The Polish armed forces are training citizen volunteers how to be armed partisans, firing rifles and donning gas masks.
That’s… not great. The program is apparently popular, so they are expanding its capacity so that every adult male receives the training.
We need this is Canada to get ready for Trump’s invasion.
Lots of people are buying guns to prepare.
calm down dude who would invade Poland anyway
An attack on Poland would immediately invoke NATO Article 5, drawing in the combined forces of continental Europe, the UK, the US and Turkey. The world wouldn’t need to worry about it going nuclear, conventional forces would have the Russians back over the Belarusian border by lunchtime.
Mango Fucking Mussolini would abandon Poland like the British and French in 1939. Fuck Russia and the MAGAts, this German supports the European NATO members and especially our neighbors to the east. If the motherfucking Muscovites attack, I will request to be reinstated and do whatever I can to stop the filthy bastards.
Mango Mussolini 😂 😂 😂
Unfortunately that’s not necessarily what article 5 implies. It only states that the member nations will respond, not how exactly they will respond.
They will voice concern.
They will send a strongly worded letter to Putin.
This is what I fear will happen when Canada is annexed. The other NATO members will express outrage, but who’s going to launch an invasion across the Atlantic against the most powerful armed forces in the world to liberate Canada?
Then article 42 of the EU
deleted by creator
I love the optimism
What else do we have left at this point?
I would love to believe you but looking at the sleepy AF response when Europe decided to help Ukraine…
Yeah, no, Poland is a buffer. Again.
Oh damn, I wasn’t aware Ukraine was part of NATO
Ukraine not being a NATO member yet is most likely among the main reasons Putin had the balls to send troops across the border. There’s absolutely no way he’d risk a full-on confrontation with NATO, because he knows it would be the end of the Russian Federation.
If you think the poles won’t get betrayed I have a bridge to sell you
If Ukraine was NATO, we’d be out in all force already.
It is only because we don’t have a defense treaty with them that we risk the NATO treaty if any NATO country decides to send troops. Since they are essentially deciding for every NATO country to enter the war then.
But if they attack a NATO country like Poland, then that is exact what NATO is designed for and nothing is risked.
Mate, I am not speaking about armed response but overall response. Europe was straight up sleeping. We are underarmed and our response times suck, and historically Poland always was seen as comfortable buffer zone.
I love your extremely oversimplified to the point of being ridiculous type response
Nothing is a cliche when it happens to you. I would argue if you were in poland, and especially with the knowledge how poland has been consistently fucked over by it’s “allies” your stance might differ.
It’s easy to go into semantics when you are not one day’s ride away from firing guns.
Drones, teach them to fly drones.
I just imagined a future where drones are so pervasive and advanced against current defenses, the only real defence would be a electromagnetic pulse. Even losing all other electronic means of communication, infrastructure, etc., at least the explosive and chemical weapons death swarm that was coming just fell to the ground. And guns and gunpowder will still work.
(Losing most all electricity is probably not worth the trade off, just a short thought)The stuff that the Brits recently tested is exactly an EMP pulse, though directional.
The thing is, you can harden the drones against that.
Wide dispersal EMPs are typically not that effective against smaller devices so drones with autonomous backups would be hard to effect in anything but a small area, even with a high altitude nuclear EMP.
Thought crossed my mind.
Canada’s new Liberal government, under threat of annexation from the US, is advancing a civilian disarmament agenda.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
Source? I can’t find any mentions of gun control from Carney.
I know Trudeau went a bit hard on it but Trudeau’s gone
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-plan-border-rcmp-bail-1.7507110
Carney said a Liberal government would reinvigorate the assault-style firearm buyback program launched in 2020, shortly after the mass shooting in Portapique, N.S., which left 22 people dead.
Can’t you guys just lure American forces into the woods and attack them like Ewoks?
That’s top secret defense information! We have a leak.
It’s not total disarmament, hockey sticks are effective weapons.
Poland is going to be the monkey wrench in the gears for Putin’s plan.
I’m big on Poland.
They’re building bases close to the Finnish border. I almost feel sorry for them, but not really.
Joking aside though, if a new front opens it’s highly likely it’ll be here. Our politicians are already ensuring we have a plan, and …we’ll, we do.
If they want to fight us in the forests again I don’t think it’ll end like Putin thinks it will, no matter if it’s summer or winter.
Their drones won’t be as effective, and while they may well have a larger army now than when they started that’d change pretty quickly I believe.
russia can barely handle ukraine; they’re never going to bother w europe.
Nothing bad ever came from underestimating your enemies right?
The same could be said for overestimating them, which can lead to defeatism.
I absolutely don’t see that as what’s happening here.
They’re simply taking a page out of Switzerland’s book, which is essentially “train literally everyone as a contingency, and make a public defense policy to bleed anyone white who tries to invade”.
Not if Poland keeps up like they have been.
Hope you’re gonna be just as jolly when it’s gonna be your turn going into a meat grinder.
There is nothing to get “big on” in fucking war. It’s not sports.
Going big on the people who are against an aggressor sounds pretty anti-war to me.
It of course is. I agree with the sentiment, and I am glad there is optimism in a form of cheering for Ukraine, and whoever else who might get targeted next.
It is the wording in this context that got to me, I just do not think it is appropriate. Then I got carried away.
Your comment makes no sense.
These patriots are stepping up. You seem to think I will shirk my duty.
GFY
edit: looked at bro’s profile, probably a bot. Definitely a plant. I blocked.
Poles ready to defend the country if those fears become a reality? A recent poll found that only 10.7% of adults said they would join the army as volunteers in the event of war, and a third said they would flee.
Understandable, but also kind of sad. Poland exists because its people fought back against authoritarian bastards.
Yeah, but due to gov fucking up and people struggling to make ends meet, patriotism fell a lot. Even a decade ago I’d say half of poles were patriotic and half weren’t…and it fell hella lower than that.
Poland exists because its people fought back against authoritarian bastards
Poland kinda exists because it was saved from genocide by the red army. After that, it existed as an independent country in which its language and culture were maintained and supported by the government. You may argue it exists in a different form after the 1980s Solidarity movement, but Poland very much existed before that and that’s a consequence of Soviet (not just Russian, but also Ukrainian, Kazakh and other nationalities) soldiers who gave their life in the fight against Nazism. 27 million soviets died in total in WW2.
Even in the 1910s, when Poland obtained its independence from the Russian Empire, it did so thanks to the Bolsheviks creating a constitution granting all peoples of the former Russian empire the right to self-determination and unilateral secession, not because an autoctonous Polish movement forced any government to give it independence.
What historical events are you talking about when you refer to Poland existing because they fought against authoritarianism?
Edit: some people have brought up comments about the role of Polish resistance in WW2. My point was not at all to diminish the valiant efforts of the Polish antifascist partisans, most of whom I consider heroes of the struggle against Nazism. I just think it’s unfair to erase the role of the Red Army of the Soviet Union in the existence of modern Poland. Without it, probably Poland (as many other eastern-European countries) would be the ashes of Nazi genocide and colonization.
Here’s how the Soviets save the Poles:
This might be the most backward brain rot comment I’ve ever read. Just gonna rapid fire through these…
- Poland existed for a long ass time, even when it wasn’t on the map. It had no less than 6 armed conflicts and rebellions against the Russian Empire.
- Poland lost 6 million people in WW2, 17% of their population; by far the largest of any country. If you want to play who-suffered-most they’re getting gold.
- Maybe they would have lost less had the Soviets not joined the Germans in slicing up their country. They literally staked out what parts of eastern Europe they would own…
- Polish independence was gained through the collapse of the Russian Empire; Moscow was in no position to claim control over anything anyway
- Lenin renegged on that “self determination” just a few years later in 1919 when they marched the Red Army into Poland and annexed Kresy
There’s a reason a Pole will tell you never trust a Russian, they’ve never been grateful vassals. I don’t subscribe to America’s red scare propoganda but you’re an idiot to whitewash Soviet foreign policy.
In 1610, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth beat the shit out of the Muscovites, sack Moscow and occupy the Kremlin for two years. 1920, the Poles stopped the fucking Bolshevik and beat their asses back to the border. The fucking Russians will never forgive Poland. I know the Poles generally do not like us Germans, but the Russians are on an entirely different level of hatred.
Ohhh here we go again with the Motherboard-Ribbedcock revisionism and Polish nationalist propaganda! I’ll answer point by point:
Poland existed for a long ass time, even when it wasn’t on the map. It had no less than 6 armed conflicts and rebellions against the Russian Empire
Exactly. The Polish people have been mostly oppressed for centuries under the rule of the Russian Empire and whatever German-dominated empires that have controlled the region. That’s an unfortunate truth that I completely agree with. That’s why I see the Bolsheviks ending the Tsarist Empire as a good thing, and allowing Poland to exert its right to self-determination as based.
Poland lost 6 million people in WW2, 17% of their population
That is a horrific example of why I’m a fervient antifascist and I happily defend those who actually eliminated fascism, Poland was absolutely decimated by Nazi genocide. Poles were considered “slaviv untermenschen” and Polish Jews doubly so. The Red Army liberating Poland saved millions of people from a fate like that eventually
17% of their population; by far the largest of any country
Well, that is unless you count modern Belarus which lost 25-30%. Anyway, my actual argument is that 80% of Nazi casualties were sustained in the Eastern Front against the Soviets. The battle of Stalingrad was the first allied victory that proved the world that Nazis aren’t invincible.
Polish independence was gained through the collapse of the Russian Empire; Moscow was in no position to claim control over anything anyway
You may make that argument, but this is a bad reading of the Bolshevik policy in my humble opinion. If you want to know further about the Bolshevik position on Poland and on national identities and self-determination, the letters between Rosa Luxembourg and Lenin (in which Lenin argues for example for the right of Ukrainians to have their own republic, and for the first time pushing for an autonomous Ukrainian government and a recognition of Ukrainian culture, against Rosa Luxembourg’s position that nationalism is generally bad) are quite enlightening about the real, moral position of Bolsheviks towards the national question. You may of course disagree, this is just a vibes-based topic.
Lenin renegged on that “self determination” just a few years later in 1919 when they marched the Red Army into Poland
Why conveniently leave out the fact that this was a response to Poland invading modern Ukraine and [Belarus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War], and then the RSFSR? The Bolshevik response against Poland in 1919 wasn’t unwarranted, Poland quite literally started that war to gain some more territory of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to “restore historical borders” nationalist bullshit, don’t you think?
Maybe they would have lost less had the Soviets not joined the Germans in slicing up their country
I have quite a few things to argue against this, hence why I left it for the end. I hope we can argue in good faith about it:
1) Most of the invaded “Polish” territories actually belong to modern Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus. In 1919, Poland started the Polish-Ukrainian war and invaded Ukraine, Belarus and part of the RSFSR as we saw. This “carving of Poland by the Soviet Union” liberated many formerly oppressed non-Polish national ethnicities such as Lithuanians in Polish-controlled Vilnius arguably being genocided, or ceding the city of Lviv to the Ukraine SSR.
2) The Soviet Union had been trying for the entire 1930s to establish a mutual-defense agreement with Poland, France and Britain against the Nazis, under the doctrine of the then-People’s Commisar of Foreign Affairs Maxim Litvinov. This decade-long proposal for mutual-defence went completely ignored by France and England, which hoped to see a Nazi-Soviet conflict that would destroy both countries, and Poland didn’t agree to negotiations by itself either. The Soviet government went as far as to offer to send one million troops together with artillery, tanking and aviation, to Poland and France. The response was ignoring these pleas and offerings.
Furthermore, this armistice between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany happened only one year after the Munich Betrayal. The Soviet Union and France had a Mutual Defense Agreement with Czechoslovakia, which France (together with the UK) unilaterally violated in agreement with the Nazis when ceding Czechoslovak territories to Nazi Germany. Stalin offered France, as an alternative to the Munich Betrayals, a coordinated and two-front attack to Nazi Germany, which France rejected in favour of the Munich Agreements.
3) The Soviet Union had been through WW1 up to 1917, the Russian Civil War up to 1922 (including a famine that killed millions) in which western powers like France, England or the USA invaded the Bolsheviks and helped the tsarist Whites to reestablish tsarism, which ultimately ended with a costly Bolshevik victory; the many deaths of famine during the land-collectivization of 1929-1933, and up to 1929 was a mostly feudal empire with little to no industry to speak of. Only after the 1929 and 1934 5-year plans did the USSR manage to slightly industrialize, but these 10 years of industrialization were barely anything in comparison with the 100 years of industrialization Nazi Germany enjoyed. The Soviet Union in 1939 was utterly underdeveloped to face Nazi Germany alone, as proven further by the 27 million casualties in the war that ended Nazism. The fact that the Soviet Union “carved Eastern Europe” was mostly in self-defense. The geography of the Great European Plain made it extremely difficult to have any meaningful defenses against Nazis with weaponry and technological superiority, again proven by the fact that the first meaningful victory against Nazis was not in open field but in the battle of Stalingrad, which consisted more of a siege of a city. The Soviet Union, out of self-preservation, wanted to simply add more Soviet-controlled distance between themselves and the Nazis. You don’t have to take my word for all of this, you can hear it from western diplomats and officials from the period itself. I hope you won’t find my choice of personalities to reflect a pro-Soviet bias:
“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)
“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.
"One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course” Neville Chamberlain House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact’s signing)
"It seemed to me that the Soviet leaders believed conflict with Nazi Germany was inescapable. But, lacking clear assurances of military partnership from England and France, they resolved that a ‘breathing spell’ was urgently needed. In that sense, the pact with Germany was a temporary expedient to keep the wolf from the door” Joseph E. Davies (U.S. Ambassador to the USSR, 1937–1938) Mission to Moscow (1941)
I could go on with quotes but you get my point.
4) The Soviet Union invaded Poland 2 weeks after the Nazis, at a time when there was no functioning Polish government anymore. Given the total crushing of the Polish forces by the Nazis and the rejection of a mutual-defense agreement from England and France with the Soviets, there is only one alternative to Soviet occupation of Eastern Poland: Nazi occupation of Eastern Poland. Seriously, what was the alternative, letting Nazis genocide even further east, killing arguably millions more in the process over these two years between Molotov-Ribbentrop and Operation Barbarossa? France and England, which did have a mutual-defense agreement with Poland, initiated war against Germany as a consequence of the Nazi invasion, but famously did not start war against the Soviets, the main reason in my opinion being the completely different character of the Soviet invasion. Regardless of this, please tell me. After the rejection of mutual-defense agreements with the Soviet Union: what was the alternative other than Nazi occupation of Eastern Poland?
Dang bro you had Russian imperial apologism ready to go that quick? Impressive.
I’m not going to engage with most of what you wrote because everything I’ve said is a fact, it’s not up for argument. The maps delineating eastern Europe exist, these conflicts happened. The Soviets oh-so-valiantly opposed nazi aggression except for when they didn’t.
Hey look, here’s a Soviet and Nazi officer shaking hands after the invasion of Poland:
Here’s a German soldier giving flowers to the crew of a Russian tank:
Somehow if you’re a fan of an imperial power (UK, US, USSR, RUS, CHN, etc…) your invasions are always the product of specific circumstance. It’s always actually a liberation, or counter terrorism or defending world order. Your puppet government is always an improvement. The other team are the true bloodthirsty enemies.
Let me cut through your mincing of the facts:
The Soviet Union invaded Poland
2 weeks after the Nazis, at a time…It’s not a secret that western powers were opposed to the Soviets; it’s not a secret that they did it to protect their own interests. If they cared more about being a bulwark against fascism those pictures would be Russian troops fighting side by side with the Poles. They could have even pushed into the German lines at any point before Operation Barbarossa.
They did eventually win the eastern front, but they looked out for their own interests first. There are a lot of counterfactual histories where millions of lives are saved by decisive cooperation.
“I’m not going to engage with most of what you wrote, here are two sensationalist pictures without context as a rebuttal of your well-sourced historical analysis” isn’t the own you think it is. I already graced you with more of my time than you deserve, people who come across the post will be free to judge the quality of my analysis vs yours and form their own opinions.
Btw, you accuse me of “Russian Imperialism”? I clearly and loudly condemned the horrors of the Russian Empire, what the heck are you talking about? If you’re reducing the USSR to a single nationality, I have bad news for you: you’re disregarding the struggle of millions of people from non-slavic-Russian ethnicities who participated in the Soviet project.
By the way, it is RICH that you call the USSR (which saved Europe from Nazism) an imperialist nation, while your comment history is full of support for meaningful pro-democrat anti-Trump protests and respect for “due process”. Showing a total lack of disrespect towards the tens of millions who actually gave their lives in the struggle against fascism while getting to feel good going to peaceful, non-disruptive, meaningless, oligarch-organized political protests that happen within the Overton Window of the most murderous empire to ever exist: the US empire. Wanna fight fascism? Join an actual socialist organization in your area, socialism is historically the only force that has been powerful enough to defeat fascism. Good luck otherwise operating within the framework of the same democrats that funded the turn-to-the-far-right of the GOP over the past decades.
Sensationalist? They give a very clear picture of what the orders were and are a perfect microcosm of how Stalin’s regime operated with the violently anti-communist Nazi’s.
As your well sourced historical analysis states there are plausible reasons for the policy but that doesn’t change the fact that the USSR acted to project and protect its own influence. You don’t get to dress it up as “saviors of Europe” or “benevolent protectors of Poland”.
As for using Russia and USSR interchangeably, I pretty obviously use it due to the outsized russkie influence on USSR policy. Stalin’s USSR was a hard turn from Lenin’s korenisatsiya, Russian culture and interests were first among “equals” (from Stalin’s own mouth). Waxing lyrical about the USSR’s diversity is pretty irrelevant in most conversations and especially here.
And next time you stalk someone’s post history, use a little more critical thinking. In no way do I support just about any of the USA’s foreign policy. I call a spade a spade and operate in real life, outside the confines of internet ideology. You have no clue what I do or don’t do in real life, regardless of what I post. Keep fighting that strawman, trooper, maybe it will go better for you than this thread.
a prefect microcosm of how Stalin’s regime operated with the violently anti-communist Nazi’s
You’re saying this to a Spaniard. From 1936 to 1939, during the Spanish civil war (which the fascists ended up winning thanks to the inaction of western powers and the military intervention of fascist Italy and Germany), the Soviet Union was openly against fascism in Spain. They delivered weapons, troops, planes and tanks in the antifascist struggle on the opposite end of the continent, and were the only country to do so. Three pictures you’ve pulled out of CIA-sponsored anticommunist sources don’t change the material and historical reality that the Soviet Union was staunchly antifascist, both in rethoric and in action. This is 3 years before Molotov-Ribbentrop. Why did the Soviet Union support antifascist Spain on the opposite side of the continent?
that doesn’t change the fact that the USSR acted to project and protect its own influence.
Well… Obviously? If my country was communist and antifascist, and was threatened by a fascist country, I would think it morally correct to extend the influence and projection of my country. Do you disagree with this?
Stalin’s USSR was a hard turn from Lenin’s korenisatsiya
Almost as if the experiences from the Civil War and the historical and material conditions of 1939 were different from those of 1917… Granting independence to Poland and seeing it immediately invade Ukraine and Belarus must have been a kick in the balls to Marxists believing in idealistic approaches to the question of nationalities, and that’s just one example of many. If you again don’t see how unity was important (and actually achieved) in a country which managed to maintain social cohesion and a functioning economy during the loss of 27 million people in the struggle against Nazism, I tend to think I’m arguing against an idealist who doesn’t analyse the material and historical constraints of policy.
My whole point with this is: what makes you think yourself more intelligent, well-versed and moral than the Marxist revolutionaries who achieved the first successful collectivisation of the economy of a country, the lasting elimination of the bourgeoisie, and ultimately the defeat of Nazism in Europe which saved millions if not tens of millions of lives from extermination? And also importantly, why are you so intent in conflating Socialism with some sort of Russian Imperialism as if the Bolsheviks weren’t the greatest possible break with Russian Imperialism that could be achieved in Russia?
Is that why Soviets attacked Finland in November of 1939 and invaded Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 1940? One more thing, the Polish military inflicted heavy losses on German armor units and the after action reports from the German field commanders showed their deficiencies, which later proved to be 100% correct. The French and BEF fell apart faster on one front with better weapons and equipment than Poland dealing with two fronts.
Way to prove you haven’t read my whole comment. I already answered to why the soviets “carved Eastern Europe” including quotes from western politicians at the time who were very aware of the invasions of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (i.e. Churchill in 1944 or the US ambassador to the USSR in 1941). The Soviet politicians admitted as much:
“The Soviet Government, in concluding the Non-Aggression Treaty with Germany, first and foremost secured peace for our country for the foreseeable future. We have moved our defensive lines far to the west. …If the war in the West continues for a long time, we stand to remain apart from it and gain those extra months—or perhaps a year or more—to strengthen our defenses. The old frontier, which was indefensible, has been replaced by a new one, affording us far greater security in the event that war is forced upon us later” October 31, 1939 (Molotov and Stalin to the Supreme Soviet), Soviet Foreign Policy, 1939–1941: Documents and Materials (a Soviet-era collection).
Do you see any trace of “Russian nationalism and expansionism” in the words of Stalin (who btw was Georgian)? Any declarations of imperialist desire? Or exclusively a pragmatic push-to-the-west in the face of a Nazi invasion to, in the words of Stalin and Molotov, moving the defensive lines far to the west because the old frontier was indefensible?
the Polish military inflicted heavy losses on German armor units and the after action reports from the German field commanders showed their deficiencies, which later proved to be 100% correct.
That is wonderful, and I very much appreciate the Polish resistance against Nazism, both during and after the invasion. The Polish antifascist partisans were truly effective and an unquestionable help in the defeat of Nazism, my utmost respect to all of them. My point with my initial comment was not the denigration of Polish partisans, but simply to correct the history-erasure that supposes not talking about Soviets and the Red Army when it comes to the existence of a modern Polish state, instead of the colonial ashes of an entirely genocided Nazi colony.
The Soviets did not liberate Poland, they brutally occupied it with no intentions of leaving. The Katyn Massacre was the start and any Poles who were against the Soviet occupation was sent off to the gulags. Modern Poland started after the last fucking Russian left Polish soil. What about Finland? Nobody with a sane mind in Europe wants to be occupied by the miserable low-life imperialistic Russians.
Modern Poland started after the last fucking Russian left Polish soil
Why the consistent conflating of the Soviet Union and “Russians”? Almost as if your argument here is coming purely from Russophobia, and not from the material and historical analysis of a country with 300 million people, approximately only half of which were Russian. Stalin himself was Georgian, and his successor Khruschyov was Ukrainian.
miserable low-life imperialistic Russians
Oh I see, so it’s just Russophobia. Should have guessed it. If you’re Polish, I’m sorry that you’ve been brainwashed by the nationalist far-right into hating the people who contributed most to the elimination of Nazism in your homeland, which if you remember correctly, exterminated millions of your kind. But hey, you can overcome it. I’m Spanish and I overcame the worst parts of the Islamophobia and Arabphobia that our institutions regurgitate onto us, so you can do it too!
Nobody with a sane mind in Europe
As someone from Spain (country where the fascists actually won the war and remained in government for 40-odd years), I actually wish we had had a neighboring communist country who helped us out of fascism, instead of capitalist countries whitewashing our ACTUALLY fascist authoritarian regime. Btw, the Soviet Union was the ONLY country in the world to sell weapons to antifascists in Spain during our civil war against fascism, and they sent troops to teach my people to use planes and tanks against fascists. I wonder why they did that?
Fuck the blyats.
Donald Tusk, it’s like some sort of a Donald Trump and Musk hybrid strain
Nice play on words(not really, but close) As much as I dislike all three at least he has a spine
