sounds like a pretty good reason to me to worry about it.

Any aggression towards Poland is a very different level and degree than against Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, etc.

Do you really believe the EU and NATO would sit on their hands in case some low level pro-Russia insurgency popped up in Byalystok or Lublin? Not only that, do you believe the Polish government would be doing nothing and accepting pro-Russian separatism cropping up anywhere in its territory?

I don't think there's anything the Poles hate more than Russian imperialism, not even sure if they hate Hitler more than that to be honest...

Rather than alluding to some imagined well-spring of "hate" within the Polish character or soul, another take on the Polish attitude, which I personally favor, goes like this:

They're done with being invaded, occupied, pushed around and/or talked down to by all of their various neighbors and competing empires over the past many centuries.

Meanwhile, most of them (even by far their worst occupier in recent memory -- the Germans) seem to have learned a thing or two, and have moved on to other (more subtle, and in any case non-violent/coercive ) forms of one-up-manship in the great game of national assertiveness of competition.

Except for one of course. And that's the one they rationally devote their concerns in regard to, in the present moment.

How do you figure? Even if NATO actually invokes article 5, nuclear doctrines of involved countries do not suppose immediate nuclear escalation from a conventional war. Of course, risk of nuclear war goes up if Russia invades, but it doesn't automatically go all the way to 100%.

Then just don't put them on death ground. If they have a way out, with loss of prestige and resources, but still staying in power, they will take it. India and Pakistan have had border clashes when both countries already had nukes. It was close and very dangerous, but it is still a counter-example to claim that every war between nuclear nations is just automatically bound to become a nuclear war.

All that said, I do in fact support giving Ukraine what it needs in order to defend itself. I think that is in fact a worthy and noble goal.

My mistake, but it was not intended rhetorically.

And, you know, I've never over-reacted or misinterpreted someone. Never. Um... at least not today... um, well, uh...

I also was a bit hair-trigger in my reply to you. In particular, you gave pphysch more grace (the first time) than I gave you.

I do need to remind myself to slow down and check both GP and parent before responding (which is what I didn't do here), so it's all good, really.

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. In fact, I think you could occupy as much as 80% of Russia. As long as you make sure that Putin and his friends were left alive and in charge of the remaining 20%, they wouldn't do a thing.

Nuclear annihilation will not come because of some desperate last ditch effort, but because of some politicians convincing themselves that they not only survive, but win, a nuclear conflict. And it's easier than ever to see that sort of mentality spreading in a world where narrative has become far more important than reality, at least to the idiots and octogenarians in charge.

Stop repeating FUD. Really, _everything_ about Russian foreign policy has always been to appear larger than they are, to push soft power as hard as they can, and to be very careful to pick only on evidently weaker neighbours with hard power.

There will never nuclear war. It will always be used because it's a threat that works for some people. That's Russia psy-ops for you: even in the open Westerners have trouble accepting it because it confronts them with their own irrationality.