I didn't discuss what are the current government's views. I just wrote that it tries to brainwash Polish citizens.

Current Polish government is full of paranoia and self-destructing, inconsistent behaviors, anti EU also. The main goal is to keep ruling by populism.

However, aims to get a long with U.S. have two reasons in my opinion:
1. Absolute lack of trust to Russia, because Russia didn't earn any trust in modern history.
2. Remembering that there are still existing opinions in the West Europe countries, that Europe would be better with that "neutral belt" of East European countries next to Russia (Baltic states, Poland, Slovakia and so on).


Now, according to point 2:

Guess what?
We don't want to be a country, that gets a "reset", gets leveled, gets killed and starts from the scratch every 60-70 years, because of the tensions between West and Russia.
Try to live like that as a nation. What's the point of even trying?

This message (not necessarily a tweet from the mayor) refers to a unit of Ukrainian marines who have been surrounded for many days in the industrial zone of Mariupol without ammunition and food. It makes no sense to poison them with hims - they pose no threat

In other news, the air defence systems ordered by Serbia a couple of years ago were delivered just in time for WW3: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/mili...an-ally-serbia

You are correct, it is not "a tweet from the mayor", it is a facebook post from the mayor.

You do not know the difference between Twitter and Facebook but you expect us to take your comments seriously

Look what I found on display at this years annual Military Modelling Show.

It will be interesting to see if the solidarity with Ukrainian refugees will last. The size of the challenge will be larger than 2015 if this continues. The countries receiving the most refugees are not necessarily the richest and most immigrant friendly in Europe. So there will be a discussion coming about "sharing the burden".

That said, if the West can prop up the Ukrainian military to keep Russia confined to the East, maybe there is a chance that people go back to the safer parts of Ukraine?

"The Russian leader did acknowledge the damage sanctions were doing to the economy, but said that resolving the conflict in the Donbas to his satisfaction was a higher priority."

It's going to be a long grinding war if Russia wants to take and hold a large chunk of eastern Ukraine plus a land bridge to Crimea and Ukraine fights them until the end.

To be honest I think this is a great opportunity for the countries receiving the most to actually adopt these people and integrate them, even if only temporarily, because there's a labour shortage in various fields due to their own emigration phenomenon. I think most (sensible) citizens think of a great opportunity and not a burden, but of course you'll probably have some imbeciles too, there's no society/country without imbeciles. Other refugees from previous waves never really wanted to settle there, probably one of the reasons being the integration process requires much more individual effort than the help provided by the state but Ukrainians want to be closer to their homes, the cultures are similar so the situation is totally different.

Another day, another win for Russia:

https://euobserver.com/nordics/154713

It will be interesting to see if NATO wants to accept Finland.

How is that a 'win' for Russia?

Why would they not want to accept a strategically important country that shares core values and wants to join and strengthen the alliance?

"With open arms" is what I believe Stoltenberg said. If you are implying that Hungary or - God forbid - France could veto, then we would be in a difficult situation.

In one article I read it said it's all Michael O'Leary fault that Ukraine has socially and politically shifted West. Cheap flights to and from.

Failed attempt at sarcasm

Because Finland will be on NATO's side regardless, so they don't really gain much from Finland joining, but they have the liability of having to provide a art.5 guarantee to a country bordering Russia who have had several wars in recent history. The timing might also cause more friction with Russia.

Hungary have long said they would veto any attempt by Ukraine to join EU or NATO, but not aware of any such comments against Finland, but it is possible. Some members may have concerns about provocation in an already risky time. Others might not want to take on the liability of having to defend Finland.

As for 'with open arms', after the 2008 Bucharest Summit, it was announced that Ukraine will become a member of NATO (even though no MAP was offered and there was no serious chance that Ukraine would be allowed to join) - some declarations are more political in nature than realistic. I would take any such statement with a hefty pinch of salt.

__________________
By replying to this post, you hereby grant Phil_MCR a royalty-free license to use, in any way, anything posted by you on the internet. If you do not accept, stop using EF and delete your account.

Finland theoretically being on their side is obviously not the same thing as being in NATO. If Finland were in NATO then NATO would be obliged to defend it in the event of any attack. With Finland in NATO, NATO can also position weapons systems and deterrents in Finland. Finland know they can't stand up to Russia in modern warfare so it makes perfect sense for them to get into NATO where they will not need to stand alone if attacked.

At this point, who cares about 'more friction' with Russia... the time for countries to organise these things is now while Russia have their military hands full with Ukraine and the ongoing sanctions.

Finland held off the Red Army for 3 months in the ‘Winter War’ of 1939-1940.

Deja vu; Russia sent in one million troops but with faulty Russian intelligence, misguided expectations of a rapid victory with few casualties, brutal invasion of a weaker country, the bombardment of cities, assaults on civilians, poor training, inadequate supplies, low morale.

The Finns were well led and well organised, it was claimed the Russian casualties were ten times the Finnish.

When asked what had been gained, one Soviet general replied, “We have won enough ground to bury our dead.”

Likely NATO would see Finland as a valuable addition.

That was my point and that is a NEGATIVE for NATO.

True but doubtful if it would happen as it would be too much provocation to Russia (in same way that US didn't accept missiles on Cuba). I'm not sure to what extent weapons/bases have been stationed in the recently joined countries - I presume little to none.

It's true that they are probably now too busy to respond immediately - in prior times there was more fear of Russia striking between applying and joining.

Though the US have made it clear that they would not be drawn into a war over Ukraine and that Ukraine wasn't within their vital interests. I doubt Finland would rank much higher in their priority list.

__________________
By replying to this post, you hereby grant Phil_MCR a royalty-free license to use, in any way, anything posted by you on the internet. If you do not accept, stop using EF and delete your account.

Viktor Orbán is still dreaming about a new nuclear power plant financed and built with Russian reactors. However, I think that power plant was one of the very first civilian casualties of the invasion of Ukraine.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/ene...plant-project/