# This is our war!

Yes,

NATO is taking part in the war against Russia in Ukraine.

Yes,

Poland participates in the war against Russia on the Ukrainian side.

Yes,

Ukrainians fight for their independency and independency from Russia, although this war has acquired – in a wider sense – the nature of the struggles between the West and the Russian Federation.

Yeah. We gotta admit this openly. And don't be afraid that it might hit the tender strings of Vladimir Putin's heart, who will be ready to get angry.

The authoritative message that NATO is in conflict (although not in direct war) with the Russian Federation on the ground of war in Ukraine is needed. Politically and socially.

Firstly, this will only be a confirmation of the fact. Secondly, he will remove from Western societies (including Polish) white blindness, ignorance and pretending that we are not active in the conflict in Ukraine. due to the fact that we are. Thirdly, admitting that “this is our war” will not force the Russians to act more aggressively, but can even lead to deescalation. You gotta say it openly. Russian: authorities, propaganda and society are convinced that they are fighting NATO in Ukraine. So the Russians justify their actions to this very fact and take precisely the steps they would take to fight NATO in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the full West – at diplomatic and political level – pretends that the Russian-Ukrainian war concerns only the parties to the conflict. At the same time, sending lots of ammunition, military equipment and supplies to Ukraine. Providing political, financial and military support (training Ukrainian soldiers in the West). This avoidance of saying that as the West we are conducting a conflict with the Russian Federation, despite appearances, does not defend us by Vladimir Putin's "revenge". Let's go again. He speaks and acts as if Russia has already waged war with NATO, only in the territory of Ukraine. Thus, the western, insecure, and cautious attitude does not bind Putin’s hands in any way. She ties the hands of NATO and the full West mentally and politically.

If we openly admit that the war in Ukraine is our war, then the consequence of specified a consolidation would should be that we are going to win this war. This is not why we participate and invest forces and resources (although indirectly) to lose it. Right? And if the goal is to win in Ukraine with the Russian Federation – and all of us know that it is – it would be good if societies, including those from Western Europe, were full aware of it.

A clear political setting of targets, as well as explaining them to societies, will make individual decision-makers free of charge in delicate decisions. They will be able to make unfettered efforts to defeat Vladimir Putin and will besides be able to show their determination in this regard. Nothing will origin more stir in Moscow than the message of further Western leaders — starting with Joe Biden — that “the conflict in Ukraine is our war and we intend to win it”. Thus the Russians will receive a clear signal: “You in the Kremlin can only decide how severe your defeat will be. You'll lose little if you retreat from Ukraine tomorrow. The more you send men and equipment to Ukraine the day after tomorrow, the more devastating it will be.”

The key to peace in Ukraine is to convince the Russians themselves that they have no chance of winning. Even the spark of hope for success in Ukraine will drive Putin and his people in the Kremlin to increase the war effort.There is only 1 way to halt Vladimir Putin – to deprive him of hope.

It can happen in 2 ways. The first one, which I have already written about many times, concerns the script of the Russian defeat in Ukraine. The defeat suffered by the Russians after the mobilization and usage of all conventional forces and means. In order to accomplish this, it is essential to proceed the war effort and to prosecute a large solution on the battlefield. And that's the strategy the Ukrainians chose. due to the fact that Kiev has no possible to intimidate Moscow. Defeating enemy troops in Ukraine is the only real plan to win, whose implementation depends mostly on Ukrainians themselves (although not entirely – vide supplies of equipment from the West).

However, NATO and the West have disproportionately greater political, economical and military possible than Ukraine. This possible is adequate to win against the Russian Federation without having to fire or even without having to proceed the conflict in Ukraine. The United States has already broken the russian Union in the past, which was much more powerful than modern Russia. This was during the Cuban crisis, this was during the alleged space race (the celebrated "stellar wars" of Ronald Reagan), yet during the russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Only 1 way to conduct policies towards the Kremlin had the right results. It was always a demonstration of the strength and determination of the West that challenged Moscow. president John F. Kennedy – during the Cuban Crisis – sent an American fleet to meet Russian vessels sailing to Cuba to halt them. He demonstrated his willingness to do so even if this would require the sinking of Russian supply ships by US Navy. Twenty years later, president Ronald Reagan had no fear of defining the USSR as an empire of evil, to which the United States "pronounced" kind of star wars (space race). Reagan's strategy was 1 of the keys that led the USSR to fall. Only in the case of the russian invasion of Afghanistan, the Americans acted in a more secretive manner. However, it should be remembered that in Ukraine – according to the Russian communicative – NATO is already there. The Russians themselves believed their own lies, that tens of thousands of mercenaries (including Poles) are fighting against them.

At the same time, it should be realised that the conflict in Ukraine is different from that in Afghanistan and straight affects Western political and economical interests. The longer the war continues, the more painful the consequences will be in the West. That's the more cost we'll bear. As a full society. In another words, the Afghan script (the war lasted 14 years) is highly unfavourable.

At the speedy end of the war while neutralising the Russian threat should be the most crucial to Europeans. Including Britain, France, Italy and even Germany. This is not just about ending the war in Ukraine. The aim is to make a lasting peace, neutralise threats and consequently return to construction Prosperity and getting out of crises (e.g. energy or inflation).

If so, the Russians must be stopped from occupying Kiev (Ukraine). Yes, we are in this war, and our goal is simply a fast victory.

The fall of Kiev is simply a defeat of the West and Poland

Here we should briefly explain – although the author has done so many times on this blog – why can't the West just afford to fall Ukraine? Why not give Putin what he wants. possibly then we can work him out.

This is entirely false and deceptive. utilized frequently by pro-Russian agitators and propaganda. As indicated above, Ukraine is an end in itself to Moscow, but at the same time it is simply a wider part of the puzzle. Subordination of Ukraine is just 1 of the first stages of further escalation. In the next, Putin intended to annex Belarus (although the order may now be the opposite). Finally, through access through Ukrainian territory, take control of Moldova. In this way, the Russian Federation would scope NATO borders across their full width. Putin could deploy immense armies along the border with Romania, as well as across the east border of Poland. Permanent military bases in Belarus, Ukraine and possibly Moldova would put constant force on the EU and NATO.

At the same time, After taking Ukraine, the Russians could redirect all their possible and engage in a hybrid war against the Baltic States, Poland and Romania. Destabilizing the full region. It would be in the territories of the abovementioned countries that power plants, pipelines or another delicate installations would explode. Civilians and people who substance to the interests of the country would die. The EU and NATO borders would inactive be attacked in different ways (remember the migration crisis caused by Belarus?). Latvia and Estonia would be in an highly hard situation, which are hard to defend, while at the same time there is simply a large Russian diaspora. A advanced safety hazard would deter abroad capital from fleeing Central Europe. This would endanger the long-term economical crisis.

The constant hybrid and military force from Moscow would force the Second Cold War in the West. Thus hundreds of thousands of soldiers from all over NATO along the east flank of the Pact should be deployed to neutralise the threat. This would entail immense costs. From the EU's point of view, destabilising Ukraine (which could be followed by diversionary-partisan actions) as well as the hybrid war in countries bordering the renewed USSR would hit everyone's interests. Berlin too, and possibly especially.

At the same time, Americans could not give their attention to China due to the fact that they would be forced to engage in defending the east flank of NATO. Ukraine's defeat could convince Beijing that it is worth betting on partnership with Moscow (which the Chinese now mention to with a distance). This would make a real threat in the form of an east political bloc that seeks to break Prosperity The West, as well as its technological-military advantage.

For these very reasons, presented in summary The West can't go back. Especially since his real commitment to the conflict in Ukraine is so large (because in reality the West is doing what it should be) that Ukraine's defeat would be read by the full planet as an image of the United States and the full West. Thus, American bilateral alliances could break up, including those in the Far East (Japan, South Korea). At the same time, the European Union would become an economical petent of Asia.

Russia is already at war with the West – does the West know about it?

It is highly crucial to realize that MY – West, we are already a organization in the war in Ukraine. It includes Poles, Germany, British, French, Italian, Portuguese and American, and even Hungarians. And not only due to the fact that the full West bears the costs of Russian aggression (inflationary and energy crisis).

It is adequate to perceive to Vladimir Putin's communicative as well as to analyse Russian media poisoning Russian society with Crematorian propaganda (effectively). The thesis that Russia fights in Ukraine against NATO and the West is not only the core of Russian propaganda. She's real. For the Russians. The Russian Federation invaded Ukraine for 3 reasons:

1. geopolitical – due to the fact that Russia is in conflict with the West and the US, and Ukraine has become needed to usage its territory to endanger NATO from additional directions. erstwhile taking control of Kiev, Russians could approach NATO and deploy troops on the Ukrainian-Polish and Ukrainian-Roman border. At the same time, gaining access to Transnistria, which would let the full of Moldova (also not in NATO and the EU, like Ukraine). In another words, Putin moved on to an offensive and aggressive abroad policy to recreate the USSR and approach to NATO boundaries in order to exert force in the West and get interesting concessions through military blackmail,
2. cultural-political – because Moscow did not want to let Ukraine to join – in accordance with the Ukrainians' will, expressed at least during the Orange Revolution (2004) or during the Majdan (2013) – into Western structures, i.e. the European Union and NATO, which would take as a threat to itself,
3. imperial because the elite of the Russian Federation see Ukraine as part of Russia, which must return to the matrix, especially since Ukraine is an crucial asset in terms of: geographical, industrial, natural materials, demographic, food and cultural-historical (Kijów as the erstwhile capital of Russia). Russia without Ukraine is much, much weaker.

It is not hard to see that 2 of the 3 above reasons apply straight to the West. The Russians started a war in Ukraine due to the fact that they intended to hit NATO and EU interests. And they did. The credibility, image of power and unity of NATO have survived only and only due to the fact that Ukrainians defend themselves to this day. If the "special operation" had been successful after 3 days, Putin would have undermined the position of the US as a safety guarantor and started energy-military blackmail against Europe. In order for the European Union to submit to Moscow's will, to admit its superiority and to turn distant from the United States. By becoming dependent on Russia on energy and security. In another words, Putin started a war with the West only that he was besides weak to straight hit NATO. So he invaded – seemed – lonely and weak Ukraine. We must yet say this openly. Here, Russian propaganda is highly honest, although it tries to turn the tail. Leading a false communicative that Russia attacked Ukraine due to the fact that it defended itself against NATO. Which is apparent manipulation, due to the fact that Russia wanted to decision on to the offensive and put force on the West. The West – after 2014 – took a defensive stance. The EU has imposed limited sanctions on Russia, unsettlingly reacting to the first Russian invasion of 2014 (Krym, Donbas). NATO has not done any aggressive or active action against Russia. Ukraine has not been armed, NATO has not been expanded to include more members. No offensive or hybrid actions were launched against Russia itself. The West did not impose the most severe sanctions and waited. In fact, Germany even continued its cooperation with Putin (the Nord Stream II construction started after 2014). In principle, only Americans and Poles tried to neutralise Russia's expansional projects (also on an economical level like Nord Stream II). However, this was reactive to Putin's actions. The second is the unquestionable aggressor and the individual liable for the ongoing war. Let us remind you that in 2012 (the time of the Barack Obama reset) Vladimir Putin had everything. What I wrote many times, including in the last text: “Reset Barack Obama saved the planet and Poland?’ Americans withdrew from politics in Europe, resigned from rocket shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, liquidated the Second US Fleet The Navy liable for guarding the Russian North Fleet (as if giving access to the Atlantic Ocean, i.e. to planet maritime routes). Despite this, Putin decided to hit NATO and US interests, resulting in the first invasion of Ukraine from 2014. So it should be stressed again that on a geopolitical level, the attack on Ukraine was a Russian declaration of war against NATO. What many seem to have missed and missed to this day.

At the same time, Kremlin decision-makers did not want another nation to turn distant from Moscow and choose the planet of the West. They did not respect the rule of self-determination of nations, and despite the clear Ukrainian aspirations to join the EU (but besides most likely NATO), they decided to brutally deprive Ukrainians of illusions. The 2014 invasion and the frost of the Donbasa conflict were a tool for crossing the way on which Kiev could enter the EU and the North Atlantic Pact. The country where the conflict was already under way (although frozen) did not have a large chance of obtaining an external safety guarantee. On the another hand, preventing Ukraine from choosing the European Union and NATO was a clear and hostile action by Russia against the West.Russia militarily blocked Kiev's peaceful, political and economical plans and their acceptance by the European Union. On a political level, it was a public act of hostility. Putin proved to the West that without his approval, the EU or NATO could not accept any more volunteers.

However, the state in which Ukraine was in any kind of geopolitical suspension was besides unacceptable to Moscow. The Kremlin sought to rebuild the USSR, which was repeatedly mentioned by Vladimir Putin with an open spread. Ukraine was expected to be Russian. Russia was to become an empire again. It includes not only Kiev, but Minsk as well as most likely Chisinau. This in turn leads to the conclusion that the Russian Federation – trying to rebuild the empire – decided to break the existing safety architecture. Knowing that this will have a large and negative impact on globalization processes, so besides on growth Prosperity West. Putin, planning an invasion of Ukraine, not only expected sanctions on Russia, but himself – even before the invasion of February 24 – cut Europe off from Russian gas. By declaring an energy war to the West.

The propaganda offensive of Moscow – West in the corner

If Putin and Russia wage war with the West and politicians and Western societies pretend not to participate in this war, then specified a state of affairs leads straight to the Western defeat. 1 cannot win a war in which 1 participates as a party, but acts as a bystander. In order to win, a certain conscious process is necessary. You should:

1. to know that individual is already fighting against us, so we are in war, and if that is the way to say it: “THIS IS OUR WAR”,
2. Now that we know we're at war, the question of who is our enemy?
3. Knowing the enemy, you can tempt for his war goals and find your own. So specify what will be our victory? And what are we fighting about?
4. With a clear goal set, it is yet possible to analyse how to accomplish it and win the conflict.

Without this process, it is impossible to fight effectively. The message that "this is not our war" is fundamentally a message that we have no interest in the outcome. In another words, in specified a situation, whoever would not win the war in Ukraine, our situation would not change. And if so, why engage and aid anyone? This is the logical series that tries to instill Russian propaganda in us. That's why it's so crucial to admit that the war in Ukraine is our war. We do not care what happens there and we are aware that Russia is conducting this replacement war against us (this is the case) Proxy-war against the West!).

Of course, in principle, the West takes real action as if it were in this war. Military equipment is being sent, supplies are being provided, intelligence is being provided, and Ukrainian soldiers are besides trained in Western states. However, this gap between political declarations (this is simply a war only between Ukraine and Russia) and actual actions (we fight Ukrainians, although not straight against Russian troops) is utilized by Russian propaganda. Here. In the western (including Polish) infosphere.

On the 1 hand, the distance from war by Western leaders is read by Putin as a weakness. Which encourages him to further escalate the conflict. On the another hand, this kind of way of conducting diplomacy gives entirely the fields of Russian propaganda.

The Russian communicative is based on the communicative of the following logic:

1. Russia wages war in Ukraine with the West – which is true, and good manipulation and propaganda always comes from the truth, in order to “catch” people who perceive reality in the same way. After all, we all see, hear and feel that Russia is fighting NATO in Ukraine.
2. Western politicians say that we are not fighting Russia (probably not to annoy Putin), but to increase engagement in Ukraine (because they know that it must be won). In another words, Russian propaganda indicates that Western politicians lie or manipulate. – This proposal is logically consistent and fundamentally corresponds to reality.
3. Since politicians and the media are lying, it means that they want to trick us all into a war in Ukraine. It's a logical thesis, but it's not real, which is what it's going to be about.
4. Since the authorities and the media are falsifying the message, it means that engagement in Ukraine is not a proper, correct and in our interest. due to the fact that if it were good for us, it would be adequate to explain alternatively of lying, wouldn't it? – Thesis manipulated suggesting bad intentions of politicians on Ukraine.
5. As a consequence, it is “logical” that helping Ukraine is not in our interest, politicians and the media are unbelievable, and so it is crucial to confide to those who have said/telling from the beginning how it is, that is, the fact that the war in Ukraine is simply a NATO-Russia war. – Thesis whose logic is based on the manipulated thesis of earlier.
6. If individual is telling the fact about Russia's war with NATO, it means that he is besides right to say that this is an unwanted state, so “this is not our war” – False thesis, due to the fact that 1 can tell the fact in 1 matter, and the another can intentionally mislead utilizing the credibility built before.
7. If, in turn, it is not our war, then we should not aid Ukraine, and after the war, we should deal with Russia, which, after all, only "defensive" against NATO expansion. – A completely false thesis, whose logic is based on erstwhile false premises.

So erstwhile Putin and Russian propaganda accuses the West of moving a war against Russia, and Western politicians deny it, de facto give the Russians ammunition to spread propaganda in Western societies.

But why is that?

Fire in the cinema

The answer is very simple. It's about calming the population and not panicking.

Imagine sitting in a cinema area in a multiplex. There's a fire in the next room. The cinema staff interrupts the screening and asks the audience to leave the area in peace. We're getting word that there's been a fire, and we're proceeding a firefight going on behind the wall. However, we are calmed that we are safe. According to the service (politics) we only gotta leave our room, where sprinklers will be utilized (just in case). At the same time, emergency and fire services are on their way. Therefore, there is no panic and everyone leaves the cinema safely. In turn, the service (the service of cinema and firemen) does their occupation and the fire is put out.

Now let's imagine a second script where there are respective screamers among the audience in the cinema room. These people argue loudly that the cinema service is lying to us. There's a fire alarm in the next room, but there's no danger. There's no point in interrupting the show we paid for. The Kino authorities are trying to trick us on admission tickets. Even if there was a tiny fire in the area next door, it was definitely due to the cinema and not threatening the safety of the rooms next door. In view of this overt fraud against us – customers, we should stay, not participate in the evacuation and not call the fire department, which we actively pay all of our taxes. Let the cinema service – alternatively of lying – extinguish the fire itself and not make us bear the cost of the full situation. “This is not our fire!” - We hear you. “Even if the area next door burns to the ground, the fire will not go any further and will not spread! Has any of us died in a fire in the cinema hall so far? Of course not! So this will not happen now either!’ J

It is apparent that Western politicians are afraid – besides for purely political reasons – to admit to their voters that there is simply a war going on. However, the actions of Washington, Paris, Warsaw or even Berlin clearly show that among the elite there is simply a full awareness of this state of affairs. This creates dissonance in societies that effort to exploit Russian propaganda. utilizing freedom of speech and speech, as well as respect for constitutional rights which are recognized by the Kremlin – rather wrongly – as a weakness of the West.

To turn your cheek or ask for... war.

Therefore, it seems apparent that The Russian side is most afraid of the open admission by the West (politicians and society) that the war in Ukraine is OUR WAR. The war Putin started, but which we must end. By deciding in our favor. In the Kremlin they fear not that the West will secretly aid Ukraine, but that the open declaration of the West, which will stand as a side of this conflict. The Russians fear the coherence of the words and deeds of Western politicians, which would close Russian propaganda to 1 of the most crucial levers undermining public assurance towards the authorities. On which this deficiency of trust can easy be built with a manipulated message.

The sincere setting of the case by the Western elite (“this is our war”) and the public's conviction of its legitimacy would make the West able to apply in rule any kind of support/action that would consider essential to lead to Russian defeat in Ukraine. Moreover, the confrontation in Ukraine as a organization would even force Western politicians to take all measures to accomplish victory. Which would automatically make the threats of Western politicians towards Putin highly credible. So they had to be calculated, not ignored by the Kremlin.

Putin fears to return to a hard and unambiguous rhetoric from the West. That Joe Biden will follow JFK's footsteps and set clear red lines that will be crossed with circumstantial actions. Democracy has an advantage over authoritarian governments. The second can almost freely form the level of tension in global relations. They may endanger 1 day and the another retreat from harsh communicative without major interior consequences for the regime. However, democracy is different. Political decision-makers fear social sentiment. It has its drawbacks, but erstwhile voters realize that they are under attack from outside and the state is at war, they request triumph from politicians. If a democratic leader enters the way of harsh communicative and a "promise" win (which he must actually do), then it will be hard for him to get off the chosen communicative without negative political consequences (lost elections). In another words, Western, democratic politicians – after crossing a line – must be even more ruthless in diplomacy than dictators. In the Kremlin they realize this mechanics and effort to prevent it from being triggered.

Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that Russia is militarily weaker than NATO and the United States itself. So this West can and should start threatening Putin and the Russian elite. due to the fact that a situation where the aggressive side – but weaker – threatens everyone around it, causing fear, distance or limiting countermeasures is very dangerous.

Imagine a situation where Putin wins the war in Ukraine. It builds assurance and strengthens assurance in the weakness of the West. He makes another military decision to occupy the Baltic States and, for example, further expansion to Poland. All this would be based on a false thought of the people in power in Moscow. Meanwhile, the Russian Federation would have no chance in a conventional clash with NATO. The demolition of the Russian army would be inevitable. However, it would origin fear on the Kremlin's side, which would manifest itself as a readiness to usage the atom. In another words, the threat of atomic war would then be highly real.

Such could be the consequences of a situation in which the stronger (NATO) would let himself to be hit by a brazen weaker (Russia) person.

Such a strategy must not be adopted. It's on the subject of a more powerful liability to escalate the conflict. NATO and the United States have the chance to halt the Russian Federation. The second will be aggressive, defeating further limits of West passivity. So the West must show its power and, most importantly, its readiness to usage it. Putin and his sidekicks should be scared. That's the only thing that can halt them.

Therefore, the phrase “this is our war” is so crucial. And that's why Russian propaganda found the counterword crucial to its narrative.

A good threat is simply a real threat.

The only way to halt Putin is to win the Ukrainians on the battlefield – which will be hard – or to scare Russia decently (or both at once). erstwhile we put it this way, it's apparent that if the West is going to win with Putin, it can't just bluff. This is how you lose a luck in poker, and the war situation is not a card game. Tokens are not at stake.

Western threats to Russia must not only be covered, but should besides be credible for Moscow. In another words, if the West threatens and the Russians don't believe these threats, there could be a dangerous escalation. 1 in which the Russians cross the red line, the West responds, and Putin after the first shock and surprise will begin to decision further. And that's not the point. The Kremlin decision-makers must be certain that their further action will meet the inevitable and crushing Russian response.

The situation in which the West is politically placed alongside the conflict – not as its side – causes the Russians to believe in no threat of NATO's active action. Why would NATO work if it doesn't feel like it's the subject of an ongoing war? If NATO thinks it's not in the war, why would it go in there?

That is why it is so crucial to inform Moscow that the war in Ukraine is simply a war in which NATO is simply a party. So the goal is to win with Russia, and if so, there is full readiness and determination to take appropriate action. Only then will Putin believe that he is dealing with a dangerous opponent ready to strike.

Kennedy for the second time

This is the minute erstwhile purely theoretically the reflections should be translated into circumstantial variants and possible Western moves towards Russia. What would be the subject of a threat?

I wrote about this on the second day of the re-invasion of Ukraine (25.II.2022). Russia is more powerful than Ukraine. He has a larger army with more potential. He leads an offensive war and destroys the victim. So, if Putin fights until victory, then the Russians have the possible to persist in the war for 1 day longer than the Ukrainians and win. By destroying and exhausting the enemy. Regardless, Moscow can mobilise tremendous forces to execute an earlier decisive strike. He may inactive have the possible to break up the Ukrainian army. I wrote about it many times, although it seemed incredible a fewer months ago. Today, preparations by the Russian Federation to reopen the offensive are visible to the bare eye. possibly this is the last minute to save Ukraine. possibly a large supply of equipment and weapons from the West will suffice. possibly not. And how long do we request the contents of the warehouses erstwhile the Western arms manufacture is inactive working (or not) in peaceful conditions?

Counting on Ukraine to win the material war with Russia thanks to the West is rather risky. Moreover, as I have repeatedly stressed, Putin is in a hurry too. A fast settlement is in Moscow's interest. This leads to the conclusion that 2023 could be a breakthrough for war.

What can we do to prevent the Kremlin from achieving its goals? It is clear that Ukraine must not fall, and the symbol of this fall would be Kiev's business by the Russians.

Let us besides be honest from a geopolitical point of view. For the West, it is not crucial to reconstruct Ukraine's pre-2014 borders. Territorial concessions for Russia would be acceptable, but it would be unacceptable to lose Kiev and Ukraine as a whole. Ukraine must enter NATO after the war. Only this can prevent her (and Europe) from re-Russian aggression. So Ukraine must last as a state and Kiev must stay politically independent from Moscow. At the same time, Russia must lose in a clear way, otherwise it will never agree to grow NATO to include the capital in Kiev.

As long as the war continues on the east shore of the Dnieper, the West may hope that the situation is under control. And the only thing that's gonna do is supply the equipment. However, if the Russians effort again to break the strategical line of Dniepr, circular Kiev, then it will endanger to collapse all Ukraine. Consequently, the launch of the full series of subsequent Russian stages of voltage escalation with the West, which were described above.

In view of the above, Dniepr's line, that is the line NATO and the EU gotta make impossible for Russia. Any effort to violate it should be neutralized by the West.

So, in my opinion, The West should tell Putin: “This is our war and we will enter it erstwhile you head for Dnieper (Kijowa) or cross the river from the north (Belarus).”

And then what?

NATO states (not necessarily all) should declare their readiness to enter Ukraine with their troops to establish a sanitary cordon. This cordon would cover the full western – right-coast – Ukraine including Kiev. Peacekeepers should be numerous, show combat readiness and have support in all domains (sea, air, cyber, space). The signal should be:

“We will enter, and if you start shooting at us, the answer will be that there will not be a single soldier and not a single part of Russian equipment capable of fighting.”

It should be remembered here that Western allies would not gotta fight the Russians first. For it is not a key reflection, for example, of Donbas. Just defend Kiev and Western Ukraine. So it would be on Putin, the Russian ministers and generals that would be liable for the possible pull of the trigger and the first shot against allies. It would be highly hard to make specified a decision, and it is inactive unclear whether anyone would follow orders to open fire on NATO troops. The Russians are aware of the disadvantage they would have been in. That's why Russian propaganda does everything to get the West out of its head even reasoning of specified a scenario.

It is besides worth remembering that while Ukrainian territory limits the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, the NATO-Russia clash covers a much larger area. The threat of entering Ukraine must be previously supported by a number of actions that will show the Russian side's readiness of allies to take action on a much broader scale. A demonstration of the possible to neutralise most Russian assets vis-à-vis all NATO is required. And like this:

1. Alliance fleets (and aviation) should show their dominance (through presence) in the Baltic and Black Sea. Russian ships and ports must feel trapped without a way out.
2. Anti-aircraft and anti-missile forces should show readiness to neutralise a possible rocket attack in the NATO States.
3. The air force should show the readiness to penetrate enemy anti-aircraft systems and execute penetrations in the depths of the enemy's territory.
4. The ground forces must take position along the border of the full alleged east flank of NATO. Demonstration the readiness to defy invasion or hybrid action, but besides the readiness to execute strikes or previously described entry into Ukraine.
5. The artillery-missile, air and naval forces of NATO should show the possible to execute massive blows to the Kaliningrad and Belarus Oblast, in order to neutralise the rocket-nuclear arsenal collected there. Russia must besides know that allies have precise mark coordinates, and the attack would be precise and effective.
6. The coalition troops should stand on the border with Moldova, to show the entry into that country and then take control of the pro-Russian Transnistria.
7. Aviation forces should show readiness to take over full dominance in the air over Ukraine and support possible land operations (stabilization mission – sanitary cordon).

For some, specified actions may seem besides ‘sharp’. However, 1 should be aware that Russia is already at war. She committed aggression. besides with a view to hitting NATO and the EU. Demonstration of the usage of force must not constitute an overly "acute" informing to the organization who already uses this military force. Parties which, through suggestions, endanger to usage atomic weapons besides against NATO. The Russians are already utilizing almost a full array of actions and narratives to intimidate and deter Western states from engaging in Ukraine. NATO has not yet utilized any arguments of deterrence and intimidation. He's just feeding aid to Ukrainians. It is time to change this and to bring about any kind of balance, as this deficiency of balance ("softness" of the West against Putin/Miedvedev's sharp tone) could lead to disaster. The disaster described above, consisting in the Russians moving besides far. 1 can say that they must be stopped from themselves.

But if Putin, despite all the above mentioned actions, decided to take over Ukraine or Kiev, then the coalition of selected states (because it is doubtful NATO's unity in the issue of entering Ukraine) should actually deploy its troops to make around western Ukraine and Kiev cordon. So that the Russian troops can't pass without attacking allies. At the same time it is highly crucial to show at this point a full advantage in the air and readiness to destruct any Russian units that would decide to open fire.

Of course, specified a far-reaching script seems to be a suspension of the outbreak of atomic war on a thread. But what, if not, was Kenneth's command to shoot Russian ships headed for Cuba? (if they hadn't stopped).

Putin has been demonstrating to everyone for months that he will not back distant from anything. You should put a mirror in front of it, or it will not stop.

You put out the fire yourself, warbler!

In pro-Russian narratives, he uses 2 popular emotional chords, which are intended to end any divisions on the topics discussed above. The first is:

Let us not send our children to war

Of course, it is simply a inexpensive catch to address emotions alternatively than common sense. The common sense suggests that while Ukraine is independent of Russia and is inactive fighting, Russia has no convenient conditions to hit NATO and Poland. In another words, interfering with Putin's business of Ukraine de facto It protects us, our families and our wealth.

Pro-Russian propagandists usage a simple narrative, depicting it with broken veterans' legs and referring to “our children” due to the fact that it is impossible to explain their basic thesis in a cool, rational and geopolitical manner. The thesis that 1 should keep the distance and after the war in Ukraine decision to business with Russia as if nothing. Well, no one's making an explanation for what it's expected to look like. No wonder, due to the fact that no reasonable individual would believe in a completely nonsense explanation that Putin, after conquering Ukraine, would abruptly soften and become a credible partner on the global stage. And Americans and Europeans would believe that. Nobody in Washington – after the fall of Ukraine – would have any illusions about Putin. And if so, even the most naive government in Warsaw could not fraternize with Moscow. He could not commit this suicide, even due to the fact that we belong to the EU and NATO. Putin, on the another hand, abruptly doesn't soften. There will be genocide in occupied Ukraine, and the geopolitical situation after the business of Ukraine will not be more safe for Poland and Europe. It'll be the opposite. This fact is unquestionable, hence the simple emotional play of Russian narrative.

Therefore, pro-Russian propaganda suggests that Western politicians will first send tanks to Ukraine and later our children. This message is already completely devoid of logic for another reason. If we look at this issue coolly, even if it was intended to send soldiers of selected NATO states to Ukraine to put an end to the conflict with Russia, no 1 would send "our children" there. It should be remembered that the theoretical sending of troops to Ukraine would concern professional troops. Professional soldiers. A professional soldier is no longer a child. He is simply a man who knowingly decided to: prosecute the profession of soldier, curse and defend the country and its citizens. His family, another citizens and another citizens' families. For which he is totally consciously paid.

The doctor does not choose to work in a infirmary just to collect the pay and refuse to execute medical procedures. Fireman doesn't go to the fire department to sign off before going to firefighting. It does not substance whether a given fire broke out spontaneously, or whether the fire was intentionally planted, for example, by a neighbour not liked by a given firefighter. The fireman is to put out the fire and undertakes this work as part of his work in a peculiar profession, knowing that the fire will detonate and must be extinguished – even at hazard of endangering his life or health. Which sane fireman's parent screams during a fire pointing to a boy going to the action to extinguish the neighbor's house: “They want to burn our children!”?

A soldier going to the army is aware that his profession involves, among another things, and at worst, fighting during the war. The work of a soldier is to defend the country and its citizens. Even if this defence requires action outside the country. The last 1 isn't that apparent to everyone. But these are the facts.

If it is possible to avoid invasion of Poland by sending Polish soldiers to Ukraine, then it is the work of Polish politicians and armed forces to take specified action. Because as long as soldiers signed up for specified a different profession (for specified a not different salary), civilians (including our children) did not consciously sign up for enlistment and fight against our country's attacking opponent.

And the threat of invasion of Poland would end precisely as in Ukraine. Borders for men would be blocked, vocations would be sent to the army and, if they didn't want to, any civilian would fight in the same trenches as professional soldiers. With little training, equipment, and consequently little chances of survival. So the question is, why keep a professional army if, during the war, civilians would gotta defend themselves anyway?

So the situation is that we want to have people in the army, or people from a vocation, or professionals who know what they're taking money for. Those who are there for another reasons are a pity to keep. This is why in Poland 20 million people pay taxes to put out a professional army, whose task is to prevent civilians ( amateurs) from reaching for weapons. And in specified a situation – a direct threat of invasion of Poland – it would be our children who would be forced to participate in the war massacre. Professionals are sent on expeditions, including frequently volunteers. All must participate in the defence war.

You go to war.

This argument will surely appear under my article and is directed towards anyone who has a healthy and reasonable approach to the war in Ukraine. This formulation is very common and is the main weapon led by pro-Russian narrative. That's why individual has to start disarming this dangerous and defet bomb. Although I know that this will consequence in a deficiency of sympathy for me among many readers, including military ones.

The work of a soldier is to defend the country and its citizens. Even if it requires a fight outside the state.

If the situation requires outside intervention to avoid a defensive war, it is appropriate to send professionals to this intervention. Professionals who consciously execute their profession. It would be a moral downfall to quit the necessary, but demanding, hard action, while at the same time coping with the situation in which the war will come to us and the weapons will gotta catch civilians. Including our children. It is certain that absolutely all Ukrainian soldier would like to fight against Russia now elsewhere than in Ukraine. In Ukraine, where many civilians are killed, including women and young children.

This is why 20 million civilians keep a professional army, so that it is ready to act in the event of a fire (war). Of course, it's the public's occupation to finance a decently equipped army. Citizens of the country – and especially Poles – must be aware of what possible business of the country may involve. The request to increase spending on an army under the present conditions is inevitable, as will the increase in taxes. We must be aware of this and ready to take on the burden involved.

If soldiers choose to prosecute a military career only to collect wages and get legal privileges (e.g. pensions or financial allowances), specified an army should not exist. It's better to be aware of your weakness than to have a false belief in your strength. Especially erstwhile you pay quite a few money for that conviction. The army is built to deter the enemy with its readiness and possible to defeat it. Second, professional soldiers are paid to fight in war erstwhile the deterrence fails. If individual is in the army to sign off on the duties they deliberately took on, it's better for him to resign and go to work in the private sector. Then, alternatively of in the cost table, he will be able to add a row of values on the side of benefits to the country and fellow citizens.

Expenditure related to the maintenance of the Armed Forces does not entail any financial benefit to the State. The only added value of the Armed Forces is the sense and warrant of safety. If the country is safe, then it can make and rise capital from outside. If the Armed Forces – as well as soldiers – were to act as safety donors, then their function would be reduced to the function of parasites on socio-economic tissue. And that's the function our military would like to bring Russian propaganda to. And so pro-Russian propaganda would like to present the Polish Army to Polish society. Like a parasitic being, who, in case of an attempt, will say to the citizens: “You fight yourselves.”

We can't let that happen. It is in the interests of the army and civilians to jointly build a level of trust. Trust based on solid foundations. If the society has religion in a soldier's ethos – thanks to the attitude of the military itself – then it will be more inclined to give more money out of its own pocket to the army. religion in the Polish soldier led Poles in 1920 to a wonderful triumph with the Soviets. There was no money in it for the discharges and for the military. Later, before the outbreak of planet War II, civilians besides rushed into military equipment. Knowing that only the breast of the Polish soldier can warrant them a peaceful life in independent Poland. It didn't work then.

Today Poland is outside the war, but this situation may change in the future. We have time, resources and opportunities to prevent this. To this end, Ukraine must be supported, at all costs prevented from being occupied by Russia, while investing in the Armed Forces of Poland. So that no of us would always gotta fight in war anywhere.

Simultaneously We cannot be morally disarmed and intimidated by Russian propaganda. We must not be ashamed to express our state directly. This state ration is to defeat Russia in the war in Ukraine. 1 of the tools of Russian propaganda is emotional blackmail. It is suggested that all those who talk about helping to win Ukraine want to send “our children” to war and death. They want to draw Putin's wrath on Poland and bring Russian troops here. It is apparent manipulation, and it is very primitive.

Until Russia can defeat the Ukrainians and engages more troops to fight them, then it will not even think about attacking Poland. So the more passive we are and the more passive we are, the sooner Putin can mark our country. So it is precisely the opposite, as suggested by the tubes of Russian propaganda.

This is our war!

In this area – intimidation, intimidating and emotional blackmail – it seems that the West (including Poland) is losing to Russian propaganda. Although the vast majority are aware of this, fewer are able to declare publically that “this is our war”. We're doing precisely what Putin expects by throwing accusations towards the West. Recognising that NATO is at war with Russia in Ukraine Putin expects denials from the another side. Russian propagandists mention to emotional phrases ("our children" or "then go to war yourself") in order to discourage the adversaries from saying straight Polish rations. This kind of action is simply a form of conducting the pedagogy of shame. We are to be ashamed or even afraid (vide calling for lists of stigmatizing people with pro-active views) thoughts on actions that could cross Putin's plans because: “this will lead to war!” The point is that we should refrain from talking, and yet even think about countering Russian war. At a time erstwhile Putin and Russia wage an open war against NATO, the European Union and Poland. Only in Ukraine. Which is only due to Russia's weakness and the inability to straight attack the West. In all of this, it is worth trying to reverse the cards of Russian propaganda so that its actions accomplish precisely the other effects.

Therefore, I encourage all readers – politicians, military, experts, publicists as well as average commentators – to introduce to the public discourse the slogan: "THUS IS OUR WAR". utilizing words in recordings, hashtags in posts or marks on profiles. Even if you have a different opinion on how to deal with Putin's aggression You do not request to share this text, just join the action. For no substance what method we want to apply, the most crucial thing is to convince us all, and later Putin himself, that it truly IS OUR WAR. And we are ready to act 1 way or another. If Putin acts as if NATO were in the war with Russia in Ukraine and convinces the Russians to do so, then admitting this apparent constitution on our Western side cannot bring us any negative effects. On the contrary. We can neutralise Russian propaganda in this way and besides halt Moscow from escalating the conflict. The Kremlin must believe we're ready for anything. Otherwise, they will proceed to escalate until they can yet lead to a direct war with NATO. They request to be interrupted.

Bo This is our war.

Krzysztof Wojchal

Geopolitics, politics, economy, law, taxes – blog

P.S.

If individual wants and can execute a cool professional graphics with the slogan "This is our war" and agrees to distribute it – I encourage you to do so.

I will personally usage this slogan until the end of the war in Ukraine. Both on the blog and on the vlog.