Replies

Impossible, and for myriad reasons. Reasons that range from those listed by the author of the article, to more logical (in my opinion) reasons that have to do with the absolute inability of Russia to attack Poland (short of nuclear weapons, and that would lead to consequences for Russia that are extinction level), to even more real reasons for Russia not attacking Poland (the realest of which being that it would be against Russia's best interest to do so). While Russia is seen as a bogey man, and to be honest it fits the requirements very well (and Cold Warriors, on both sides, seem to like the narrative and thus sustain it), the truth is that Russia is nowhere as powerful as it would want to be seen as (or as some of our side would like it to be seen, for their own reasons that I will not bother getting into apart from saying that for some it is about getting investment Dollars for equipment, for others it is the need to have a defined 'enemy,' while for yet others it is some weird Russophilia. I always find it hilarious that Russophiliacs and Russophobes are actually VERY similar).

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).

Finally, some intelligent thought on Western and Eastern Europe.

All Russia needs to do to reduce NATO's influence in Poland is wait, NATO's Islamic ambassadors will convince the Poles which way to go.

Interesting take, but history tells us that logic often takes a back seat to passions which can develop from one unexpected event.

Best example takes place in the summer of 1914. At the beginning of that summer, Great Britain and Germany were on the best of terms. They shared a common history and a language from the same family group. They had the largest amount of bilateral trade in the world and deep commercial connections with even the same banking families having a strong economic role in both countries. Even the British royal family was descended from the German House of Hanover. It was many months later before they changed the name to the House of Windsor. By the end of that summer, they were locked into the most brutal war which the world had ever seen over a brutal political assassination in another country where neither played even the slightest role.

I might add that at one time Chicago had the largest population of Polish People after Warsaw itself. Not sure if that is still true or not?

I agree with you that Russia would be stupid to invade Poland. But, history is replete with stupid wars. Wars often result from mis-calculation, from calculated risks that get out of hand, and from minor players either acting on their own or contrary to the interests of their ally/sponsor.

The calculated risks that Russia has taken include: supporting an insurgency in the Ukraine and declaring an interest in the Baltic states (along with other ‘near Republics’).

NATO has responded by asserting itself not only within the sovereign territory of its member states, but also by projecting force in Ukraine and Georgia. Finland and Sweden are reconsidering their relationship to NATO. There is even talk in Germany of possibly one day meeting its NATO commitment to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense(!).

We can speculate as to Russia’s purpose in its provocations and actual violations of the sovereign territory of other nations, but it is a very good thing that Poland maintains a large (for its size) military force. Ditto South Korea. Ditto Israel. It is one thing for the Germans or the Swedes or even for the Americans to talk about geopolitic risks. It’s another thing for a front-line nation. Especially with the possibility of world in which order is no longer maintained by the US acting as the world’s policeman.

inability of Russia to attack Poland (short of nuclear weapons, and that would lead to consequences for Russia that are extinction level)

I'm interested in your thinking on this (although I think it's all purely theoretical).

Suppose Russia found it desirable to invade Poland (after reunification with Belarus). Further suppose Polish armed forces stopped a Russian advance and were inflicting casualties to an intolerable degree.

So, to clear lanes for armored columns, the Russians used tactical and small strategic nukes.

How on Earth would this lead to bad consequences (never mind "extinction-level" consequences) for Russia?

The first thing that would happen would be that Germany, France, and Italy would declare neutrality, and confine US forces to their bases in those countries.

The second thing that would happen is that a peace conference would be called by the EU (maybe even in Munich!).

By the time that all got underway, the Russians would be on the Oder.

They then could put together their offer to Germany at leisure.