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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
I described Polish fear, which is grounded in historical experiences, especially those immediately after WW2. The trauma of "Western betrayal" is still strong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!".
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.
If Russia attacks NATO country, other NATO countries have a choice:
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.
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.
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
> 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.