Huh?!? But "European" ISN'T a *linguistic* grouping!!!
Look it up -- you got your Germanic languages, your Slavic languages, your Romance languages... But no "Euroic" linguistic group.
Oh, you mean your good ol' "Indo-European" super-group? Well, for one thing, that's largely irrelevant, since it has more to do with really, *really* ancient lingo-history than with any even remotely living cultural memory: Fucking *sanskrit* belongs to it -- are you going to say _India_ is part of Europe, too?!? (Actually, I thought you were going to, already -- on the grounds that it once "belonged to" the Brits... Do you see now, how stupid *that* argument was?)
And for another, if you insist on going with it, then yes, the Poles *are* Europeans: Just like the Romance and Germanic languages, the Slavic languages are a part of the Indo-European language family. And the Balkans, with the possible exception of Albania (I think their language is Ur-European, i.e, *pre-*dating the "Indo-European" languages on the continent (kind of like Basque), but I'm not sure) are populated by *Slavic*-speakers, not "Asians".
Oh, BTW, it seems you're lumping the Estonians in with the Poles, as Slavs / Slavic-speakers, right...? (You weren't explicit, but judging from your sentence structure.) If so, that's wrong -- Eesti is a Fenno-Ugric language, like Finnish and Hungarian. And no, that doesn't make them "Asian" either: The western branches of the Fenno-Ugric language family have been European languages -- by virtue of being spoken *in Europe* -- for millennia.
Look, why can't you just accept the (to me, blindingly obvious) fact that you don't know shit about this all, and take my word for it when I tell you that I *do*?
Otherwise, you'll just come off like a half-mad neolithic medicine man on speed, claiming to be "explaining" nuclear physics to... say, a junior high school physics teacher.
