By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent IBRiS poll revealed that a significant majority of Poles dismissed the notion that a Russian drone incursion into Polish airspace was accidental, contradicting statements made by U.S. President Donald Trump. The poll showed that 81.7% of respondents rejected the possibility of an accident, while only a small fraction agreed with Trump’s assessment. Polish officials also rejected Trump’s characterization, with leaders like Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski accusing Russia of deliberate violation. The survey was conducted via telephone interviews with over a thousand respondents in mid-September.
Read the original article here
82% of Poles reject Trump’s claim Russian drone incursion was accidental, poll shows, and honestly, that’s not surprising at all. Poland, let’s face it, has a pretty deep understanding of what Russian aggression looks like. It’s practically etched into their history books. So, when a prominent figure tries to brush off a drone incursion as a mere accident, the reaction is going to be a resounding “No way.”
Considering the context and Poland’s historical relationship with Russia, the 82% figure almost seems low. One can’t help but wonder what the other 18% were thinking. Were they simply unsure, or perhaps swayed by other narratives? The poll results are pretty decisive, though.
Think about it: if we’re talking about a single drone, maybe, just maybe, you could entertain the idea of an accident. Heck, sometimes things go wrong. But multiple drones, crossing the border simultaneously? That’s not a simple error. It’s more likely a deliberate act, a calculated move.
And let’s be honest here: If those drones were truly intended for Ukraine and went astray, you’d expect them to be equipped with explosives, right? The presence of Polish SIM cards raises even more questions, because who in their right mind sends drones with Polish sim cards if the goal is some bombing operation far from the Polish border? It’s hardly accidental if you have planned on using devices that can pinpoint your target.
It really does seem like the former president was trying to protect the interests of someone else, someone with whom he has a rather…complicated history. His response is hardly unexpected and falls in line with a trend of behavior. The real question becomes why someone in such a powerful position would defend such an intrusion.
The fact that he’s out there defending this is baffling. The constant need to defend what seems like indefensible actions doesn’t really help him. It just further fuels the suspicions.
Interestingly, the poll also revealed that the “accidental” explanation was most accepted by supporters of the far-right Confederation party. This is something of a surprise, as the party has a strong nationalist viewpoint.
The consensus seems to be that this wasn’t an accident. It’s a test, a deliberate move. It’s a case of pushing boundaries, probing defenses, and seeing what the reaction will be. This kind of “grey warfare” needs to be taken seriously, as it blurs the lines and causes real problems.
Poland is well aware of how Russia operates. They’ve been predicting Russian aggression for years. Their understanding of the situation is both keen and realistic. It’s fair to say they’re not easily fooled.
One thing is crystal clear: if you hear him speaking on a topic like this, you can be almost certain he’s either misinformed, deliberately deceptive, or working in bad faith. The truth is usually somewhere else.
The idea that he might be attempting to undermine Poland’s sovereignty is simply not acceptable. This incident is a straightforward assault on NATO, and should be treated as such.
The remaining 7.7% who couldn’t answer the question might simply have been uncertain. A little over 10% agreed with Trump’s position, which is still a surprisingly low number, given the narrative that is being pushed. However, the 18% who did take his side likely had their own reasons and were probably already inclined to support Trump, regardless of the situation.
Ultimately, the Polish people have spoken. They know what they see, and they’re not buying the “accidental” story. And in this case, it’s difficult to argue with them. They’re right on the money.