3 ms·

>> Bad move. This opens up Polish airbases to retaliation by Russian ballistic and cruise missiles. If push comes to shove, NATO Article 5 will not be invoked f

>> Bad move. This opens up Polish airbases to retaliation by Russian ballistic and cruise missiles. If push comes to shove, NATO Article 5 will not be invoked for Poland’s sake (Western European nations, the UK, and the US will not be willing to risk WWIII for country east of Germany and Poland should understand this by now). Poland will foolishly be left smarting while Germany and the UK press for rational dialog. There are US forces in Poland: https://news.yahoo.com/us-fighter-jets-land-poland-173812228.html https://news.yahoo.com/us-fighter-jets-land-poland-173812228... Poland is a member of NATO. An attack on Poland would invoke NATO Article 5 without question.

larnik 5y ago
Poland's history causes folks to be cautious about such statements. If you are not familiar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal
trzy 5y ago
No, NATO has plenty of wiggle room to decide not to retaliate in order to prevent further escalation. And furthermore, you might see a flat out refusal to honor treaty obligations to avoid “the unthinkable”. EDIT: and remember 1939. They can simply drag their feet on actual military retaliation until the immediate threat subsides. A Russian invasion of Poland is highly unlikely. It’s not an objective of theirs. And without the threat of an invasion that would directly threaten larger economic powers, is a conflict with Russia even rational? NATO will simply absorb the hit.
- thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
  >> No, NATO has plenty of wiggle room to decide not to retaliate in order to prevent further escalation. And furthermore, you might see a flat out refusal to honor treaty obligations to avoid “the unthinkable”. If Russia attacks Poland with ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and NATO failed to respond then it would effectively make the NATO articles nothing more than words on paper. An attack on any NATO member would cross the line. The NRF has been activated and stands ready to act: "Following Russia’s unjustified and unprovoked attack on Ukraine, February 2022, and in line with its defensive planning to protect all Allies, NATO is taking additional steps to further strengthen deterrence and defence across the Alliance. This includes the activation of elements of the NRF for the first time in a deterrence and defence role. Allies have placed thousands of additional troops – along with armoured vehicles, artillery units, ships and aircraft – at high readiness earmarked for the NRF, ensuring that it continues to have the speed, responsiveness and capability to defend NATO territory and populations." Source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm >> EDIT: and remember 1939. They can simply drag their feet on actual military retaliation until the immediate threat subsides. 2022 is not 1939. NATO did not exist in 1939. >> A Russian invasion of Poland is highly unlikely. It’s not an objective of theirs. And without the threat of an invasion that would directly threaten larger economic powers, is a conflict with Russia even rational? NATO will simply absorb the hit. Neither an invasion nor economic threats are required to trigger Article 5. Conflict with Russia is not rational, but neither is Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

larnik 5y ago

Poland's history causes folks to be cautious about such statements. If you are not familiar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal

trzy 5y ago

No, NATO has plenty of wiggle room to decide not to retaliate in order to prevent further escalation. And furthermore, you might see a flat out refusal to honor treaty obligations to avoid “the unthinkable”. EDIT: and remember 1939. They can simply drag their feet on actual military retaliation until the immediate threat subsides. A Russian invasion of Poland is highly unlikely. It’s not an objective of theirs. And without the threat of an invasion that would directly threaten larger economic powers, is a conflict with Russia even rational? NATO will simply absorb the hit.

thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
>> No, NATO has plenty of wiggle room to decide not to retaliate in order to prevent further escalation. And furthermore, you might see a flat out refusal to honor treaty obligations to avoid “the unthinkable”. If Russia attacks Poland with ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and NATO failed to respond then it would effectively make the NATO articles nothing more than words on paper. An attack on any NATO member would cross the line. The NRF has been activated and stands ready to act: "Following Russia’s unjustified and unprovoked attack on Ukraine, February 2022, and in line with its defensive planning to protect all Allies, NATO is taking additional steps to further strengthen deterrence and defence across the Alliance. This includes the activation of elements of the NRF for the first time in a deterrence and defence role. Allies have placed thousands of additional troops – along with armoured vehicles, artillery units, ships and aircraft – at high readiness earmarked for the NRF, ensuring that it continues to have the speed, responsiveness and capability to defend NATO territory and populations." Source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm >> EDIT: and remember 1939. They can simply drag their feet on actual military retaliation until the immediate threat subsides. 2022 is not 1939. NATO did not exist in 1939. >> A Russian invasion of Poland is highly unlikely. It’s not an objective of theirs. And without the threat of an invasion that would directly threaten larger economic powers, is a conflict with Russia even rational? NATO will simply absorb the hit. Neither an invasion nor economic threats are required to trigger Article 5. Conflict with Russia is not rational, but neither is Putin's invasion of Ukraine.