0 $
2,350 $
4,700 $
1,159 $
COLLECTED IN NOVEMBER

Poland Wants France to Share Nukes and Voting Seat on the UNSC

Donate

Written by Federico Pieraccini; Originally appeared on strategic-culture.org

According to the Polish Foreign Minister, Jacek Czaputowicz, a nuclear deterrent is the only way for European countries to demonstrate their sovereignty. Czaputowicz proposed that France share its nuclear weapons with the rest of the EU as well hand over to it its place on the UN Security Council.

Poland Wants France to Share Nukes and Voting Seat on the UNSC

Poland and Ukraine cannot stop provoking laughter from international observers. After the lunatic idea circulating in Ukraine of resurrecting the country’s nuclear arsenal, it is now Poland’s turn to send shockwaves around Europe. Polish foreign minister Czaputowicz proposed that France share its nuclear arsenal and hand over its seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to the European Union. It is is worth noting that this suggestion did not even receive an official comment from Paris, showing that there was little prospect of the Polish idea being taken seriously. Warsaw continues its opposition to the EU’s domestic policies on migration and austerity, while in foreign policy, agrees with countries like Ukraine and the United States, particularly the neocon faction opposed to Russia. If there is a distinctive feature in the political proposals that come from Poland, it is an acute Russophobia. The idea of ​​hosting a US base on Polish territory, and assuming its costs, is another Polish proposal. The Americans are serious considering taking them up on the offer.

The Poles and the Ukrainians would be willing to sacrifice themselves on behalf of their allies for the privilege of being able to poke the Bear. Fortunately for them, Paris, London and Berlin have neither the military capabilities nor the suicidal intention to challenge Moscow with permanent military bases on its border. Neither do they wish to share their nuclear weapons with other EU countries, nor engage in any such hare-brained ideas that threaten humanity as the American Aegis Ashore system or the planned US withdrawal from the INF Treaty.

The proposal that France grant its UNSC seat to the European Union is not such a far-fetched idea if we consider the political evolution of the last 70 years. Certainly the Security Council no longer represents the balance of power of the 1950s. The UNSC is exactly like a nuclear deterrent: once you have it, it becomes virtually impossible to voluntarily give it up. It reflects a guiding principle of the great powers, whereby no concession ought to be given to competitors, allies or enemies, especially concerning matters that are fundamental and strategically important in the short, medium and long term.

For our current multipolar context, certainly a Security Council without the UK and France would make more sense, especially if the EU, India and a representative of South America were to be granted seats in their place, thereby better reflecting the subdivision of power in the world today. Clearly the motivations that have pushed Czaputowicz to make this request to Paris have nothing to do with an effort to rebalance global forces in the UNSC. Rather, it seems like the umpteenth example of a strongly Russophobic Eastern European country going against the policies of Brussels and actively opposing both Berlin and Paris, only to result in creating further subdivisions within the EU.

The disintegration of the European Union proceeds along two tracks: along domestic matters and along foreign policy. In domestic terms, austerity policies that stem from a lack of economic, financial and monetary sovereignty continue to isolate Berlin and Paris from the remaining EU capitals, with the so-called Visegrád Group (Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia) leading the uprising. In terms of foreign policy, the situation seems even more complicated, with countries friendly to Moscow, like Italy and Hungary, trying to stem the open Russophobia of Poland, the Baltic countries, and even the non-EU Ukrainians and Georgians who fan the flames of provocations.

One should not forget that there are two factors that can play in the favor of those pushing for the disintegration of the EU. One is the sabotage of the North Stream 2 (NS2), which could constitute a red line for Berlin, given that it would have enormous financial and strategic repercussions concerning energy supply. It is likely that Germany would bring to bear all diplomatic and economic weapons at her disposal to harm countries attempting to sabotage plans for the creation of NS2.

It is no coincidence that Czaputowicz, when he cited the NS2 project as an example of confrontation between Poland and Germany, promptly clarified that both Berlin and Warsaw see a political rival in Moscow to keep under control.

The other example (fortunately the most remote and unlikely to sabotage the NS2) concerns the drumbeats of war in Ukraine beaten by the likes of London and Warsaw. These countries would not hesitate to use another provocation against the Donbass to seek further sanctions against Moscow and its companies, and possibly even European companies that may continue to trade and cooperate with the Russian Federation. In this way, British and Polish politicians would, on the one hand, further drive a wedge between EU countries and Russia. But on the other hand, they would risk breaking up the united front sanctioning Russia, by forcing countries to break ranks as a result of the economic costs they bear from participating in such sanctions.

Czaputowicz’s proposal for the French UN seat, and especially for the sharing of France’s nuclear deterrent, highlights the levels of craziness countries like the UK, Poland, Ukraine and the Baltics states have reached, as they continue to work themselves into a frenzy over the non-existent Russian threat.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

    “…only way for European countries to demonstrate their sovereignty.”

    Europe lost their sovereignty when they decided to bow to and be a puppet of the US.

    • Elisabeth Jenders

      Let’s always differentiate between Europe (geographical) and the EU (a undemocratic entity claiming to be a state)!

      • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

        Fair point, you are correct.

        Happy New Year by the way!

      • Cazza

        What should they do about it? Rise up and destroy the combined NATO army at the battle of Amsterdam? Or hide in a bush with an ak?

  • FlorianGeyer

    Poland dreams of Empires Past as she grapples with the reality that her hegemony hundreds of years ago is very unlikely to be repeated.

    • verner

      I have a wall map of europe in 1900 about and a) there is no poland and b) there is no ukraine.

      • Barba_Papa

        Try a map even older, 1700, or 1600. Poland was huge then.

        • You can call me Al
          • Ishyrion Av

            That is. Times when poles were bullying smaller nations and they where in direct (not always happy) contact with Russian Empire. Which now hate. They should hate the Germans too, if is about hate….

          • Barba_Papa

            Yeah, look at how huge it used to be. If only it hadn’t been as weak and divided internally as the Holy Roman Empire it might have been a European Great Power.

          • Tom Nicholson

            But there is no Poland on the map.
            It isAustrohungarian empire, whatyou belive to be Poland. Hehe

          • Pave Way IV

            The mighty Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania will rise again! Any moment now. In fact, they would still rule the known world – if it wasn’t for that meddling Russian Empire…

            Damn you, Peter the Great… and your Beard Tax, too!

        • VeeNarian (Yerevan)

          Britain ruled India before 1947. So? The Romans ruled Britannia 2000 years ago. So?
          Poland should be grateful that one third of her land was kindly donated by Stalin from Nazi Germany at the end of WW2. This land was liberated by Soviet forces.
          How exactly has modern Poland shown this gratitude to Soviet forces and RF, the successor state to the Soviet Union?
          What if the Germans elected a leader demanding the return of its ancient lands?
          Gee, History is so award, isn’t it, BP?

          • Barba_Papa

            What an ungrateful lot, these Poles. To have their country carved up and invaded by the USSR in 1939, to have millions of them deported and brutally killed by the USSR, to be treated to another visit by the Red Army in 1944, which sits by idly as the Germans crush the Warsaw uprising, to be told to take a hike from its eastern territory, and be grateful that they get some German land in return. And then be treated by decades of brutal rule by a Soviet installed regime of collaborists. And you don’t think in any way whatsoever this might color the way Poles view modern Russia, which shows the exact same attitude you seem to exhibit?

            You don’t have to like the other side’s point of view, but if you’re unable to at least see that the other side might have a valid point of view of their own you won’t make many friends in life. And that goes for countries just as much as people. And this is why I said that wrapping yourself up in a national myth is bad. For not only is that myth almost always wrong, it blinds you to seeing the other guy’s point of view.

          • VeeNarian (Yerevan)

            “Red Army in 1944, which sits by idly as the Germans crush the Warsaw uprising.”
            Was the uprising coordinated with the Stavka and Stalin, or with UK/US? If Red Army soldiers are expected to give up their lives for the liberation of Warsaw then coordination is the least of the expectations.
            I hold no candle for Hitler or Stalin, but these awkward facts have to be considered.
            Hitler hated Poles. Do you understand what that means? According to Nazi plans only 10% of Poles would have survived his loving attentions. The rest would have been killed, enslaved, deported or Germanised.
            The brutal forces of History did not provide Poland and many nations any cosy choice between Hitler and Stalin. The proverbial devil and the deep blue sea, or the rock and the hard place.
            The facts are that Poland SURVIVED under Stalin and the Soviets to re-gain its freedom in the glorious year of 1989, when WW2 finally and effectively ended.
            What would have happened to Poland under 50 years of Nazi rule?
            What if the Soviets had come to an agreement with Hitler after all Soviet lands hand been liberated, saving the lives of thousands of Red Army soldiers? You see the dilemma of brutal history?
            As a British Indian, I have fully supported the freedom of Poland and other Soviet occupied countries of Central Europe.
            However, I do NOT support the attempts by Poland, Baltics and other anti-Russian RACIST warmongering elites to start WW3 with Russia.
            I really laugh at their childish attempts to rejuvenate their ancient empires on the backs of Uncle Sam’s military.
            It is time to settle with Russia, and ancient and proud nation that peacefully (compared to all European empires) retreated from 14 Soviet states and Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary and Austria in 1955.
            Bottom line?
            No soldiers from US and UK will give up their lives for the restoration of the glories of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth.
            Nor will London, Washington or any other city in these countries will be risked for a new Polish empire. Get over it and settle with Russia, as was planned in Smolensk.

      • FlorianGeyer

        Ukraine was never a sovereign country until the demise of the USSR. :)

      • AM Hants

        When times were happy. When we had no World Wars.

    • Barba_Papa

      The allure of past greatness always holds great seduction. And is often more comforting then meaningfully approaching the future. This is why I said that Russia needs to let go of the myth of the Great Patriotic War as well. While it may seem so history never really repeats itself.

      • FlorianGeyer

        It takes a long time for the horrors of such events to enter the ‘Historical Period’ rather than events that can be directly related to a few generations.

        Britain is still immersed in the horrors of WW1 and Southern Irish nationalists are still justifiably angry for the horrors of English occupation from the Norman era until the early 20th century.

        The whole world has such stories to pass down.

        Some of them are embellished and spurious but that is a well trodden topic :)

        • Barba_Papa

          True, historical events that have been taken up as national myths will persist beyond the demise of the generations that have created them. All the more reason for revisionist historians to paint a more real picture, rather then the myths. And by revisionists I don’t mean denialists, but people who are willing to look beyond the comforting warm myth at the cold heart facts.

          • FlorianGeyer

            In all too many countries it is illegal to deny the myths as the myths cannot be supported by reality :)

          • Gary Sellars

            Holohoax anyone?

            It says a lot when you need to criminalise the act of debating historical fact vs establishment narratives…

          • Barba_Papa

            True. When it becomes illegal to question a myth that’s a sure sign it might not live up to true historical scrutiny. Which is often sad as the real history often turns out to be even more interesting then the myth.

      • VeeNarian (Yerevan)

        I am all for re-writing history to suit the Western supremacists! Can we all agree how magnificent the US and UK forces were in Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad during WW2 and how their United Storm of Freedom (USF) liberated Europe all the way to the Nazi dens of Berlin and Vienna?
        Don’t you just love fairy stories? Who needs Russians?

        • Barba_Papa

          Everyone’s a winner in their own mind. So I’m not surprised that after WW2 their own contributions got amped up significantly. And to the peoples of Western Europe it made sense because Western Allied forces DID liberate them the Nazis.

          Now the Red Army truly delivered a Herculean performance in stopping and driving back the Wehrmacht hordes from the USSR back into the lair of the Fascist Beast. You will never hear any denial from in that, as I’m a WW2 history buff, and always very interested in the Eastern Front. I corrected my teacher age 10 by showing him that the Wehrmacht’s first major defeat of the war was at the gates of Moscow, 1941, not Stalingrad 1942. But I reckon that the West’s contributions to the Red Army’s war effort should get some appreciation as well. Tens of thousands of American and British tanks were supplied to the Red Army, whole tank and air corps, especially in the southern Fronts operated American made Shermans and flew Air Cobras. They seemed to have liked their Western made gear. And thousands of Allied crew men died in the cold arctic seas trying to ship weapons and supplies to Murmansk and Archangelsk. Just read about convoys like PQ-17 which got all but obliterated by the Germans. And I reckon if it was that insignificant why did the Germans tried so hard to stop these convoys, take Murmansk or interrupt the railroad from Murmansk? And the Red Army to stop this? I also reckon that mighty offensives like Bagration would probably not have been as successful as they did if it weren’t for the thousands of supply trucks and the fuel delivered to the USSR to keep the offensives going. American industry was the engine that kept the Allied war effort going, for both East and West. And I think that this aspect of the war has been downplayed as much in the former USSR and modern Russia as the Red Army’s contribution has been in the West. Neither fits the heroic narrative of either.

          • VeeNarian (Yerevan)

            The fact that Stalin screamed for lend-lease help from the US/UK was proof enough of how much damage he had done to the Red Army capabilities before WW2.
            It is to the eternal shame of the UK that the heroes of the Arctic convoys to Russia were recognised by Russia itself before the UK.
            Russiaphobia is an ancient disease of the UK elite.
            France was well-armed but they capitulated so easily before the Nazi hordes, so a supply of equipment is a necessary but not the only condition for the defence of one’s home. Guns and tanks do not fire themselves, do they? They must be effectively used by men and women who are prepared to pay the ultimate price, as millions of Red Army soldiers did (over-looked by the Western supremacists).
            The will to fight must also be there. This was absent from all of Europe, except perhaps Serbia and Greece. They seemed only too willing to fall into the hands of the Nazi overlords, with the UK itself on a knife-edge to neutrality in 1940.
            We seem to be have the same understanding of history. I too was fed with the glories of the British Empire in school with WW2 being a narrative from Dunkirk to Normandy via the Battle of Britain.
            Much later, I also became aware of the Soviet contribution during WW2 and really enjoyed the Soviet Storm series:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf8Rmf4m8rs

      • Tom Nicholson

        And forget the 25M people, who died, as well?

    • Zionism = EVIL

      Pollacks are some of the dumbest fcuks on earth. Enough said.

  • Ishyrion Av

    I don’t understand the Poles. They were ripped apart by Soviets and Reich together. However, their hate goes only against Russia. Who is not Soviet Union anymore. Germany is spared, even if it acts like a new Reich today. More dangerous than Russia, if you ask me.
    Stalin made the Katyn massacre and Stalin was Georgian. But they are allies with Georgia/US.
    Deeper in the history, they were neighbors with Russian Empire. Part of the Ukraine was theirs. Today Ukraine oppresses the Poles minority (all the minorities, in fact). But they are at least officially friends with Ukraine.
    What do they want?
    However, I appreciate their euro-skepticism. Is healthy. Hope to see the day when this neo german empire go to the history trash bin.

    • verner

      yeah, you might even claim that germany won the wars (ww1 and ww2) and is now dominating europe in the way hitler dreamed of – and no weapons involved just naked impudence coupled with a german sharpness, which one would have thought england could match but no, claimed walk over and walked away.

    • Barba_Papa

      The policy of the USSR in regards to Poland however was not much different then of previous Czarist Russia, which had fought, conquered and tried to eradicate Poland for centuries, together with Germany. And, lets give credit where credit is due, Germany has at least confessed its sins, apologized and even paid for its past sins. Modern day Russia still acts, like modern day Japan too for that matter, like nothing happened. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that saw the dual invasion of Poland in 1939? Nothing happened. The Katyn massacre? It wasn’t us, it was the Germans. The Red Army only brought freedom and happiness to Eastern Europe, not Stalin’s secret police and brutal communist dictatorships. No sirree! Russia only did good in that war.

      Russia’s worship of ‘The Great Patriotic War’ blinds it to a lot of unsavory things that also happened during that war. Just like Israel’s obsession with the Holocaust and ‘Never Again’ blinds it to the evils it is doing to this day. The past should be studied, respected, owned, but never worshiped. And I reckon that the day Russia learns to let go of ‘The Great Patriotic War’ and becomes willing to accept the bad with the good is the day that it will truly become free.

      • Ishyrion Av

        I never said Soviet Union was saint. Not at all, they were demons on earth, in fact. Not only for Poles, but for all the Eastern Europe. I know that.
        I also can make a difference between Soviets then and Russia today. I do believe Russians are normal people and the Russian government today, following its national interests, is not a threat to the world. I saw it in Syria, for example.
        Regarding Russia, I am disappointed when I hear the Soviet cult revived… and the fact that the second war was a survival war for them at some point (as it was for everybody), does not make an excuse.
        And I see the US and Israel as deadly plague to the world today, not only military and economically, but mainly through ideology.
        Then I remember that communism was inspired and created by some jews… and Germans were financing it in the imperial Russia.
        And you said the poles were fighting russians along history? True. But they fought other smaller nations too trying to conquer them.
        So…

        • Barba_Papa

          Yeah, but Turkey and Sweden didn’t end up conquering up Poland and dividing it. Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungaria did, the latter no longer exists, the middle is bending over backwards to not look like Nazis and the Russians still act like they did nothing wrong. So in that sense I can see the Poles still being very nervous about Russia.

          And that’s excluding that there are a hell of a lot more Poles who can remember what it was like being under Soviet rule then it was under Nazi rule. The WW2 generation is dying out everywhere, the communist generations are still very much alive.

          • Ishyrion Av

            Poles should tremble when Russia and Germany walk the same path. Is only a vast plain there, no natural obstacles to slow down an army and it connects Russia with Germany.
            When they were great (geographically) Poles should have a fight with Ottomans if they would be willing to show themselves great (as a nation). But they didn’t. They just took advantage of other countries fight against turks and invaded when these countries were weaken.
            That says a lot.

          • AM Hants

            Poland had 20 years of independence, then she lost it. Now she is the largest debtor nation in the EU. Not a good look.

          • Gary Sellars

            Agreed, and the Polandistanis have learned NOTHING. They rail and whine about “Soviet repression” and project all of their failures and problems onto the Soviet/Russian bogey-man, yet they have cucked themselves into surrendering national soverignty to Brussels and its unelected 4th Reich nomenklatura, and now lack the right to control immigration or enforce retirement of senile judges.

            What a pathetic nation of navel-gazing idiots…

          • Barba_Papa

            Well, it can be argued that she thus truly joined the Western capitalist countries, as all are in debt to Big Capital. And exchanging one yoke for another is of course a time honored tried and tested historical tradition.

          • AM Hants

            So true. Love the fact Russia has minimal debt, embraces her independence, plus, on a budget of $47 billion, makes all Nato weapons and systems obsolete. No wonder Poland has ‘green eye syndrome’, concerning Russia.

          • Gary Sellars

            “And that’s excluding that there are a hell of a lot more Poles who can remember what it was like being under Soviet rule then it was under Nazi rule.”

            …except the Poles were not under Soviet rule… they lived under Polish Communist rule. Wojciech Jaruzelski wasn’t a Russian, neither were his collegues… Poles complaining about the failures of Polish commies always project those failures onto the Ruskies, becuase its easier than blaming themselves, and meshes nicely into Polish nationalist narratives. The USSR may have mandated Communism in Poland, and may have limited their sovergnity on national security and foreign relations, but they left the goverance to the locals. The Soviet nomenklatura had better things to do than govern Poland…

          • Barba_Papa

            We would never have heard off Jaruzelski, or Erich Honecker, or that batshit insane crazy guy from Romania, if it weren’t for the USSR installing communist regimes all over Eastern Europe. These countries were not given self rule as long as they played nice with Russia, like Finland was. The Red Army either overthrew their governments, or aided local communists in the putsch. And in the case of Poland there was the local Home Army trying to create the old pre-war government again. Only to suffer the double whammy of the Germans crushing the Warsaw uprising, as the Red Army sat by and did nothing. While Stalin formed and installed his own Polish Lublin government.

            The USSR left the locals to their own knowing that they had installed their own Quislings who did the ruling and oppressing for them. And whenever the local Quislings got uppity or crazy idea, the Red Army still stepped in and crushed them again, like Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. There’s a reason why all these regimes toppled one after another within a year in 1989. Once support from Moscow stopped these regimes could not survive on their own as they enjoyed NO legitimacy whatsoever from their own peoples.

            And why did Finland remain the only country within the Soviet sphere of influence without a Moscow installed communist government? Might it have something to do that it was the only country which successfully managed to keep the Red Army out of it?

          • Gary Sellars

            “And why did Finland remain the only country within the Soviet sphere of influence without a Moscow installed communist government?”

            Unlike the other nations, Finland was not overcome by Soviet troops so there was no change in government post-war. Finland only had to cede sufficient territory to provide a defensible zone around Leningrad. After conceding part of Karelia, Moscow was satisfied and formally accepted Finlands independence (after its 1917 declaration of independence during WW1).

            Germany had invaded the USSR and the war killed ~25M Soviets. I don’t think it is unreasonable that the USSR (as victor) installed a post-war government in East Germany.

            Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia were members of the Tripartite Pact and allies of Nazi Germany and contributed troops to Operation Barbarossa and the Nazi invasion (especially Romania). Again, I think its OK for Moscow to install a post-war government on defeated enemies that attacked her and contributed to such death and destruction.

            Poland was a historical enemy, had a track record of past regional hegemony (Polish-Lithuianian Commonwealth), and had attacked post-WW1 by invading USSR between 1919-21 and occupied territory east of the Curzon line until 1939. Again, its hardly surprising that they installed a post-WW2 goverment.

            Tito of Yugoslavia was not installed by Moscow. Tito threatened the Soviets with militray resistance if they tried to extend their authority to Yugoslavia and Moscow complied. Yugoslav refusal to be a satellite of USSR was the reason why they were viewed favourably by the West during the Cold War (yet as soon as it was over, the West conspired with ethnic separatists to rip it apart and absorb the pieces into EU/NATO).

            I don’t see anything wrong with Soviet actions, given the severity of consequences of the Nazi invasion, aided and abetted as it was by the Tripartite Pact nations. 25M dead and half a nation in ruins, yet you want to p!ss and moan that East Europeans “rights” were not held sacrosant? Pfftt… the West would have done worse if they had suffered what the USSR went thru. 911 was a terror attack by a stateless actor that brought down 3 buyildings and killed ~3000 people, yet the US embarked on a near-genocidal killing spree globally against nations and peoples that had NOTHING to do with that attack. Imagine what the US would have done if 25M US citizens were dead by foreign invasion… you think they would not have “installed governments” and acted to ensure that these once-enemies didn’t return to old ways? FFS the US is STILL in semi-occupation of Germany and Japan after 75 years….

        • AM Hants

          Not forgetting the Bolsheviks overthrew the Russian Empire in 1917. The Soviet Union fell in 1991, with 15 independent member states emerging. Many played the ‘professional victrim’, complete with begging bowl. Russia embraced her independence, free from the shackles of her ungrateful neighbours, and moved on. You never hear Russia complaining of the overthrow of the Russian Empire, in the same way the other members of the Soviet Union do.

        • Gary Sellars

          “Then I remember that communism was inspired and created by some jews…”

          Bolshevism was a Jewish movement, and those in control of the early USSR were mostly Jews. The Soviet cabinet of 1921 consisting of 20 (?) members only had 3 non-Jews. Jewish bolshies HATED the ethnic Russians, were the driving force behind the repressions, and were the ones who administered the Gulag system. Jewish control only slipped after Stalins death and the “slavification” of Communism under Kruschev and his sucessors.

          Solzenitsen is clear about this, but funnily enough, while Westerners hang on his every word when it comes to condemning the USSR and the gulag system, they condemn him when his narratives touch upon the Jewish nature of the Bolshevik movement and their involvement in the repressions.

      • VeeNarian (Yerevan)

        What if the Germans demand the return of one third of Poland that was theirs? Russia has no territorial dispute with today’s Poland. It is time for Poland to settle with Russia and not dream of a restored Commonwealth on the back of Uncle Sam. Such delusions can be very dangerous indeed.

        • Barba_Papa

          Such delusions are dangerous indeed. But Germany signed a treaty with Poland prior to German reunification that it recognizes the Oder-Neise border as the border between it and Poland and that it will never reclaim its former territories east of that border. I know of no movement of any importance inside Germany that wants to reclaim those territories, so Poland is probably as safe in that regard as anyone can ever be. You never really know, but as time moves on and those who were displaced from lost territories die out, generally movements for border changes tend to die out with them.

          • VeeNarian (Yerevan)

            So, has Poland given up its claim to Belarus and Western Ukraine, the Cresy?
            What if the borders of Soviet Ukraine collapse without support from Russia, who were the main force in its establishment?
            The British Army is set to return to the UK from Germany in 2020. What if the US occupation army is forced run home after the collapse of the US$?
            What kind of Germany will emerge from this sort of economic and military shock, possibly combined with the collapse of the Euro?
            Poland has a golden chance to settle with both Russia and Germany, but seems bent on starting WW3 with Fort Trump and the plans by NATO gangsters to attack Kaliningrad, Russia.
            Very very dangerous, deluded and possibly terminal for the whole of humanity.

    • Gary Sellars

      “They were ripped apart by Soviets and Reich together.”

      Thats not the whole story I’m afraid. The events of 1939 were triggered by Polish actions in 1919-21 when Pilsudski’s military junta INVADED Ukraine and Russia and occupied everything East of the Curzon line. Its understandable that the the USSR took it back in 1939. Why do you think Stalin acquieseced to Hitler invasion and why the Nazis stopped where they did and did nothing while the USSR rolled its forces in? Letting the USSR take back their stolen territory was the price for Soviet acquiesece to Hitler solving his Polish junta problem.

  • Barba_Papa

    >> Certainly the Security Council no longer represents the balance of power of the 1950s. <>For our current multipolar context, certainly a Security Council without the UK and France would make more sense, especially if the EU, India and a representative of South America were to be granted seats in their place, thereby better reflecting the subdivision of power in the world today.<<

    In a way, yes, but the EU does not speak with a single voice in foreign policy, as there its still every country for itself and prey to divide and conquer from outside powers.

    • Poland has a point but not in the manner they specify. If the Security Council reflected the current world …
      1. Both the UK and France (two US votes, the FUK in FUKUS) would both give up their seat and it would be replaced by ONE member of the EU to be determined any way they choose. Why should Germany be shut out but France is big enough I can still see them in a rotating spot.

      2. Why not India? Perhaps their time has not yet come and it would create an imbalance with Pakistan, Pakistan may need to be accommodated somehow.

      • Barba_Papa

        In an ideal world, yes, in the real world it will never happen, as no country will willingly relinquish that power. All the more since it doesn’t cost anything. Doesn’t matter if France or the UK are bankrupt or wealthy, there is no price that has to be paid for this power, other then remain a UN member.

        Methinks you’d sooner see countries like Brazil, Germany, India and Japan become permanent UNSC members, then FUK relinquish their seats. And even then I’ll still doubt that the new members will also get veto votes. Is it morally wrong? Yes, but might still makes right.

  • Al

    I don’t think you can really blame Poland’s fear of Russia considering recent history.

    • Gary Sellars

      What recent history? If you are talking about the Communist period, that ended almost 30 years ago…

      Poland has committed plenty of its own agression against its neighbours. Its 20-year occupation of Soviet territory east of the Curzon Line was a result of Polands military junta launching an invasion of Russia and Ukraine between 1919-21 to take advantage of instability following the Bolshevik revolution. Of course, we in the West twist history and say that the Nazis and Soviets co-operated in the invasion of Poland in 1939, but in reality, the Soviets simply reclaimed their lost territory and didn’t advance an inch further.

      The moral of this tale? Not all “history” is based on historical truth.

    • VeeNarian (Yerevan)

      In the most recent history hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops left Poland peacefully as the Soviet Union disbanded in 1991.
      It is high time Poland settled with Russia instead of hiding behind Uncle Sam’s skirts and screaming for WW3.

  • AM Hants

    France, creditor nation, in the EU, with nuclear deterrent. Poland, the largest debtor nation in the EU, with the largest begging bowl. There again, article 42 of the Lisbon Treat, when the EU army is up and running, won’t the EU member states also give Brussels all their weapons and systems?

    Without Polish whinging, would WWI and WWII have kicked off?

    Europe Paying for the EU budget
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cb415441455a894cf989aea7283e9679ba7b9688315c804c1eaa649386666c21.gif

  • Gary Sellars

    If Europe wants a nuclear deterrent, they only need to ask Russia nicely. Moscow will guarantee Europes security against nuclear attack, for the bargain basement price of mutual respect and abandonment of neoliberal-mandated geopolitical hostility. It would be a great deal, but the Euro-peons are too stupid to realise it, and are too cucked by the Mandarins of Imperial Washington to be able to act in their own interests.

  • Tom Nicholson

    I support the idea.
    It helps to destroy EU, hence I regard it a brilant idea.