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
    link
    fedilink
    221 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
        link
        fedilink
        81 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            31 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.

        • Ooops
          link
          fedilink
          81 year ago

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

          • Jeena
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

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

        • 133arc585
          link
          fedilink
          8
          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
            link
            fedilink
            01 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
              link
              fedilink
              -11 year ago

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

              • Jeena
                link
                fedilink
                51 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.