The essence of this "war" so far is fear: the political class believed that we were inevitably threatened by "Russian aggression", which forced us to spend extraordinary expenses on reinforcements at the expense of present and future generations.
It is apparent that we besides do this (mainly?) by reducing expenditure for civilian purposes: not only of a developmental nature, but besides of a current nature – even for wellness care expenditure (there were over 20 billion PLN in the NFZ, branches in hospitals and possibly full hospitals are closed); the budget will not add this money, due to the fact that we carry out a sharp arms program. In a akin way, any another NATO states respond, but not all. Russia maintains this fear (mainly through alleged enemy narrative). Or are we being fooled? After all, thanks to these expenses we mainly finance unprofitable factories of the arms industry, especially in the US, due to the fact that this power as an exporter (except for a fewer natural materials) has nothing more to offer. This is simply a strategy of connected vessels: our money, spent mainly abroad, sustains the existence of a full of parasitic industries, that is, individual is rich (our “leadership”) and we are poor.
So who objectively gains in our “cold war” with Russia: us, or our “eternal enemy” (here uses the language in force so as not to encounter the charge of “seeding disinformation”)? The correctness requires that we be identified as "ruiners" (at least so far) because, firstly, we have more and more military equipment and we may be little afraid of "Russian aggression"; secondly, we can proceed to verbally push over "Russian" and, in particular, to call the "criminal" of the president of Russia; and, thirdly, to buy much more costly oil and natural gas from another countries to anger Russia. This is simply a large advantage, and even a triumph – possibly not yet in the sense of the “miraculous Vistula” and the Vienna Rescue, but we have not yet said the last word.
Russia besides spends a sum of money on the military at that time (even much larger) and continues to "threat" and "soon to attack 1 of the NATO states" (as reported by our officials). Nothing more, it means that we do not have any effect of deterrence. Russia not only does not want to surrender, it does not ask for peace, it does not declare the payment of compensation for the "fighting Ukraine" (her oligarchs?) and it does not announce "putin's global justice" and, above all, I do not want to retreat from all occupied Ukrainian lands, including Crimea. These are the objectives of our abroad policy.
If public spending of 5% on defence is besides tiny to let Russia to carry out our demands smoothly, then we have 2 options: either even higher amounts of these expenses, expanding our debt, or introduce an extraordinary war taxation of another 5% of GDP; or – enforce our demands by force, due to the fact that as we know (or we may not think) Russia is “an elephant on clay legs” and only watch it bend its knees. So we have a choice: to proceed bleeding economically, or both economically and possibly directly.
So we can ask rhetorical questions: where did we find ourselves after more than 10 years of pro-Ukrainian politics and is this success or failure? Does anyone even consider that Ukraine's expected triumph will be the biggest threat to us; it will be a regional power, much stronger than our army, which will not be "thankful" for our selfless assistance, but will enter into an alliance with the West Germany (it has already entered?). This is highly likely.
So possibly it's time for a change to put distant the incorrect scenarios.
Prof. Witold Modzelewski
Think Poland, No. 23-24 (7-14.06.2026)
