On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 5:50:39 AM UTC-7, boukun wrote:
> Polacy prą do wojny z Rosją, stoją w pierwszym szeregu podżegania
> świata przeciwko Rosji. W internecie czytam jakie województwo ma
> najmniej schronów przeciwko wojnie. Sejm uchwalił ustawę, że
> posłowie i senatorowie nie będą powoływani do służby wojskowej w
> razie wojny. Najlepiej niech od razu zagwarantują sobie ucieczkę
> przez Rumunię do Anglii.
> --
> boukun
Rola PRL-bisu moze byc uwiklanie NATO
w wojne. Byc moze w planach Kremla
jest wykorzystanie agentury usytuowanej
w Polsce, w polskim wojsku by sprowokowac
konfrontacje ktora zakonczy sie porazka
NATO. Potencjalnie taka role moga pelnic
tez post-sowieckie republiki, kraje takie
jak Litwa czy Estonia, kraje podobnie do PRL-bisu
spenetrowane sa ruska agentura.

Warto nie zapominac ze pierwsza rzecza
ktora zrobil Biden po inwazji Putynia to
wyslanie kilku tysiecy zolnierzy amerykanskich
na polska granice, tak by US.Army chronila
ja kordonem ochronnym dzialajacym w
obie strony, ...dla zapobiezenia ataku Rosji
ale i prowokacji ze strony Wojska Polskiego.
Pamietamy jak w pierwszych dniach wojny
znienacka Polska miala transferowac MIG-i
na Ukraine pomimo ze wysylanie broni
grozilo uwiklaniem NATO w wojne.

Alternatywnie, byc moze uwlaszczony na
zagrabionym Armii Czerwonej mieniu post-komuch
walczy teraz jak lew o wmieszanie NATO
do wojny co czynilo by nadzieje na
zatrzymanie dla siebie zdobyczy Okraglostolowej
Rewolucji.

Tylko post-komuch wie co wycofujacej sie
Armii Czerwonej na-podpisywal, jakie tajne klauzule,
na jakiej zasadzie oraz na jak dlugo pozwalajace
utrzymywac tytuly wlasnosci do uwlaszczonego
mienia.

Licho wie, spekulowac mozna.

Polecam ponizszy artykul z Pazdziernika 2014.
Tlumaczenia, najpierw na angielski, pozniej
polski zostaly wygenerowane przez przegladarke.

Oryginal pod:
https://www.km.ru/print/749670
https://www.km.ru/world/2014/10/15/barak-obama/749670-sila-rossii-v-ee-kovarnoi-kazhushcheisya-slabosti

The strength of Russia lies in its insidious apparent weakness...
14:24 10/15/2014 , Argil Turner

At all times, the West has had to deal with Russia, which, regardless of how it was called - an empire, the USSR or the Russian Federation, has always provoked Western powers to take aggressive actions against it in order to subsequently constantly win victories.

This means that Russian foreign and domestic policy for several hundred years has been aimed at using sophisticated provocations to force certain Western powers, or their alliances, to attack Russia. Paradoxical as it may sound, however, every time the West succumbed to such provocations, it suffered crushing defeats.

Unlike the civilized Western world, which has always preferred the path of honest open military aggression, Russia, quite rightly considering itself the heir of Byzantium, preferred to use truly barbaric methods of warfare, never attacking first, but forcing the enemy to do it himself, in order to then appear before everyone the world as an innocent victim of aggression.

This happened in the Russian-Polish war of 1610-1612, when the Russians impudently and deliberately created the conditions of the Time of Troubles, and the Polish king, thinking that he would help Russia restore order, occupied Moscow for two years. Of course, the Poles absolutely rightly believed that only the Polish government was able to ensure peace and order in barbarian Russia.

However, as a result of an unfair military struggle, in which the Russians used the militia instead of regular troops, the Poles were defeated, although they retained Smolensk. Subsequently, it turned out that this was another treachery of the Russians, who in 1667 finally regained this city.

Calling a spade a spade, even then the Russians successfully used the concept of "hybrid war", since in fact the Russian militia were separatists and terrorists, and were subject to undoubted destruction.

It should be noted that even before that, the Russians skillfully and successfully provoked the Western states to invade: in the XII-XY centuries, northwestern Russia was repeatedly invaded by both various knightly orders and Sweden, which unsuccessfully tried to take away some of their lands from the Russians. This was quite logical, since the Russians, in the opinion of the West, were already incapable of effectively managing them even then.

Unable to resist the fair Swedes in a fair fight, the Russians provoked them. The next victim of the Russian "hybrid war" was the Swedish king Charles XII, who sincerely wanted to make Ukraine a happy and independent power, and moved there with a small army.

Prior to this, the Russian Emperor Peter the Great for the whole 9 (!) Years skillfully pretended to be weak and infirm, and thereby provoked the great Swede to invade. As a result, the Swedes were defeated near Poltava, and then in 1721 they were forced to sign the Treaty of Nystadt, according to which Livonia, Estonia, Ingria, and also part of Karelia joined Russia.

In the West, most historians consider Napoleon Bonaparte a great military leader and a brilliant statesman. But is it possible to agree with such a point of view, given the fact that, just as the Polish king Sigismund and the Swedish king Charles did before him, he succumbed to the provocation of Russia and attacked it in 1812?

As a result, the Russians, as efficiently as possible, again used the methods of waging a "hybrid war", and vilely lured the troops of the French emperor, his allies represented by Italy, Poland, and other European states to Moscow, where the Russians, in violation of all the rules of warfare, did not leave at all food.

At the same time, the Russian militia in the person of terrorist partisans actively acted on the communications of the French. Despite the repeated appeals of Napoleon Bonaparte to the Russian Emperor Alexander I with the requirement to influence the bandits and oblige them to stop attacks, and generally conduct military operations in accordance with international law, he in every possible way denied the existence of his influence on them.

Meanwhile, Russian terrorists, represented not only by men and women, but by Cossacks and even hussars, continued to attack French troops. One of the most famous leaders of terrorist gangs was the hussar lieutenant colonel Denis Davydov.

Unable to prevail in the fight against the threat of terrorism, as a result, the Great French Army was forced to flee from Moscow, and the Russian troops then entered Paris. By the way, the national feature of the Poles is the ability to step on the same rake, since they have always actively participated in the eastern campaigns: they were part of the Great French Army, and today they are simply rushing into battle ahead of the most advanced NATO detachments, which undoubtedly does credit to the brave Polish character.

In general, even those wars that Russia lost, she turned to her advantage. So, the Russo-Japanese war “lost” by Russia ended with Japan increasing its public debt by 4 times, and Russia by only one third! And this is not even to mention the fact that Japanese losses in manpower turned out to be almost 2 times higher than Russian ones. Not a bad price for half of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, isn't it?

These figures are the best evidence of the sophisticated Russian insidious method of warfare.

The events of 1917, the two Russian revolutions and the subsequent civil war again showed the high efficiency of the methods of the Russian "hybrid war".

First, by staging the complete collapse of the Russian Empire and the subsequent famine and suffering of the civilian population, the Russians provoked the entry of peacekeeping troops. Germany entered Ukraine, France, Italy and England entered Odessa and the Black Sea region, England and the USA entered the Far North of Russia, Japan the USA entered the Far East. Even the Czechoslovak corps tried to ensure the protection of human rights along the entire length of the Trans-Siberian Railway.

However, the Russians again vilely violated international law and unleashed their damned "hybrid" war. Russian terrorists and separatists, not observing the rules of civilized war, have significantly succeeded in carrying out terrorist acts against the troops of the international peacekeeping contingent. All his attempts to introduce the Russians to the Western order were unsuccessful, and the peacekeepers were forced to leave Russia.

For the next two decades, the Russians successfully feigned weakness.

Again using the methods of "hybrid" warfare, they successfully organized the peaceful accession to the USSR through the popular will of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

The next political and military figures of the West who absolutely stupidly succumbed to Russian tricks were the Fuhrer of Great Germany Adolf Hitler, British Prime Ministers Sir Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill, French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier and American President Franklin Roosevelt.

Great Britain and France, seduced by the so-called "weakness" of Russia, were going to bomb Russian oil fields in the Caspian Sea in the summer of 1940. They were stopped only by the German invasion of France.

For some reason, Adolf Hitler did not take into account the lessons of his historical predecessors and moved to Russia. As in the case of Napoleon and the civil war of 1918-1922, military units and formations of the countries of the civilized world - Italy, Spain, France, Romania, Hungary, Denmark, Finland, Slovakia and others - participated in the Western coalition. The noble goal of Adolf Hitler's campaign was the liberation of the suffering peoples from the yoke of Bolshevism, the cessation of the atrocities of the undemocratic Russian regime. He was supported by almost all of Europe.