Before we quote the content of this surely loud article in certain geopolitics circles, let us point out that there is an argument that the author must be a polonaphobe. What if he turns out to be a realist?
American troops are needed in Germany
The text is not very long, but it is highly clear. The author at the beginning of the publication refers to the article Andrew A. Michty in the context of the US Army's presence in the territory of Germany:
‘Andrew A. Michty’s article ignores the fact that American troops are needed in Germany to be able to decision rapidly anywhere in Europe and beyond. They are not a garrison to defend Germany, the most populous country in Europe, who must supply himself with the amount of troops he considers essential for his own defence" (Lt. Bartosz Brown).
Poland would not be able to defend itself against Russia
In the next passage Luttwak goes on to discuss the situation of our country. The author draws a pessimistic scenario, considering that even if the troops presently in Germany were transferred to Poland, there would not be adequate force to defy Russian aggression:
‘The transfer of about 25 1000 soldiers from Germany to Poland, which will contribute to the already present 10 1000 in this country, would not be adequate to defend Poland, even against the badly commanded Russian army of today. Instead, it would transform these 25,000 soldiers from mobile units into a "trip-wire" deterrent force; an attack on them would be an excuse for a general war against Russia" (Lt. Bartosz Brown).
Irresponsible Defence Policy of Poland
Luttwak believes that Poland has an irresponsible defence policy, that the authorities in Warsaw mention to as “a waste of money on luxury helicopters and frigates”. Here's the full passage:
"US military station in Poland would besides have an immediate, non-hypothetical and negative impact on Polish defence. We would submit to an irresponsible Polish policy that wastes money on luxury helicopters and frigates only for defence purposes in the Baltic Sea, not doing what liable countries neighbouring Russia must do. In particular, introduce mandatory military service for young people, including short and intensive training, after which you can rapidly mobilize equipped reserve units to defend your country. Finland is doing so, so its 5.5 million inhabitants can put up an army of 250,000 soldiers in a short time. Sweden shortly after Russia's annexation of Crimea restored compulsory military service. With about 40 million people, Poland had only 42,000 trained soldiers erstwhile the war in Ukraine began" (in Polish Bartosz Brown).
Positive evaluation of Finland and Sweden
As you can see, the author of the article opposes Poland Finland and Sweden, he besides points out that Poland had comparatively fewer trained soldiers erstwhile the Russian invasion of Ukraine began.
Luttwak spoke to representatives of Polish authorities
Luttwak believes that the absolute precedence for Poland should be compulsory service for young people, following in the footsteps of Finns and Swedes. For this political scientist, it is incomprehensible to “buy equipment for show”. Luttwak draws attention to an exalted rhetoric about Polish power, which he cannot take seriously. Here is the final part of the article:
"When asked in Warsaw in November 2021 why this is the case, I heard the answer: "We can't afford any more. erstwhile they asked why they bought costly helicopters, the answer was: due to the fact that Polish troops on peace missions should not be ashamed of their old russian helicopters. Why frigates? The answer was: due to the fact that Poland is simply a naval power (?). Even F-35 aircraft, purchased so expensively, are mainly for show; very fewer missiles were ordered. alternatively of sending more U.S. troops to Poland, the deadline for their withdrawal should be set, unless Poland introduces compulsory military service for young people in order to defend its country, as the Finns and Swedes do" (in Polish).
The punch line is frightening for Poland: “Membership in NATO was not meant to be an excuse for irresponsibility.”
Expert categorical words
Dr Jacek Bartosiak, who analyses military aspects of geopolitics, asked a rhetorical question.
What do we say? Who's gonna be the main army and who's gonna be the auxiliary...
We have talked about this many times in the S&F: the key is the military strategy and what war we are preparing for, Americans clearly do not burn to send their land troops. Let's keep that in head by shaping the future... pic.twitter.com/EyFyBXBGr7
— Jacek Bartosiak (@BartosiakJacek) September 13, 2023
Bartosiak believes that an crucial issue that is frequently forgotten should be a military strategy, an absolute foundation. Of course, let us bear in head that the opinion of 1 expert does not request to coincide with the position of the current Joe Biden administration.
