Poland Goes on Military Spending Spree Citing Fear of Russia

[JustJohn or JJ]

Poland Goes on Military Spending Spree Citing Fear of Russia




21:03 15.04.2015(updated 22:41 15.04.2015)

Poland has kicked off an ambitious $42 billion defense project, which includes an anti-missile system, submarines and armored personnel carriers; meanwhile Eastern European states increased their military spending by 8.4 percent in 2014.

Poland has launched an ambitious 10-year defense project aimed at upgrading its military forces; meanwhile, other Eastern European countries are beefing up their military capability, increasing their defense expenditures by 8.4 percent in 2014, citing security issues.

According to Deputy Defense Minister Czeslaw Mroczek, in April Poland will chose a supplier of an anti-missile defense system which will reportedly cost up to $10 billion. In total, Warsaw is planning to spend about $42 billion on its military upgrade over the next ten years. Poland's military modernization program includes a missile defense shield, anti-aircraft systems, submarines, combat drones, armored personnel carriers.

It is worth mentioning that Poland spends more on defense than any other European power: the country raised its military expenditures by 13 percent between 2013 and 2014, spending 2.1 percent of its gross domestic product ($9.9 billion) this year on the military.

On the one hand, the increase in military spending is a reaction to the crisis in Ukraine, on the other — a large scale anti-Russian propaganda campaign launched by the West, which blames Moscow for the "aggression" in Ukraine has also facilitated the military spending spree in the Eastern European country.

Poland has become one of the most vocal critics of the Kremlin, depicting Russia as an aggressor and a threat to Eastern Europe. Poland's ex-President Lech Walesa even went so far as to urge the Western powers to "scare" Russia with nuclear weapons.

Another NATO member state that spent 2 percent of its GDP on military purposes last year was Estonia, the former Soviet Republic. Tallinn is also planning to boost its defense capabilities, increasing military expenditures by 7.3 percent from 2014 to 2015. Its neighbors – Latvia and Lithuania – former republics of the USSR, have raised their military spending in 2015 by 14.9 and 50 percent respectively.

Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski, center, with former presidents Lech Walesa, left, and Aleksander Kwasniewski right, attend the European Picnic at the Lazienki Park in Warsaw, Poland, Thursday, May 1, 2014

Meanwhile, Ukraine, which is facing tremendous financial problems and needing an international bailout, increased its military spending by 23 percent in 2014 and has almost doubled its budget for the armed forces in 2015, according to SIPRI, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

"This is much higher than the original budget estimates and is in response to the conflict in the east of country, which is probably still not fully accounted for in the latest figures," the SIPRI report read.

Although the Minsk agreement brokered by Russia, France and Germany in February 2015 was meant to deescalate the conflict in eastern Ukraine, it seems Kiev is using the truce for a serious military buildup.

[karl]

Interesting situation that needed a spark to light up the fires of progress. Most all militaries will wear out doing nothing. Equipment degrades with time even whilst in storage depots. Munitions and weapons whilst in storage, become out dated in design and function to being sorted out for release to surplus sales or for foreign sales.

This being the case with most European states with the past situations of economic issues. Funding which in past was provided to each respective military for maintenance of each respective military was diverted to a great extent into the areas of domestic needs. Thusly whilst doing so, left the respective weapons manufactures to seek foreign purchaseirs of their designs to augment domestic sales.

Of our weapons storage depots, a great many such weapons as leopard 2A4 Panzers in storage then released for sales to Poland. Although these weapons were in need of extensive overhauling and updating, were non the less a good bargain in currant designs for augmenting their respective military needs.

Weapons as fielded are subject to manner of use and application. It is the respective commanders as how/where and manner of effective use as to success against the enemy.

Karl

[pieter]

Dear Karl,

In my opinion Poland due to it's past (heritage, history, and inherited fear) of occupation, being oppressed by others, and the pressure of large nearby or further away dangers must be prepared for today, the present, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, next, week, next month, next year, next decade and the next hundred years. It had already should have been ready and prepared yesterday, last week, last month, last year and last decade (after the nineties). The army, the navy, the airforce, the special forces, the national guard which is being formated now from the shooting associations and local/regional militia, should be prepared for anything, for any threat, coming from the East, the North, the West, the South, but also from the South-East, North-East, South-West, the air, the sea, by land, and from within.

We are living in a very complicated, complex world with multiple threats! Traditional terrorism from the far right, far left, religious fanatics and new lunatic movements that may emerge (and we didn't predicted them yet), cyber terrorism or cyber attacks by foreign powers, organized crime which wants to white wash it's illegal money, and tries to infiltrate state bodies,l firms and companies via fraud, extortion, corruption and nepotism. Russian and Ukrainian crime syndicates maybe pose a thread to Polish stability, security and safety. But organized crime may also come from the West, from Germany, the Netherlands, France or other places. Drugs criminals from these countries, organized crime coming from migrant communities with contacts with bad elements within the Polish diaspora in these countries.

We don't know how Europe (the EU) will develop itself, will it go the right track, like it did for the past 70 years, or will it be caught by dark shadows of the European totalitarian and absolutist past? Will Ultra-nationalism, xenophobia, puristic racist ethnic thinking rear it's ugle head again (Europe for the Europeans, Africans, Asians and other non-Europeans out!), will an alliance of Rightwing populist, nationalist, an chauvinistic conservative national-democratic parties form a European coalition? Make an European Federation of Nation states with the ideology of Europe for the Europeans, and each nation for the native people that live there. (Germany for the Germans; Deutschland Über Alles, the Netherlands for the Dutch; 'Wier Nederlands bloed door de aderen vloeit, van vreemde smetten vrij' (whom Netherlands blood flows through it's vains, free of alien influences), Britain Rules the Waves, and independent Flanders ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_Movement ), France rule by the Front National, Italy by Neo-Fascists, Germany by rightwing populists. A European Nationalist federation of nearly fascist corporatist nations, in a new 21th century form ofcourse, with even communist, socialist and some democratic elements. Such an Europe will be bad for Poland and other Central- and Eastern-European nations. These Neo-Nationalists or New Totalitarians will be friendly to Russia. They will admire Putin as a strong leader. Like the present Front National leader Marine Le Pen and the Dutch Geert Wilders.

Ofcourse Europe may also go into another direction of for instance Ultra-Capitalism, a libertarian society dominated by financial markets, huge multi-nationals and corporations. Or Europe may be ruled by a new sort of socialism or communism. Not the same sort as the old Sovjet communism, nor the old dominant Social-democratic wellfare social security states of the past decades. No there might be a new sort of leftwing, collectivist, European system. Europe will not become Muslim, because if 'the Muslims' or radical Islamists Jihadist will try to do so Europe will be turned into a large chain of wars, civil wars, city wars, of bloodshed, destruction, discord, misery, hardship, poverty and a primitive society. The atheist, secular-humanist and christian Europeans will not accept Muslim theological or political islam rule. They didn't accept it a thousand years ago and they don't accept it today.

Back to Poland. Poland will not accept a Russian invasion and occupation, nor will it never accept a German invasion and occupation from the West again (even in the future). Poland will not accept a totalitarian European Union if it would develop itself into a authoritarian Pan-European Centralistic or Federal state. A Neo-Fascist, Neo-Communist or collectivist totalitarian Europe will be rejected by Poland and the Poles and other freedom loving Europeans. Poles are pragmatic, freedom loving and democratic people, and Roman-Catholics with a christian heritage, customs and ethnics. Don't mess with the Poles, the Germans, Ukrainians, Russians and even Turks (the Polish victory near Budapest against the Ottoman Turks' know that. Poles are fierce, fanatic and mean fighters if they are attacked, oppressed and occupied. They don´t want foreign rule nor foreign ideologies ruling their land (They didn't like the monarchies of the Habsburg Empire, Prussia and Czarist Russia, nor the Nazi and communist rules, and they will not like future possible totalitarian or authoritarian rule in some sort of collectivist form, system or regime)

We know from the example of Józef Piłsudski and his "Association for Active Struggle" (Związek Walki Czynnej, or ZWC), and his Riflemen's Association, which served as cover to train a Polish military force. Later from this para military forces he officially established the Polish Legions. From Armia Krajowa (AK), and the Polish Underground state during the second world war, we know that everything could be used to form resistance cells or paramilitary units, from Polish police officers and former soldiers and officers to scouting associations. If Poland is attacked, the Polish Police force(s) will transform to paramilitary units, scouting associations will again form military units, training youngsters in the woods and in the countryside (rural area's), pupils and students will join these military underground structures. Young working Poles will join their studying compatriots.

The Polish army will not give up easily, because the professional military trained and equipped professionals will know that if today or tommorow Poland will lose, it will be very hard to regain independence again. The Russian Federation today is much stronger that the SovjetUnion under Stalin was. They have much more advanced modern weapons, and maybe a more dangerous aim and ideology. A merger of New Russian nationalism and chauvinism with old Sovjet, Czarist and Russian-Orthodox elements. I really believe that there are Russian leaders and elements within the Russian population who believe in a Pan-Slavic large Russian state together with other slav peoples who live under Russian rule like in the past. I hope that most Russians and some sensable Russian state officials are aware that such an imperialistic and agressive ideo is rediculous and will never work.

But to finish this large text or letter, Poland will have to be prepared for the worst. It needs the most modern military equipment, foreign NATO troops on it's soil, it must initiate and carry out large NATO ground offensive training operations in Europe with a dozen of NATO allies. I has to train it's armed forces day and night, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, whole year long. It may never sleep or show any sign of weakness or doubt. Poland for it's own safety, secururity and well being needs the strongest army of Europe. Not onlyn for it's own, but also for it's allies. And even so, if it has the stongest, best equipped, best trained and compattable army, it stil has the huge threat and danger of invasion, defeat and thus occupation by the Russian Federation and it's allies. Because some Russian leaders will do anything at any cost. And they are not the only ones in the world unfortunately. Poland and it's allies have to be awake, alert and well prepared.

Cheers,
Pieter the hawk

[karl]

Pieter

Yes, you were correct, an excellent reply in coverage and realistic currant display of todays world and Poland. I do agree with you with Polands military build up, it is very expensive but well thought out.

One of many problems and issues we {meaning our respective goverments} have with our commanders and Generals, is: They seem to fight the future war upon the foundations of the last war. This is not how it works in reality. It is not a chess game with rules. For war has little rules to play by, for it is a matter of to over come by what ever means that will not be expected by the named enemy. It is the manner of discovery of the primary weaknesses of your named enemy then capitalize upon that weakness and develop it into a manner that will destroy the named enemies ability to exercise the manner of continued combat but to sue for peace.

Speaking only in the manner of what if: Poland and Russia as you have very well brought out, have been fighting one another for centuries. Poland to occupy parts of Russia, then Russia through a turn around, to occupy parts of Poland through combat over the past many years.

If to own a crystal ball to read the future by, my life would be measured in but a few minutes time. But, it is not difficult to realize what our future will hold if, or when, our next war will be and how it will be fought. But, not as was accomplished in the last war or the one before it. But, the new one, and judging by our deplorable past history, there will be a new one in our future. The only question is when and why and how..

Yes, The Polish are a tough nut to crack, but it can be done. Not by conventional ground attact mode, that is old not very efficient.

But then, to know your enemy is to be close to them, and the Polish have not done that, for this may well be their down fall. For to be brave and tough, is good, but not if you die.

As an example, please to consider some time in short past of an auther being the Russian: Alexander Dugin.

The book published in year 1997: name-The Geopolitical Future of Russia. Yes, of course a book..But just not a book, for it out lines the manner of subjucating our Europe in a manner of our weaknesses.

Publication date: 1997
From: Wikipedia




The book was co-authored by General Nikolai Klokotov of the General Staff Academy. Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, head of the International Department of the Russian Ministry of Defence, apparently advised in the project. Klotov stated that in the future the book would "serve as a mighty ideological foundation for preparing a new military command."

Dugin has asserted that the book has been adopted as a textbook in many Russian educational institutions.

Content

The book declares that "the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians" has not ended and Russia remains "the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution." The Eurasian Empire will be constructed "on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us.

Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.
The book states that "the maximum task [of the future] is the 'Finlandization' of all of Europe".
In Europe:

Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term a "Moscow-Berlin axis".

France should be encouraged to form a "Franco-German bloc" with Germany. Both countries have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".

United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.

Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern

Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".

Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.

Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.

Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.

Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece – "orthodox collectivist East" – will unite with the "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".

Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as an independent state with certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.

In the Middle East and Central Asia:

The book stresses the "continental Russian-Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization".
Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow-Tehran axis".

Armenia has a special role and will serve as a "strategic base" and it is necessary to create "the [subsidiary] axis

Moscow-Erevan-Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people … [like] the Iranians and the Kurds".

Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran.

Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.[1]
Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.

The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghistan and Tajikistan).

In Asia:

China, which represents a danger to Russia, "must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled". Dugin suggests that Russia start by taking Tibet-Xinjiang-Mongolia-Manchuria as a security belt.[2] Russia should offer China help "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia" as geopolitical compensatation.

Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[1]
Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.

The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main 'scapegoat' will be precisely the U.S."
In the United States:

Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."

The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.

Karl

[Jaga]

Military complex in every country needs to have an enemy.... in order to justify their spending for defense.

[pieter]

Jaga,

There is a huge contrast between Poland and for instance the Netherlands. Poland has a huge spending on defense, in the Netherlands due to huge cut backs in defense spending and maintainance of equipment, the army became smaller in seize and less strong. We lost all our tanks due to the cut backs. It's understandable that Poland spends more on it's defense due to the fact that it is a large country and had and has slightly hostile neighbors and faces other threats. The Russian Federation and Belarus were and are not excactly Poland friendly. Poland on one side and the Russian Federation and Belarus belong to opposing or competing Economical blocks of countries and competing military alliances. Next to the Russian threat Poland was and is involved in 'Peace keeping missions' in the world. (Iraq, Afghanistan and etc.) and will be involved in future peace keeping missions or NATO actions or joined operations with armies of it's allies.

Poland is a major European player in Europe and the world. It is a military power and is investing in it's defense system and thus army today. From an old fashionate Warsaw Pact country and Comecon member it evolved into a Modern NATO nation and EU-member. Poland is interwined with the European economical, monetary and political sturcture and military witht the Transatlantic alliance NATO. Poland will have it's own Military Industrial Complex and has connections with the American and Israeli Military Industrial Complexes.

Cheers,
Pieter

[pieter]

Dear Karl,

Strange, interesting and geopolitical interesting that book "The Geopolitical Future of Russia" (1997) of Alexander Dugin. Dismantling Cina, interesting idea. Alexander Dugin must hace read Carl Schmitt, Niccolò Machiavelli, Hannah Arendt, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Aldous Huxley, George Orwell and followed Henry Kissinger. But maybe living in and experiencing the country of Ivan the Terrible, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Lavrentiy Beria, Yuri Andropov, Leonid Brezhnev, Boris Yeltsin (who attacked the Duma, the Russian parliament and started the First devastating Chechen War and introduced Putin) war and Vladimir Putin is enough.

His book looks like a real life version of the game Stratego!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt

[karl]

Pieter

Thank you for your very informative accurate reply. I was surprised and pleasantly so, of your mention of Carl Schmitt. He him self is a very interesting person.

Most all industrial states with their various military apparatise, conduct what if scenarios with various how would we do it if the occasion should arise, and the Russians are little different. What is interesting is not what they have listed, but the flavour in the content. For the flavour is not a direct spear pointed hit upon each target state, but to first gradually degrade the manner of each at their weakest points. Then once suitable for the least amount of Russian risks, to then over take the state in occupation.

The weak points in the projected plan, is dependant upon of each target state to have a very inapt internal security system comprised of the various departments of responsibility. With this, for one state to recognize the situation, to then through the various aspects of communication between each respective state security departments, to then each respective department to issue an alert to the home office.

The one aspect we do not wish for, is the co=ordinated attact upon each central state by nuclear means. For with our close borders and with the seasonal prevailing winds. Would carry over many many Km of radioactive dust over our respective borders to then poison our land and water for food production for many years.

But, if carried out with a first nuclear strike hit, our various means of military intervention would be short circuited by temporary destruction of communcations, destroyed power grids, and most means of effective population protection in civil defense.

The classic view of civil defense that has been over the various years, so well planned is simply nonsense. Even to the extent of advanced warning systems for evacuations, is simply nonsense. For one, with the large buildings in the various cities to have deep basement shelters for this event if to occure, is problematical. For with a direct hit perhaps they would survive, perhaps not. But withen the following hours, they must come out and face the fruits of the poisones tree, the air and surroundings.

In as far as evacutions of entire cities, the infrastructure will not support such numbers, these then will die upon each issue and individual situation.

The primary value of civil defense, is to provide to the people, hope and trust in their respective goverments.

Karl

[pieter]

Military–industrial complex


President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned the U.S. about the "military–industrial complex" in his farewell address.

The military–industrial complex, or military–industrial–congressional complex, comprises the policy and monetary relationships which exist between legislators, national armed forces, and the arms industry that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for military spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry. It is a type of iron triangle. The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the military of the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961,[2] though the term is applicable to any country with a similarly developed infrastructure.

The term is sometimes used more broadly to include the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as corporations and institutions of the defense contractors, The Pentagon, the Congress and executive branch.

A similar thesis was originally expressed by Daniel Guérin, in his 1936 book Fascism and Big Business, about the fascist government support to heavy industry. It can be defined as, "an informal and changing coalition of groups with vested psychological, moral, and material interests in the continuous development and maintenance of high levels of weaponry, in preservation of colonial markets and in military-strategic conceptions of internal affairs." An exhibit of the trend was made in Franz Leopold Neumann's book Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism in 1942, a study of how Nazism came into a position of power in a democratic state.

President of the United States (and five-star general during World War II) Dwight D. Eisenhower used the term in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Source: Wikipedia

[JustJohn or JJ]

The truth hurts. He warned us in his own time. Now we pay the price of not listening.

[pieter]

And he was an experienced general, politician and Republican!