“also because it should have been the prime example of one of the articles theses, that Poland has no chance if its attacked by more than one of its neighbors.”
More than once he makes that sort of point. I suggest you reread it.
As for his leaving the Soviet Union out with respect to 1939, and the German invasion (which did kick off Poland’s loss off independence and did come before the Russian invasion) he preceded that point by mentioning that Poland had to fight for it’s existence against the Soviets beginning in 1919 (it was also not as one-sided as many Polish supporters would like to suggest), and followed by mentioning in the comments after 1939, that Poland was then occupied by the Soviets from 1945 until 1989.
So, I don’t think he was “favoring” the Soviet’s. It’s more likely that editing, to reach a word/paragraph/page limit, requires brevity that sometimes appears like “missing facts” but often is just trying to select what the writer feels is important to get to the point they are trying to make; which in his case was:
- geopgraphy and history makes answering Poland’s security questions complicated, and likely requires a bi-lateral alliance with a powerful ally that does not share borders with it. (the summation of what he said)
That’s what he could have said - and that’s all that many writers might have written, and then you could have complained about all kinds of facts he left out in reaching that point. Instead, he provided, as briefly as possible, the relevant parts of Polish geography and history from which that point can be understood.
I challenge you to write it better than he did.
I thought the article was a good albeit not especially original analysis, and it was well written. But his omission of the words “and Soviet” in describing the attack in September 1939 stood out to me since it was, as you helpfully quoted from my comment, a “prime example of one of the articles theses”, Poland’s hopeless position if and when their dangerous neighbors collude.