Russia attacked Poland twice in the 20th century.
Once by itself and was defeated.
Again while still in league with Germany and won.
Whoa, Hold on now.
Attack Poland is what Russia does.
Partitioning Polish land is Prussian, Russian and Austrian National Past-Times.
They both have a vested interest in their hatred of radical Islam. You never attack somebody who can be your ally.
Only one of those ingredients is present now.
Plus, Poland’s population would basically all take up arms. Russia would probably only be able to send 20 million, or so, whereas Poland would man a 40 million population army. Russia would have to eliminate everybody to win.
God bless you - and may God bless Poland!
Poland + Ukraine cut Europe in two. They could cut off the flow Russian oil to west Europe, and the flow of Euros eastward. Russia will not threaten Poland until it has subdued or even reconquored Ukraine.
This article was originally dated August 1, 1939.
This article sure has a lot of words when all it needs to say is: "Poland is a member of NATO, and can thus cry to the U.S. for support."
He claimed the KGB was considering assassinating John Paul II on a visit to Poland.
The official told them, "You will have to kill all of them if you do this."
The official in Moscow replied, "You mean the entire Papal entourage?"
The one in Warsaw replied, "No, the entire population of Poland-- they will tear all of us limb from limb if you do this."
Anyway, the truth of the matter is that Russia is not as strong as some would make it. Yes, it does have very capable nuclear forces. Yes, it also has a capable conventional force that is getting more capable by the year, even though there are some that think it is all about conscripts and 'rusty ships' even though Yeltsin has been out of power for 17 years. However, like virtually all 'major-power' countries with the exception of the US (and even that is debatable, but I don't want to go there), Russian military mighty is best applicable only against countries that are weaker than it. For example, the cruise missiles that it used against Syrian targets (and that was an eye-opener there how small ships based in what amounts to an inland lake, were able to launch missiles a far distance away) would not be effective against a larger country like the US for example. The SU 24s and 34s that were doing a good job against ground targets would have a (much) harder time against NATO. Etc etc etc (by the way, the reason I am saying that applies to all nations, including maybe the US, is that the Tomahawk inventory got depleted simply launching against Libya ...which probably means there would be issues against China and/or Russia, but as I said that is a different conversation ...and a sensitive one that may unnecessarily rile up some people).
Poland is a member of NATO, and the Poles are a proud people. Even IF Russia could take over Poland conventionally (not possible, but assume it is), it would simply lead to an absolute quagmire. As mentioned, the Poles are a proud and good people, and they are also very good at fighting for their homeland. They are also very capable (Google 'GROM' to see what their tier-1 special forces unit is capable of, and this is a unit that has the respect of Delta and DEVGRU ...which says something). Russia would face absolute HELL attacking Poland. Absolute hell, in a way that even countries like Ukraine could not even dream of. The advantages Russia had in Georgia and in the parts of Ukraine they took over would be absolutely absent in Poland, and it would simply be a strategic and tactical mistake by the Russians.
Bottom line ...Russia would not attack Poland, and not just because they could/couldn't, but rather because it would be absolutely stupid. Somewhat akin to someone posting articles on why the US cannot attack Russia/China, and I am certain both those countries have such articles as they are great clickbait.
But realistically speaking, moving away from theoretical war-gaming, one will not see any of the following things as long as all actors are rational.
(I) A major power attacking another major power (e.g. China will never attack Russia, Russia will never attack the US, the US will never attack China, etc etc etc).
(II) A regional-power near-peer adversary attacking another regional-power near-peer adversary (e.g. India attacking Pakistan, Israel attacking Iran, North Korea attacking South Korea). Now, this is obviously more (apparently, but not realistically) open to debate as smart FReepers will obviously bring up the various India-Pakistan wars, the shelling of South Korean positions (and even the sinking of a ship) by Pyongyang, or the war drums between Israel and Iran. Even smarter FReepers may even ask what the heck I think Russia's attack of Ukraine was?
Well, the truth is that the wars between India and Pakistan (then) were not between near-peers. For one, India was more powerful until Pakistan got nuclear weapons, second there was a bit of a Cold War footing (with the Soviets supporting India and the US, and then China, supporting Pakistan), and the more recent Kargill 'war' was more of a skirmish.
Israel and Iran - well, even on FR people have been saying Israel will bomb Iran 'imminently' for over a decade now. It is actually one of those things I track (and at times laugh at ...the always changing 'timelines' of when Israel will bomb Iran. Currently the ruling thought it when Israel gets its F-35s and 'upgrades' them).
Seoul vs Pyongyang - skirmish territory only. Why? The North cannot over-provoke the South because it is significantly weaker than South Korea, and should it ever do a real full-blown attack North Korea would be defeated. The South will not over-react to Northern aggression (even when it involves sinking of one ship or shelling of a coastal village) because if it does, and even though the South would win, it would come at the cost of Seoul (and not because of nuclear weapons but simply because North Korea has around 10,000 artillery pieces trained on Seoul that would destroy it in a sea of fire). Thus, like two drunk men holding each other by the balls and shouting insults at one another, nothing more than that will occur.
Russia and Ukraine? Not near-peer at all, even though some make it seem like they are, and the area that Russia moved into had certain demographic advantages for the Russians.
Anyway, no major power wars (including skirmishes, which is why the US slapped Turkey for shooting down that 24) and no regional power wars (although skirmishes may happen).
history argues the author of this is a fool... luckily Poland knows its own history and they are not fools
to be honest in reading the whole article the author strikes me as a Russian apologist...
As noted by another poster here, Russia (USSR actually) attacked Poland twice in the 20th century.
The first time was in 1919. Lenin saw Poland as a bridge for exporting communism to western Europe. The second time was in 1939. Stalin saw Poland as a buffer against the expanding Third Reich.
I can see no reason for Putin to want Poland today. Why would he risk so much just to add a restless region to the map of Russia?
“Never” is a mighty long time.
“Six years ago, an airplane carrying most of the Polish government crashed while flying to Smolyensk to participate in a commemoration of the Russian deeds at Katyn. Imagine that — the Russians were set to admit, and apologize and atone for their acts, and then the tragedy occurred. It was the last thing they wanted to happen!”
The author is delusional. Russian air traffic control was till advising the plane that it was on course even when it was beyond the point of no return. And if the Russians wanted to atone for Katyn, why then did they never return the bodies or allow access to the wreckage?
I still believe that large army invasions are quickly becoming a thing of the past.
Poland would have significant warning of any large movement of Russian Armies. All of the major columns of equipment would be under attack in minutes after crossing the border. The shit storm of cruise missiles would destroy their armies quickly.
Insurgency is the way to go these days.