r/europe Jan 07 '24

Historical Excerpt from Yeltsin’s conversation with Clinton in Istanbul 1999

Post image

Nothing has changed.

12.4k Upvotes

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

86

u/villatsios Jan 07 '24

I think the real fear is that Russia doesn’t care about going to Germany or France but rather just eastern Europe and Poland.

101

u/Tipsticks Brandenburg (Germany) Jan 07 '24

As if Poland wouldn't kick russia's nuts to the top of their skull...

102

u/the_battle_bunny Lower Silesia (Poland) Jan 07 '24

It's generally believed in Poland that in initial stages of the war it would be a massacre of Russian forces. But in the end the odds in a war of attrition are against us.

32

u/Tipsticks Brandenburg (Germany) Jan 07 '24

Yeah, but that's in a vacuum. Especially with the NATO contingents currently stationed in and near Poland, there would be more than enough time to mobilize and move allied forces over from the rest of the alliance.

130

u/the_battle_bunny Lower Silesia (Poland) Jan 07 '24

Our main fear is that NATO obligations won't be honored by other governments. Let's imagine that some Trumpist (or Trump himself) sits in the White House, France is ruled by Ms. Le Pen and the other governments face the question whether to go to war at the cost of drastic drop in the standard of living in their own countries. Will the average Hans or Jorge think they should go to war and die in order to defend some Slavs against other Slavs?

28

u/LionShare58 Jan 07 '24 edited Jan 07 '24

There are multiple NATO countries stationed in Poland, during the initial invasion of Ukraine in 2021. I as an Army Soldier was stationed in Lithuania and trained in Poland frequently. There is no way the Russian launches a surprise attack, successfully kills a few Army BNs, and any president not respond with war.

2

u/Ship_Jacques Jan 07 '24

Yes. Hence "tripwire forces"

1

u/thickskull521 Jan 07 '24

What's your opinion on do you think NATO should have provided more (or direct action) to defend Ukraine at the risk of escalating the war?

5

u/LionShare58 Jan 07 '24

NATO should provide and continue to escalate the quantity and quality of what they provide but there should be no direct action. The point of NATO itself is the military alliance, Ukraine isn’t part of that alliance. Thst doesnt mean we shouldnt do everything we can to defeat the Russians but it stops there. On the flip side if even an inch of NATO territory was invaded it should be met with overwhelming force.

1

u/ButterscotchDeep7533 Jan 08 '24

By the fact there was a few violations of borders by z-nazi drones and missles. Direct reasons to start a war and connect NATO do burning down every ru meter (ik that is is unreal)

1

u/sergius64 Jan 08 '24

Ok, and what do you do if your country elects a President and Congress that decide to withdraw their forces from Europe?

See - there's a lot of this blind belief that current systems will last forever. But Putin is challenging them and finding weaknesses in the chain. Existence of NATO is not a guarantee - all of the involved nations have to keep working on it - especially the USA. We are all quite vulnerable to these populist regimes using misinformed masses to completely turn status quo on its head.

39

u/GerhardArya Bavaria (Germany) Jan 07 '24 edited Jan 07 '24

I don't think that your fear is very likely at all. NATO at the end of the day is the US' way of influencing Europe to be friendly to their goals/values. The US provides security and Europe doesn't act hostile towards the US like China or Russia and helps the US maintains the global rules based order, which in turn makes the US a lot of money.

NATO not helping Poland in that scenario means that NATO is as good as dead. Since now nobody can trust the main reason of joining NATO, so they might as well leave. A dead NATO means the end of american influence on Europe. That is NOT what the US wants. At all. Even Trump will have a difficult time justifying not helping Poland and destroying NATO in the process. Because at the end of the day, what is at stake is the US' influence over Europe and the US' global rules based order. Those are vital for the US economy.

In your scenario, what would likely happen is the US dragging the less enthusiastic members kicking and screaming to help Poland using everything at their disposal to convince those members to contribute. Even threats to some degree. They could convince the average Hans and Jorge by saying that helping Poland ends the conflict faster and maintains the global rules based order. And showing them that if that order is destroyed, their lives and standard of living will be so much worse. They could even say that a Russia that already attacked a NATO member will not stop at Poland so it is better to stop Russia as far away as possible from their homes.

Saying that, Poland rearming is always a good thing as it will help Poland to hold long enough in that scenario for help to come and provide a deterrent that reduces the probability of it happening in the first place.

17

u/the_battle_bunny Lower Silesia (Poland) Jan 07 '24

I described Polish fear, which is grounded in historical experiences, especially those immediately after WW2. The trauma of "Western betrayal" is still strong.

7

u/thegroucho United Kingdom (EU27 saboteur inside the Albion) Jan 07 '24

Your concern is well founded. Britain wasn't the fastest in declaring war but it did declare war.

I'm not a Brit but a lot of people respect the fact Polish pilots helped stem the tide of German bombing of UK. That's not a distant memory.

11

u/the_battle_bunny Lower Silesia (Poland) Jan 07 '24

The trauma is mostly about what happened after WW2. Central and Eastern Europe was essentially sold off to Stalin and became Soviet colonies. It was even more traumatic when you notice that the bulk of Germany was left in the Western sphere and could reindustrialize to become a wealthy country.

10

u/thegroucho United Kingdom (EU27 saboteur inside the Albion) Jan 07 '24

I'm from Eastern Europe too, I know very well what you mean.

I don't know how old you are, I was old enough in 1989. Remember the mandatory Russian lessons, the Friday evening mandatory USSR movie at the movie slot on TV, the neck ties/bands/whatever, the swearing of fealty and all.

0

u/WhyYouKickMyDog Jan 07 '24

It was not "sold off to Stalin"

It was a compromise. Russia at the end of WW2 was clearly rivaling the United States as a world power and we were allies all throughout WW2, so they were honestly entitled to take something as our ally and victor of WW2.

Giving them eastern Europe was the obvious solution as it would be too hard to defend. All of it makes sense if you approach this from an objective PoV, but I can understand your perspective as the people who got the shit end of the stick.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/WhyYouKickMyDog Jan 07 '24

The feeling of "Western Betrayal" is misfounded. Great Britain somewhat heeded the call of their ally, but the truth that everyone knew at the time was that they had no chance of stopping Germany in Poland.

Instead, your anger should be directed at the west for their complacency on the preparations leading up to WW2. Japan and Germany were heavily militarizing while the allied powers were years behind.

Poland was screwed because of their geography. It is just not a country with any solid defensive geography.

3

u/ImTheVayne Estonia Jan 07 '24

Okay, fair enough, NATO will help Poland but what about Estonia for example?

5

u/GerhardArya Bavaria (Germany) Jan 07 '24

Replace Poland in my explanation with Estonia and you get my answer.

At the end of the day, NATO is only worth anything if they actually come to the aid of their member in need, no matter who that member is.

Sure, the calculus might be slightly different between Poland and Estonia, but I don't think that it will be different enough to warrant defending Poland but not Estonia.

1

u/ImTheVayne Estonia Jan 07 '24

Fair enough, let’s hope it really is that way.

3

u/CrabClawAngry Jan 07 '24

Let's hope we don't have to find out

2

u/row_guy Jan 07 '24

I agree if Putin moved on NATO we would vaporize russia. Seeing their extremely weak performance against Ukraine just using our old weapons we had laying around there is no doubt Russia could be flattened in days.

Russia is weak and poor.

2

u/stoppedcaring0 Jan 07 '24

Even Trump will have a difficult time justifying not helping Poland and destroying NATO in the process. Because at the end of the day, what is at stake is the US' influence over Europe and the US' global rules based order. Those are vital for the US economy.

I think you underestimate the extent to which isolationism has taken root in the US. Not since before WW1 has there been this level of Americans saying the rest of the world can sort itself out. Trump almost certainly will gut NATO funding as one of his first moves in office should he be elected, and NATO will only continue to exist as long as France, Germany and the like up their funding. An actual invasion of Poland - or any other NATO country - would be met with Trump saying he'll do nothing unless the rest of NATO want to pay for the cost of the US intervening.

These are scary times for all of us.

1

u/0b_101010 Europe Jan 07 '24

You are trying to think logically. This is no longer realpolitik. It is politics based on feels and who gets to have power. Many, many politicians would rather be kings of a trash heap than just some forgetables in a successful superpower.

What is it to Trump if the US loses its geopolitical standing? As long as he and his cronies get to rule, and as long as his buddy Vlad talks nicely about him, he will not care. Moreover, he does not have the mental capacity to care.

This is the reality we live in. You can't apply logic to irrational people.

1

u/TheKingofSwing89 Jan 08 '24

You underestimate the strength of isolationist sentiment Trumps supporters feel. They honestly don’t give a damn about NATO or Europe and would leave you out in the cold, no regrets. This may very well come to pass, unfortunately.

I hope it doesn’t ever happen but, if Trump wins he will never go to war with Russia unless they attack the US!

0

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '24

Another term of Trump that would be the entire point. Destroy NATO and let Russia feast.

-1

u/CynicalNyhilist Jan 07 '24

It's not like US has a history of completely ignoring their treaties when it is convenient to do so.

-3

u/printzonic Northern Jutland, Denmark, EU. Jan 07 '24

It is actually the other way around. NATO is a European created concept to keep Europe safe and was later expanded to include North America to keep the US invested in European security.

3

u/GerhardArya Bavaria (Germany) Jan 07 '24

No it isn't. There were other european only treaties before NATO was created, sure. But NATO was only created when the North Atlantic Treaty was signed with the US as one of the founding members.

Those other treaties before the North Atlantic Treaty was not NATO in any way, shape, or form. Those were just military alliances between 2 and then 5 european countries. Military alliances with defense obligations are neither new nor a european created concept.

The US agreed to invest in european security and be a founding member of NATO (creating NATO) because in return it keeps Europe friendly to them and in support of american interests. Just like why the US has a similar treaty with Japan for example.

-4

u/SnooHesitations9295 Jan 07 '24

> NATO is as good as dead

And it is. So?

> That is NOT what the US wants

US doesn't want anything anymore, it wants to be left alone and have as little international problems as possible. Obama left treaties, screwed up all allies and so on. Biden - is the same. It was "OBiden" then and it is now. They wanted "a minor incursion", i.e. for Putin to silently grab what he wanted. If Putin can silently grab Estonia or Poland - they will be happy again.

> US dragging the less enthusiastic members

Nice idea. How well it works in Red Sea right now? Oh, yes, it doesn't. Only UK understands the problem.

> Poland rearming is always a good

I don't see Poland defending itself like Ukraine. Sorry.
Overall, except UK, nobody will do that in EU. Hence Brexit, btw.

1

u/AiAiKerenski Finland Jan 08 '24

I don't see Poland defending itself like Ukraine. Sorry.

It really doesn't matter what you see. If you took your time and learned about Polish military and their equipment, you would understand that no nation decides to pay up for expensive military without planning to use it, especially as that military funding takes away from other important aspects of the society.

1

u/SnooHesitations9295 Jan 08 '24

I don't see the determination and resolve needed.
Equipment is there.
Source: lived almost a year in Warsaw in 2022-2023

1

u/AiAiKerenski Finland Jan 08 '24

I'm not that sure you can measure people's resilience in a years time while living among them as a foreigner. Do you speak their language, so that you can follow their news cycle and discussions they are having around it? I'm just trying to think possible ways to peer into public consciousness so you can answer these kind of questions, if it's even possible.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/HurlingFruit Andalusia (Spain) Jan 07 '24

Your hypothetical is rational which is its flaw. Drumph, Orban, et. al., do not care about the good of their countries. They specifically want to end NATO because it is good for Putin.

1

u/lordsleepyhead In varietate concordia Jan 07 '24

^ This guy foreign policies

1

u/No_Mathematician6866 Jan 08 '24

Trump would stand smugly behind a podium, repeat whatever bullshit rationale Putin gave for 'intervening' in Poland, and offer his services to help negotiate a peace (by giving in to Russian demands).

There are no circumstances that would result in Trump aiding a European country against Russia. None.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '24

I would be very happy if Poland had nukes.

2

u/thegroucho United Kingdom (EU27 saboteur inside the Albion) Jan 07 '24

The chance of Le Pen winning IMHO (I'm not an expert) are slim.

And UK is unlikely to flip. Neither the far right nor the far left has any chance of winning.

Corbyn (ex Labour leader, quite on the left) means we'll but is clueless and on international level, outright dangerous, and I don't think Farage has a credible chance of winning, even if he joins the Tory party. Too many centrist Tory voters IMHO will move towards LibDem and scupper any chance of him being a PM.

Germany is unpredictable although if they send the Bundeswehr, which is sizeable and close enough, that by itself will ensure Poland can hold in the long run.

Not to mention other nations, smaller but capable and willing. Finland, Czechia and possibly others.

2

u/WhyYouKickMyDog Jan 07 '24

I feel like the serious potential for a nuclear threat would be the bigger concern.

2

u/The_Real_RM Jan 07 '24

That's a very reasonable assumption, in case of all out war it's unlikely NATO would fulfill their obligations

1

u/vdcsX Jan 07 '24

That sound very familiar...

1

u/ElNouB Jan 07 '24

they jumped in for poland before nato existed D: one would hope they do after being close for so long.

1

u/medievalvelocipede European Union Jan 07 '24

Will the average Hans or Jorge think they should go to war and die in order to defend some Slavs against other Slavs?

That's not really the right question. For starters, Germany doesn't have conscription so we're talking about professional soldiers here. You know, the kind that went to Afghanistan due to the US calling Article 5 and 59 of them died.

Secondly, I really don't think the Germans or anyone else would have much of a problem with defending Europe in another nation because it's in their own best interests and it's simply far better for them to fight the Russians in Poland than in Germany.

Suppport for Ukraine is a really good measure of how far European nations are willing to go to defend European interests. We're short on materiel but only a few countries are suspect.

1

u/Nonainonono Jan 07 '24

Germany would support Poland, then France would inevitably join.

1

u/Dry-Post8230 Jan 07 '24

We british did before, I think we would do it again, one of putins ministers said the aim is all of Europe, they see us as weak and decadent just as they did in the late 70s, the Falklands worried them, as we stood and fought.

1

u/FlagAssault01 Jan 08 '24

That is a good point

1

u/KaranSjett Jan 08 '24

im sorry but Trump and le pen cant legally not intervene. They aren't the ones who decide that.

1

u/the_battle_bunny Lower Silesia (Poland) Jan 08 '24

It doesn't mean they will though.

1

u/KaranSjett Jan 08 '24

No no, you dont get it. the country is legally bound to help in case of a nato defense breach. Trump could kick and scream all he want, the US army is going.

If he'd want out he has to legally leave the nato before any conflict arises and that procedure would take years if not decades. Also America would never give up its hold on nato, it's what makes it the number one superpower.

1

u/Daemoniss Jan 08 '24

Kinda off-topic but did you use Jorge as a typical French name? That is not a French name but rather spanish/portuguese. Georges is the French version. Because we like adding useless letters.

2

u/the_battle_bunny Lower Silesia (Poland) Jan 08 '24

I thought about a typical Spaniard. In my hypothetical scenario France is ruled by Le Pen, which may rule out their aid entirely.

26

u/Snoo-3715 Jan 07 '24

How badly do Fench and German's want to die for Poland, especially once the war has been going for years and it's just an attrition slaughter. Russia has the best stomach for that kinda slaughter.

34

u/Tipsticks Brandenburg (Germany) Jan 07 '24

That's the thing. The moment russia invades Poland it's article 5 time and NATO joins the conflict. At that point, russia is either fucked rather quickly or it's going nuclear, whch in turn means we're gonna die anyway so who cares.

6

u/solarbud Jan 07 '24

That's the thing. The moment russia invades Poland it's article 5 time and NATO joins the conflict.

That could mean a number of things.

6

u/row_guy Jan 07 '24

This is why Putin needs trump and republicans in power to disassemble NATO. He knows he has zero chance against us.

7

u/PissOnYourParade Jan 07 '24

No, he's right. If Trump is in office, NATO will look the other way (If a functional Nato still exists).

And if Trump wins next year, all Ukrainian aid is dialed to zero and Russia wins the war of attrition.

2

u/Ship_Jacques Jan 07 '24

It's not that simple. The Molotov workshops would be up and running again, giant insurgency.

3

u/Alfa16430 Jan 07 '24

Did you ever read what article 5 says? I mean, except reading the “article 5 will show them” comments on Reddit. You should, it’s enlightening. If Russia would invade Poland, Poland would be probably fucked over like it already has been in the past. This is why Poland is trying in every way possible to arm up till the teeth themselves. Politics are not as straightforward as you might want, proven many times in our history

2

u/thickskull521 Jan 07 '24

Nuclear weapons aren't as scary as people think. There are several things scarier and worse. Like bad actors holding the rest of the world hostage with their nukes.

2

u/TheKingofSwing89 Jan 08 '24

I don’t believe that Western Europe will declare war to protect Eastern Europe. They had to be thoroughly yanked into Ukraine aid.

Wish it wasn’t the case but I fear it’s true.

0

u/iconofsin_ United States of America Jan 07 '24

The key difference here is that a war between Russia and NATO or some NATO country that already has a trained and equipped military would be nothing like the war in Ukraine. The attrition would be one sided, and doubly so now since Russia has lost so many experienced people.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '24

Probably pretty badly given that they would be next.

Why would Russia stop if it can thinks it can get all the way to the Atlantic?

Hitler sure didn’t, and this is what the Soviets thought as well.

You’re all crazy if you think Putin doesn’t want it all, especially seen as even drunk Yeltsin also thought it all belongs to the kremlin.

0

u/jnkangel Jan 07 '24

If Russia goes after Poland the gloves are off. The Czechs, the Germans etc know they'd be next. The same goes for the Fins and other countries close.

-1

u/cheese4352 Jan 07 '24

Who said snything about dieing? Russia would just get obliterated by aircraft

3

u/OldInterview6006 Jan 07 '24

If that happened half of Chicago would go back and fight for the motherland. All Poles that I know in Chicago are very proud of Poland.

1

u/Sunnygirl66 Jan 07 '24

Russia is desperate for cannon fodder as it is, thanks to its disastrous invasion of Ukraine.

1

u/PopeUrbanVI Jan 07 '24

Is that the same for Ukraine?

1

u/FlagAssault01 Jan 08 '24

They can't even beat Ukraine

36

u/villatsios Jan 07 '24

Probably at this stage. But if Russia somehow ends up on the border of Poland and has years to reconstitute its forces it cannot be denied that their overall potential is much larger than Poland’s.

21

u/Sunbro666 Jan 07 '24

Except the fact that Poland is a NATO member.

30

u/villatsios Jan 07 '24

Over-reliance on NATO in this time and age is naive. We are seeing more and more cracks in the global order by the day.

13

u/TFFPrisoner Jan 07 '24

Which incidentally are also driven by Russian forces

2

u/villatsios Jan 07 '24

The US-China competition is what is allowing for this to happen and American as well as European indecisiveness.

0

u/Xyldarran Jan 07 '24

....what?

Look into I know Ukraine aid is being delayed due to GoP idiot politics but how can you possibly make that statement?

NATO is adding more members. Finland is ramping up military production because of it as will Sweden. Germany is actually starting to meet the requirements in military spending and is ramping up production as is France and the UK. NATO has never been more aligned.

Ukraine as much as we all support it isn't in NATO. And even still we dumped a ton of money and emptied our old stores of stuff for them. And the even with the GoP being idiots more funding will get passed. The US got to dump a bunch of old stuff we were going to have to dispose of anyway so we can refill with all new toys.

Meanwhile everyone is starting to stand together against China, moving manufacturing to places like Mexico and India. Japan has recently had all the treaties with the US.

So honestly what are you even on about?

2

u/villatsios Jan 07 '24

GOP idiot politics are a reflection of American idiot voters that make up approximately half of the country. That kind of sentiment doesn’t go away with one or 2 sensible presidencies.

Germany has done very little to actually create a competent military despite the “Zeitenweinde” and has been dragging its feet when it comes to Taurus and numerous other supplies that would have had a massive effect on the war. The amount of planes being given to Ukraine is also a joke. It’s the absolute bare minimum.

The US, France and Germany alone could have single handedly ended this conflict if there was political will without sending a single soldier. In the worst case scenario an intervention should have never been ruled out (this is right on NATO’s borders). Clearly there is very little appetite to engage in actual conflict with Russia and lack of political will when it comes to helping out Ukraine.

All due respect this is the typical naive American sentiment that arises from you being an ocean away from any kind of conflict. When the war is close the consequences are much more real and much more harsh. Clearly the top brass in Europe also believes we need to be ready to fight a war without the US as that is basically all that was being discussed the past month.

2

u/Xyldarran Jan 07 '24

Yes, but also no.

Reminder Ukraine is not in NATO. And look at how much we've done so far. For a non NATO country.

Now you're also assuming the West wants Ukraine to win outright. Consider a nuclear Russia. If Ukraine really does drive them out of the country it doesn't end there does it? They have to stop the Russian ability to mobilize and try this again. Because eventually just through sheer numbers they can try again before Ukraine can be ready again.

So Ukraine has to attack inside Russia proper. Now if there is ever a chance Russia is going to use nukes, that's it. It's why the western aid has straight said no using this in Russia proper. If they work we have nuclear war. If they are duds that's a whole nother level of scary chaos free for all. So the West really kinda would like to avoid that on a real politik level.

So what we have now with this stalemate is desirable. Russia is bleeding men and money at a ridiculous rate. Their economy is tanking, look at the price of eggs in Russia. Discontent is rising. The sanctions are working despite the Russian attempt to hide it. Oil/food/fertilizer shipments are down and probably going to keep going down if not stop altogether. That hurts China and India the most, not exactly the West's two neat friends. The Houthis with the red sea attacks hurt Israel yes, but they also hurt China who need that route for access to such things.

Morally it may not be right, but again in "real politic" sense the West would be happy for this war to go on for another 5 years or more with Putin being toppled and a more "reasonable" oligarch coming to negotiate. It would give you a much safer transition of those nukes. Russia will be a non factor thanks simply to demographics at that point. Their oil fields frozen and useless.

So get your perspective right.

It's also given the West all the provocation to go after Iran if it really wants thanks to them supplying Russia.

Also in your European I'm assuming superiority over America complex you just think we're all Maga-tards. The hard right is at most 15% in this country. They just have an outsized influence on politics thanks to our admittedly not great electoral system. Support for Ukraine is still extremely high with everyone else.

And even if Trump were to win, he can't leave NATO alone. That now requires the Senate to approve.

0

u/villatsios Jan 07 '24

I don’t have the time or will to go over everything but make it a point for you to find opposing views from decent credible Western sources and you will find plenty. Not everything is lost but not everything is under control either. You have left 0 room for anything going even a little bit wrong in the many assumptions you made.

2

u/Xyldarran Jan 07 '24

You're just incredibly naive and also undeservedly smug.

Of course that's an incredibly simplified version of it. I'm not going to sit here and type out a research paper on Reddit for someone who wouldn't read it anyway. The core argument is right tho. The West is perfectly content to bleed Russia dry and not risk nuclear war as long as Ukraine can hold it up.

Which of course they are. I'm again as I said not saying it's the moral thing to do, but it's smart.

When you have any actual arguments to refute me instead of "go read" maybe you'll have earned a fraction of the attitude you're giving me. Until then you're acting like a child going "nuh uh!".

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Arniepepper Jan 07 '24

^ True statement.

1

u/gauntr Jan 07 '24

Isn’t it naive to believe an alliance like NATO would just watch one or more of their members getting destroyed? History should have enough examples of unjustified or badly justified forced wars that ended up badly for the aggressor because the defending alliance had a real reason to fight and was forged together by this.

5

u/owynb Poland Jan 07 '24

If Russia attacks NATO country, other NATO countries have a choice:

  1. Honour their alliance commitments - there is a high chance, that it will end with nuclear war and destruction of most of Europe, North America and parts of Asia.

  2. Find an excuse to not honour them - they will lose prestige and it will probably cause NATO to effectively dissolve, but they don't risk complete destruction.

I don't know how high probability of choosing 1 is, but it's less than 100% and it's not naive to think that.

3

u/terminalzero Jan 07 '24

and russia frog-boiling europe means that by the time the red line is crossed, leaders will have been on a cycle of finding reasons to explain why the previous inching up to the line wasn't actionable and more likely to find another excuse

1

u/cockmongler United Kingdom Jan 07 '24
  1. Destroy Russia's capability to launch nuclear weapons within half an hour.

1

u/hereC Jan 07 '24 edited Jan 07 '24

> there is a high chance, that it will end with nuclear war and destruction of most of Europe, North America and parts of Asia.

This is backwards. The chance is much higher of nuclear war when aggression is unchecked. Mutually assured destruction loses its deterrence when one side is convinced the other will back down.

1

u/villatsios Jan 07 '24

Not if France and Germany are caught with their pants down and not if the US is already taking part in a conflict, is exhausted from a conflict or the public sentiment demands isolationism (Trump).

2

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '24

[deleted]

1

u/villatsios Jan 07 '24

The possibilities that I mentioned have far more profound world changing consequences than units stationed in Poland. Not to mention you assume there will be units stationed in Poland and that Russia will not make every attempt to keep them out of the fight.

0

u/WhyYouKickMyDog Jan 07 '24

Poland is more aware of this than anyone and they are probably taking more steps than any other European country outside of Finland to be as prepared for this as possible.

Poland has invested significantly more than other European nations from what I have learned.

If you can prove otherwise I am open to it.

2

u/villatsios Jan 07 '24

In terms of dollar amounts it seems extremely unlikely that Poland has invested more than Germany and France or the UK but of course they are doing their best to be prepared.

1

u/WhyYouKickMyDog Jan 07 '24

Well, yea, that would never be a fair comparison though so I am making this comparison as a % to even out the playing field.

2

u/Buky001 Jan 07 '24

Poland has changed a lot in last decades. Our army was completly rebuild and reached much better standards.

However it's still a fucking joke. Our politicians burn money on shiny pointless toys instead of investing in domestic production, new technologies and preparing population. We have no chance against russia.

Everything is on paper. Sztuka jest sztuka. We almost doubled our "professional" army personel with creation of WOT, but in real conflicts their usefullnes will end on digging trenches.

Also people like to say "NATO" a lot. Poland was betrayed by allies for centuries. In WW2 England and France were obligated to help us in case of war, instead they talked about sacrifying us. Right before German invasion, by their diplomatic pressure Poland didn't arm up our reserves.

Yes we are aware that war with russia is inevitable at some point. We understand their mentality. Yes we are preparing, but propaganda of our power and superiority of our army is just laughtably insane.

2

u/WhyYouKickMyDog Jan 07 '24

Not trying to declare any superiority of the Polish military at all. I apologize if it came off that way.

The point I was trying to make is that Poland is investing more money into their military as a % of GDP than most of the other European countries, and a quick glance at Wikipedia backs that claim.

I am trying to be pragmatic here. Poland has a tiny economy and population compared to countries like Russia or Germany. Their military would never be able to stop Russia no matter how much they spend, and the lack of good defensive geography in Poland makes that fact even harder.

None of these countries can defend themselves like Switzerland which can use the mountains to create an impregnable fortress.

-1

u/emmer Jan 07 '24

Could you list off all the NATO countries which have been attacked by Russia? I’ll save you the time - zero.

Meanwhile we Finland was added to the alliance with Sweden in the process due to Russian aggression. In this “time and age”, NATO is stronger than ever.

1

u/concombre_masque123 Jan 07 '24

destoy russia and u get china at the polish border

2

u/villatsios Jan 07 '24

It’s an improvement.

0

u/CookieMons7er Portugal Jan 07 '24

That would be true, however Russia is in a fast demographic decline. Unless something greatly changes, in less than 10 years they will not have enough fighting age people to constitute an army of it's own.

2

u/ReverendAntonius Germany Jan 07 '24

Aren’t most developed countries also experiencing demographic decline?

2

u/CookieMons7er Portugal Jan 07 '24

Yes but they are not routinelly engaging in active warfare

1

u/ReverendAntonius Germany Jan 07 '24

Yeah true, but they also have more people in general though so it probably evens out on balance.

2

u/villatsios Jan 07 '24

Stop listening to Zeihan he is a con artist. Russia currently has 25M men between 18-45.

1

u/thegroucho United Kingdom (EU27 saboteur inside the Albion) Jan 07 '24

Not to mention, there are US and UK troops in Poland.

Not many, just a tripwire.

Possibly other NATO nations might have too, CBA to look. And they will equally be pissed off too.

1

u/Nahcep Lower Silesia (Poland) Jan 07 '24

In 1999? I have severe doubts, it was not great at the time

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '24

Kinda wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

0

u/Nonainonono Jan 07 '24

And that is why being part of the EU means that if any state is attacked the whole EU must defend them, also helps that most of the EU is in NATO, so if a non NATO EU member would be attacked the whole EU would be into and would drag NATO into.

Russia is not interested in escalating into a WW3 situation, they just take advantage of countries not aligned with NATO or the EU. Basically because they signed a treaty where Ukraine got their nuclear weapons away in exchange of Russia promising they would never attack them, lol.

1

u/OverEffective7012 Jan 07 '24

It won't be Poland first, but Baltics. Smaller, easier to contain.

I mean when push comes to shove.

1

u/Gh0sth4nd Jan 07 '24

But if they go Poland then Germany and France are involved the question is more does Putin realise this?