Poles Steel for Battle, Fearing Russia Will March on Them Next

[Larry1]

Several years ago, before Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I participated in a discussion about whether Russia would invade Ukraine or Poland.  I said that I didn't know whether Russia would invade Ukraine but I did not think it would invade Poland. While I still don't think that Russia will invade Poland, I'm no longer sure of it. My conclusion was based on these factors:

1) Poland was a NATO member and NATO members would be obligated to defend it from invasion
2) Poland had a fairly large army and had been modernizing its weaponry from the old Warsaw Pact days
3) If the Russian Army faced serious opposition and took large numbers of casualties in an invasion of Poland Putin could conceivably lose power

This article discusses invasion fears among ordinary Poles:

Poles Steel for Battle, Fearing Russia Will March on Them Next

KALISZ, Poland — For evidence of how much President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has jangled nerves and provoked anxiety across Eastern Europe, look no farther than the drill held the other day by the Shooters Association, a paramilitary group that, like more than 100 others in Poland, has experienced a sharp spike in membership since Mr. Putin’s forces began meddling in neighboring Ukraine last year.

... As the crisis drags on, what was unthinkable at the end of the Cold War now seems not quite so unlikely to many Poles: that the great Russian behemoth will not be sated with Ukraine and will reach out once again into the West...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/world/europe/poland-steels-for-battle-seeing-echoes-of-cold-war-in-ukraine-crisis.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

I still think one or more of the Baltic republics are far more likely than Poland to be targets of Russian hybrid warfare though. They are closer to the Russian border. They contain substantial numbers of Russian speakers whom Russia could claim need protection. And they are tiny and without NATO help couldn't defend themselves against a Russian attack.

Because they are NATO members other NATO members would be obliged to protect them from a Russian attack. But I don't know whether the Western countries who are the only NATO members who could be  effective against a Russian attack would commit sufficient force to defend the Baltic Republics. This would weaken NATO, which would be a big plus for Putin.

What are your thoughts?

[Boethius]

According to experts, Russia had trouble with Ukraine.  No way could it overtake Poland.  Poles would also be far more united than are Ukrainians.  There would be no spies reporting to Moscow among Poland's military command, or in their secret service.

[lordtiberius]

A Kremlin coup
http://aillarionov.livejournal.com/802959.html

[Larry1]

According to experts, Russia had trouble with Ukraine.  No way could it overtake Poland.  Poles would also be far more united than are Ukrainians.  There would be no spies reporting to Moscow among Poland's military command, or in their secret service.

Good points.

Russian army special forces are reputed to be well-trained, but regular troops much less so. Most of them are conscripts, in for a one year tour of duty. Russian special forces are too few in number to defeat a large and capable modern army.

[JayH]

The Poles have 20,000 troops on high alert. In addition they have a very large number to immediately move to combat readiness  quickly.
I expect that if any foreign ground forces are to go to Ukraine it will be intially from Poland.
They could be there in hours-not weeks.
I would have confidence in the Poles being able to more than match Russians-- and they would certainly be motivated

[lordtiberius]

You know Larry, there is a man on this forum (allegedly pro-Ukrainian) who espouses the belief that the Russian army is invincible.

[Larry1]

You know Larry, there is a man on this forum (allegedly pro-Ukrainian) who espouses the belief that the Russian army is invincible.

I would say that he is not correct.

[lordtiberius]

I would say that he is not correct.

Oh you should hear him.  He tells us Putin is smart.  This is another big victory . . . blah blah blah.

BTW, where is Putin?

[BillyB]

I would say that he is not correct.

That man not only is not correct, that man doesn't exist and is an imagination of Lord of the Lies and Drama. Nobody on this forum said Russia is invincible. According to studies and think tanks, Russia has the second most powerful military in the world. A few have them at #3.


To answer your question in the first post, Russia will roll over Poland if they initiated a full invasion. Poland and the Baltics are very concerned as if their existence depended on it. Russia has not unleashed full capabilities in Ukraine and people are wrong to think it's a sign of their military weakness. In the first link, Poland's military is ranked 18th in the world, far behind Russia. Russia is also increasing military spending faster than most countries and will get stronger and more modern in a few years than what we're seeing today.


Rank #2


Rank #2


Rank #2


Rank #2


Rank #3

[lordtiberius]

I would hope that pederasts would comport themselves with more humility.  I remind our readers that (modified by moderation) does not understand war or warfare, the history and culture of Russia or Soviet military doctrine which still guides Russia today.  He is almost as smart as the BRICs bitcoin investor.

[fathertime]

The points he was making earlier were reasonable enough...although you are now trying to distort them.  Makes no sense. 


Fathertime!   

[lordtiberius]

If the (moderated) doesn't understand Soviet military affairs, we can disqualify a few others as well.

And oh by the way, I did not mention anyone by name.

[fathertime]

Your judgement as it pertains to most things including the Russian military hasn't been anything to write home about.  Reading various opinions is for the best.


Fathertime!

[Steamer]

According to experts, Russia had trouble with Ukraine.  No way could it overtake Poland.  Poles would also be far more united than are Ukrainians.  There would be no spies reporting to Moscow among Poland's military command, or in their secret service.

Agreed. I can't imagine a reason Russia would attack Poland. The main difference between Ukraine and Poland is Russia never figured there would be an outside response to any moves on UA and for the most part (besides sanctions) they were right. In Poland they could COUNT on a huge Nato response. Say what you will about Russian aggression but they are not stupid or suicidal.

[lordtiberius]

they are not stupid or suicidal.

we'll see!

[BillyB]

The points he was making earlier were reasonable enough

I think what upset LT past his breaking point was that the points I made weren't even mine. They are based on what the experts say about Russia's military.

Because they are NATO members other NATO members would be obliged to protect them from a Russian attack. But I don't know whether the Western countries who are the only NATO members who could be  effective against a Russian attack would commit sufficient force to defend the Baltic Republics. This would weaken NATO, which would be a big plus for Putin.

Russia wants to weaken and break up NATO. Putin has recently and will continue to test NATO. Right now many NATO members want to lift sanctions and not even renew them since Putin has been what they think is a good boy during Minsk 2. 


My guess is that Russia will test NATO by destabilizing a NATO member in a similar way he's doing to Ukraine. NATO is not obligated to come to the rescue of a member if the conflict/threat is internal.

[lordtiberius]

Like I said Larry, the pro-Russians brag of military invincibility and Putin's omniscience.  Like good cheerleaders, they portray every event as a Putin victory while denying obvious setbacks.  Using magic thinking explanations, they talk of preset plans and improvisation when the circumstances suit them.  Russia has and always will be a weak country, made weaker by its Soviet past.  Any student of history will tell you that. 

Russian military doctrine prior to WWII depended on its ability overwhelm its opponents with superior manpower.  But because of the Soviet anti family character of totalitarianism Russia went from being a populous country to being rather small for its geographic size.  That weakness as Mendy has pointed out is most felt on the Sino-Siberian border.

Prior to WWII, the Soviet Union was a power country.  And it did not have the will to win.  Only the sadistic character of the Nazi regime gave it the will and the US gave it the means to win.  Some idiot bragged about how the SU could pump out thousands of T-34s.  But he neglects to mention of more likely didn't know is that those T-34s had US chassis in them.

These pro-Russian posters don't realize that Maskirovka is a big part of Russian military doctrine.  They also forget that wars demoralize and in Russia's case destabilize her evident in the Russo-Japanese War, WWI, and Afghanistan.  Be advised the Russian revolution followed Russian successes on the Eastern front.

They downplay how sanctions have hurt the Russian economy because none of them buy food from Russia or pay in Russian rubles.  Was it not inflation that brought down the Czar?  They downplay how the Russian military has lost more men in six months of war than what all eight of the Iraq War.  Its families are smaller so if a son dies, it has a bigger impact than in the US.

As you pointed out, it is a mostly conscripted force.  But look at its recent military history in Georgia and in Syria.  It has been unable to conquer Georgia or rescue Syria.  Why is that? 

Because they are a mafia state with no real economy.  The Pavel Durovs (the Novorossiya cheerleaders don't even know who he is) have left.  And all that's left are the thieves and the serfs.  And the thieves who can't squire away their stolen loot in the West are pissed which is why we can't find and the Kremlin can't produce VV Poo.

But you try to tell these idiots and all of them are idiots, that they are wrong or that certain facts contradict their thesis, they, aping Obama voters call you the stupid one.

They aren't always wrong, but they cannot see the folly of this whole nightmare Putin created by putting snipers to shoot on the Maidan and what that would do.

[fathertime]

I think what upset LT past his breaking point was that the points I made weren't even mine. They are based on what the experts say about Russia's military.

You really aren't allowed to bring up these kinds of points as it spoils the fantasy.

Russia wants to weaken and break up NATO. Putin has recently and will continue to test NATO. Right now many NATO members want to lift sanctions and not even renew them since Putin has been what they think is a good boy during Minsk 2. 
 

Why is it that what is happening in Ukraine is a test for NATO?  NATO isn't obligated to protect non-NATO nations.  The way I see it is NATO would be tested if Russia attempts mischief with a NATO nation, but that hasn't happened YET...and if it does, I would fully expect NATO to step up. 


Yes I did read that members of the EU are not interested in renewing sanctions at this time...they may renew later, or they may not. 

My guess is that Russia will test NATO by destabilizing a NATO member in a similar way he's doing to Ukraine. NATO is not obligated to come to the rescue of a member if the conflict/threat is internal.

I don't think so, the costs to Russia have been great enough as to discourage the disruption of a NATO member....in addition I think enough signals have been sent that Russia realizes messing with a NATO nation will be met with a very stiff response. 


Fathertime! 

[lordtiberius]

Like I said, dumb and dumber

[BillyB]

I don't think so, the costs to Russia have been great enough as to discourage the disruption of a NATO member....in addition I think enough signals have been sent that Russia realizes messing with a NATO nation will be met with a very stiff response. 

What is a stiff response? NATO would be obligated to push a foreign invader out of a member nation but I seriously doubt they'd invade Russia. That would come at a steep cost to NATO in lives, economies and risk tactical nuclear war. Putin isn't going to watch armies march to Moscow and lose Russia and let a nuclear arsenal sit idle.


During WWI Germany helped get Lenin secretly transferred from Switzerland to Russia to overthrow the Tsarist government they are at war with. They gave him 10 million dollars to raise a small army and Lenin met up with his pal Stalin. They successfully overthrew the Russian government and Russia withdrew from the war. That was a good investment by Germany coming at a high cost to Russia's previous government. I'm sure Putin is a good study on Soviet methods of getting things done.


Putin is willing to endure costs to obtaining Ukraine. He has spent money already to test NATO by mobilizing troops back and forth off the borders of Ukraine and the Baltics. When he's done with Ukraine, he may support one or more minority groups in one of the small Baltic nations to quickly overthrow their government. This time he may keep his little green men out of it. NATO should not come to the rescue of a member if they change governments through elections or revolution among it's citizens. Greece recently voted in a pro Russia government and NATO countries are not invading. NATO will come if a threat is external. If for some reason a Russian backed minority group successfully overthrows a government, the cost for NATO to mobilize an army to confront Russia would be very expensive and would disrupt our economies with the thought WW3 is around the corner. No matter how we look at it, the cost to NATO, if they respond, would be much more than the cost to Russia. That would make Putin happy and encourage him to go for it.

[lordtiberius]

You can't even tell us where all knowing all powerful Putin is.  And BTW, Stalin had only a tangential role in the Revolution especially when compared to Trotsky.  Again a normal historian would have known this.

As to your other alternative theories, they are conditioned on your refutation of information I posted UT.  Good luck with that.

[fathertime]

What is a stiff response? NATO would be obligated to push a foreign invader out of a member nation but I seriously doubt they'd invade Russia. That would come at a steep cost to NATO in lives, economies and risk tactical nuclear war. Putin isn't going to watch armies march to Moscow and lose Russia and let a nuclear arsenal sit idle.


 

In my opinion of a stiff response would be to repel and kill all foreign invading armies.  Invading Russia would not be necessary. 

 
Putin is willing to endure costs to obtaining Ukraine. He has spent money already to test NATO by mobilizing troops back and forth off the borders of Ukraine and the Baltics. When he's done with Ukraine, he may support one or more minority groups in one of the small Baltic nations to quickly overthrow their government. This time he may keep his little green men out of it. NATO should not come to the rescue of a member if they change governments through elections or revolution among it's citizens. Greece recently voted in a pro Russia government and NATO countries are not invading. NATO will come if a threat is external. If for some reason a Russian backed minority group successfully overthrows a government, the cost for NATO to mobilize an army to confront Russia would be very expensive and would disrupt our economies with the thought WW3 is around the corner. No matter how we look at it, the cost to NATO, if they respond, would be much more than the cost to Russia. That would make Putin happy and encourage him to go for it.

Well if a country genuinely elects a 'pro-Russian' govt like your example Greece, that is ok...it is their country, not ours. Are they really pro-Russian?   
In the case of costs, I'm sure a NATO response would be costly, but if a NATO country is invaded then that is what has to be done and everybody loses.  I don't think Russia puts NATO in that position. 


Fathertime!   

[BillyB]

I don't think Russia puts NATO in that position. 

As long as Putin is running the show, he will continue to test and break NATO to the best of his abilities. If he thinks war with a Baltic nation will expose weakness in NATO and make them lose members, then war is coming up.


There are other bad actors around the world with "wish lists" they want to fulfill. Putin has strengthen ties with China, Iran, and North Korea recently. I'm sure he told them if any one of them act, they all should act. He has recently got cozy with NATO members Hungary, Turkey, and Greece by given them sweet business deals. Putin is also stealing our valuable ally Egypt. Russia has increased military spending by 30% this year alone and has a lot of new military toys making their debut. A lot of activity by Putin. For what? Some say it's for nothing thinking Ukraine is Putin's last stop.

[fathertime]

There are other bad actors around the world with "wish lists" they want to fulfill. Putin has strengthen ties with China, Iran, and North Korea recently. I'm sure he told them if any one of them act, they all should act. He has recently got cozy with NATO members Hungary, Turkey, and Greece by given them sweet business deals. Putin is also stealing our valuable ally Egypt. Russia has increased military spending by 30% this year alone and has a lot of new military toys making their debut. A lot of activity by Putin. For what? Some say it's for nothing thinking Ukraine is Putin's last stop.

in our own hemisphere....Venezuela, Cuba, Equator, and Bolivia have unified and openly condemned the US this week.  Big protests in Brazil this week too....It is possible alliances are starting to shift on a global scale.   


Fathertime! 

[lordtiberius]

Billy B, where is Putin?