Let's start with the jury. He was kind to say: “The conditions of Russia are better fulfilled by kindness, otherwise the Russian army will operate”[1] What does this, repeated all now and then threat mean? We're expected to quit due to the fact that if we don't, they're gonna attack us.
What do we say? Our defence against Russia raises an intuitive objection in a group of people. Others require a repetition of the digression to avoid war at all costs:
Imagine that Lavrow comes in and puts specified a unique (at all costs) ultimatum: “there is simply a mechanized brigade here, or you will blow the full thing or we will invade and there will be war. And if you do, it will not be.” What do you think? Will they avoid war at all costs or not? There's all this reasoning that Russia will win anyway and we gotta do as they say. And Ukraine is nothing. He's no match and he loses, aid only causes unnecessary damage, which only delays Soviet's inevitable triumph. Here you can choice up guys by name to answer.
Very frequently we are satisfied with specified examples that are to be illustrated. However, they do not illustrate and require exegesis: it turns out that there is simply a price that this 1 and that 1 cannot pay for peace.
Jacek Bartosiak responded correctly: unless she was beaten in the field. And then you don't gotta deal with Russian politics and peril. That's it. This must be done and the Polish army put up for this task. Otherwise, the 3rd middlemen will talk us into giving way to Russia. Simple and clear." And the disco started. The point is, we gotta have an army that can defeat the Russians if they hit us. Meanwhile, the defence against Bolsheviks is treated as an attack.
The Americans aren't that smart, either. You gotta start negotiations with the jury by shooting him in the mouth so he can cover his feet. Then you gotta kick your kidneys. And put it upright and then you can talk. Like Kmicic with Akbah-Ulan. If you haven't read it, read it to yourself:
]]>https://literat.ug.edu.pl/potop/0059.htm]]>
Who am I working with here? These are simple things, easy to handle. Ronald Regan acted in a akin way with a celebrated microphone test:
]]>https://youtu.be/TG0ph0s9T8g]]>
And it worked. It is essential to negociate with the Russians by starting from the costly side: not that we have a proposal for beneficial coexistence, co-existence, compromise, arrangement, etc. We'll burn your cities down, we'll plow the full country through bombs, the surviving leg won't go away. And then the positions rub, the compromise is.
II
W To Things Jan Fiedorczuk fathered a pashquil on Bartosiak in connection with his last book I think. “Best Place on Earth”. Optimistic title, opposed to the desire for martyrdom. I haven't read it yet. The article, on the another hand, is behind the paywall, so read the thread on the Tlitera:
]]>https://twitter.com/JanFiedorczuk/status/1638667209210830854]]>
What's the basic charge? That he had previously been specified an airtight giopolitic slang, utilized by a narrow fistful that felt elite and that he was expected to be smart. Bartosiak, on the another hand, has spread it and now it is an egalitarian vocabulary.
No kidding. There are inactive values. The thing about values is that erstwhile Americans want something from Turkey, they gotta pay Erdogan a lot. And all we request to do is say morality, that values, that the soy and the free have everything. In general, this mentality is that it is not appropriate to request something in return in specified a situation. Here, Parys starts, and if you tell him that we have an interest in supporting Ukraine, and that's why we gotta make 150% of the possibilities to act and get caught up in it.
They will explain this terminology on the example of reparation: In request of reparation, we enter the escalation ladder. They are specified amounts that Germany pays more to finish us off than to pay. And if you tell the author this, he'll start to flout, he'll scold: “So, what, I'm not expected to claim the right one? Morality is behind me, global relations, values I have!!! European Community!!!” And we are curious in a concrete answer: with what actions it counts and how it intends to respond to them. He's not. This is the mechanics of our failures in clashes with the European Union on the occasion of courts and others.
Footnotes:
1. ]]>https://drzeczy.pl/opinie/417772/fiedorczuk-successful-path-geopolity...]]>
