
Countries act like bullies in the school yard ,


#3

With people in the West getting worried about the prospect of President Putin’s questionable respect for borders following Ukraine near neighbour Poland is taking steps to protect itself

The US government doesn’t have any respect for democracy, since it recently supported coups in countries with democratically elected leaders, such as Ukraine and Honduras.


#4

Makes sense given Poland’s history. At least THEY don’t have their heads in the sand.


#5

Not that it will happen in a million years.

Anyone, give reasons as to the ‘value-added’ to Russia to invade Poland?:rolleyes:

Aside from having NATO, USA and all other EU countries gunning for them, what exactly would they ‘do’ in Poland, i.e. an anti-Russian country, considering all the Polish people would revolt, backed by most of the ROW.

What is the advantage/sense of invading Poland, and what would Russia see as the ‘long-term’:rolleyes: rewards/goals of making such a move?

Answers on a postcard please…


#6

In case Russia starts a “hybrid war” against the Baltic countries, Poland, as their ally, will intervene. That’s why having Poland as a potential target is not that non-sensical.

BTW, with the current NATO leadership as weak as it is not, it is not yet clear whether NATO will root for Poland. Thus, precautions look reasonable.


#7

Poland was a liability to Russia during the Soviet occupation too, but the Russians only left when they didn’t even have enough money to give their troops a ride back home. The U.S. had to pay the freight.

I don’t think it’s a matter of “value added”. It’s a matter of being an Empire or just another country, and it’s unrealistic to think many Russians don’t remember the days of empire with a certain longing.


#8

So, Great Britain is going to return to its’ past and take back all their colonies? That’ll be fun. :rolleyes:

Never heard such nonsense, in all my days! (Not your post, the ongoing MSM anti-Russian propaganda news regarding Poland/Russia/Baltic states takeover, in general. Which nonsense has been on-going since 2014).

Crimea was a one-off, instigated by the overthrowing of the democratic Ukraine government by an anti-Russian coup government. Crimea is 67% Russian, was until relatively recently part of Russia, and wanted to return due to that situation.

It was not a blueprint for Russia to takeover the world.


#9

Thank you.

I don’t understand why people are parroting that this is also a part of Russia’s plan to get back her alleged colonies.

The US doesn’t have to do that. It practically has control in Latin America.

I don’t think it’s a matter of “value added”. It’s a matter of being an Empire or just another country, and it’s unrealistic to think many Russians don’t remember the days of empire with a certain longing.


#10

It’s the equivalent of reporting that now the UK has ‘Brexited’ itself from the EU, it will be invading and taking back all its’ past colonies, so as to be a ‘great empire’ once again. :rolleyes::whistle:


#11

It may be noted that Britain has not, since before WWII, annexed anybody else’s territory, while Russia has in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia.

No matter what one says to excuse Russia, it has done exactly that. People in eastern Europe are not unreasonable in being afraid of Russian revanchism.


#12

Well the UK went to war with Argentina, over the Falklands, in the 1980’s, to ensure they remained, as a British ‘colony’ - 1000’s of miles away - as 99% of the residents associated with being British and wished to remain with Britain, although the United Nations has stated the islands should be returned to Argentina. If the Falklands were majority Argentinian residents, no doubt the colonies would be back with Argentina.

Just as Crimean residents, after a referendum, wished to return to Russia, due to the democratically elected government being overthrown in Ukraine, and an anti-Russian coup government in its’ place. Crimea was part of Russia, for over 200 years, up to 1954 and is majority Russian.

So the two situations, are six of one and half a dozen of the other. :shrug:

*The prospect of an Argentine leading the UN presents Britain with a diplomatic dilemma given the long-running dispute over the Falklands which both Argentina and the UN say must be “decolonised” and returned to Argentina.

*The Falklands War (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas), also known as the Falklands Conflict, Falklands Crisis, and the Guerra del Atlántico Sur (Spanish for “South Atlantic War”), was a ten-week war between Argentina and the United Kingdom over two British overseas territories in the South Atlantic: the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

The conflict was a major episode in the protracted confrontation over the territories’ sovereignty. Argentina asserted (and maintains) that the islands are Argentine territory,[6] and the Argentine government thus characterised its military action as the reclamation of its own territory. The British government regarded the action as an invasion of a territory that had been a Crown colony since 1841. Falkland Islanders, who have inhabited the islands since the early 19th century, are predominantly descendants of British settlers, and favour British sovereignty.The U.S. provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles. *


#13

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.