Polish Politics: A Quiet Success Story

Poland has in recent years served as an example for much of Europe in many respects. It has supported Ukraine almost unreservedly, developed its own defense capabilities through significant investments, and grown its economy at a rapid pace.

In terms of defense, Poland has, in a short time, become one of the strongest—if not the strongest—nations in Europe in terms of conventional warfare. Its army of nearly 300,000 troops has at its disposal, among other things, around 1,000 modern tanks, 600 howitzers, and nearly 50 American-built F-35 or F-16 fighter jets.

Poland’s economy, meanwhile, has grown so that its GDP per capita rose from $12,464 in 2016 to a notable $22,056 by 2023. Despite this, the average wage people earn from their work has fluctuated rather than risen in recent years.

Poland has in recent years been governed by the pro-EU, center-right Donald Tusk, while the presidency has been held by national conservative Andrzej Duda. Now, the presidential election has been won by Karol Nawrocki, who promotes a political agenda similar to Duda's, so no major changes in the country’s political direction are expected.

This is likely good news for all Europeans, even if many would have preferred that Nawrocki lose to his pro-EU opponent. In that case, the country would likely have shifted its policies to resemble those of its western neighbors—both for better and for worse.

However, the fact remains that the president does not have the power to steer Poland’s political direction; at best, he can only slow the developments driven by the government and parliament. And based on the developments of recent years—as outlined above—this arrangement has worked exceptionally well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Did Russia Realize the Risk Was Too Great?
Be Ready: Russia May Launch Another "Special Operation"
Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs reminded Russians about their nightmare

The Poor Can't Afford to Buy Second-best

The defense industry of my home country produces high-quality equipment. For example, the future standard firearms for Finnish and Swedish soldiers are expected to be based on the entirely new Sako M23 system, covering everything from assault rifles to precision weapons. When it comes to troop transport, one of the best options already available is the 6x6 armored personnel carrier, considered the best in the world and recently sold, for example, to Germany.

Still, it is clear that a country the size of Finland cannot rely solely on domestically produced weapons systems. It also needs weaponry manufactured elsewhere. Therefore, attention must be turned toward systems regarded as the best in the world in each category.

In this regard, it is significant that the Israeli Defense Forces have recently demonstrated their effectiveness in Syria, Iran, Gaza, and Lebanon. Following these displays, there can be no doubt that the armed forces of the Jewish state possess top-tier weapons systems.

This applies to both imported and domestically produced military equipment. That, in turn, means that Finland—located right next to Russia—is extremely interested in such systems. However, the security-policy-irresponsible left, which sympathizes with the Palestinians, has taken a stance against this.

The most controversial case has been the Israeli-made David’s Sling, a high-altitude air defense missile system. Its necessity has been recently demonstrated by the ongoing war in Ukraine. Given that Finland has a vastly larger and extremely dangerous neighbor, only the best available equipment should be considered for procurement—and David’s Sling systems have indeed already been ordered.

Finland is also renewing its navy, and for that purpose, both new and older vessels are being equipped with Gabriel surface-to-surface missiles from Israel. Additionally, counter-battery radars were acquired, as their necessity became apparent early on in the war in Ukraine.

Beyond these, the Finnish Defence Forces use a range of Israeli-made weapons, including Spike anti-tank and coastal missiles, Orbiter 2 mini-drones, and communication and information systems. When you're poor, you can't afford to buy second-best.

Of course, one can only hope that none of the aforementioned weapons—or others, such as the recently ordered F-35 fighters or Leopard tanks—will ever need to be used. If that turns out to be the case, it will demonstrate that a top-tier army equipped with the best weapons available is a sufficient deterrent even against an imperialist like Vladimir Putin. One would hope that this is also understood by the political left, who are still dreaming of their own fantasy world where all nations are happy and friendly.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
From Finnish Neutrality to Russian Ruins
Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine
Russia to Triple Its Military Presence on Finland’s Border

Be Ready: Russia May Launch Another "Special Operation"

The Finnish news outlet MTV3 relayed a story from The Wall Street Journal, according to which Russia plans to move tens of thousands of troops closer to the Finnish border. This is all part of a broader reorganization of Russian forces, focusing on the directions of Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Russia is also building a new railway near the borders of Finland, Norway, and Estonia, while simultaneously expanding existing routes. Naturally, this development is being closely watched in Finland.

A Finnish major interviewed in the article noted that "there are about a dozen places along the Finland–Russia border where mechanized forces can cross... If Russia is building new railways or upgrading old ones, it is important to pay attention to these developments."

Major General Sami Nurmi, for his part, pointed out that for the Russian military, size always matters. It is therefore no surprise that the plans are large-scale, as Putin’s dictatorship anticipates some form of conflict with NATO. 

This was confirmed by Russia’s Defense Minister Andrei Belusov, who stated that Russia must be ready for conflict with NATO. However, it remained unclear who might initiate such a conflict, as President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly insisted that Russia has no plans to attack NATO countries - but that may well be a bluff.

On the other hand, Ukrainians and many Westerners — myself included — fear that Russia may test NATO’s capabilities if its invasion of Ukraine concludes — even by their own interpretation — with some form of victory. This is a concern also voiced by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyi.

If the situation escalates, it must first be noted that Russian soldiers who have gained combat experience in Ukraine will form the new backbone of Russia’s army, which is a major advantage compared to the forces of Finland, Estonia, or the Baltic countries, who largely lack real combat experience.

Russian forces are also equipped with material that has been tested under real battlefield conditions, and it appears that their supplies are not running out, despite earlier assumptions. In fact, Russia was producing only about forty T-90M main battle tanks per year four years ago — today they are producing around 300 annually.

According to Finnish assessments, very few of these tanks are actually being sent to Ukraine. Even if they were, the current production lines would quickly replenish them, whereas European defense industries would first need to be rapidly scaled up before reaching comparable output levels.

* * *

Based on all this, it is clear that, first of all, European countries must come to an agreement on strengthening their defense capabilities. Not only that, but they must also prepare ready and functional plans for scaling up to mass production of military equipment if needed.

Secondly, EU countries and NATO should issue clear warnings to Russia against attacking their neighbors and commit to collective defense. This should be done both through NATO, emphasizing the significance of Article 5, and through bilateral agreements.

Finally, I would note that the Baltic countries are at the greatest risk, given their relatively weak military capabilities. In contrast, the armed forces of Finland and Poland are strong and serve as an effective deterrent against potential "special operations" across their borders.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Russia Test NATO's Article Five?
Duck emphasizing the urgency of the new border law
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

No Low-Hanging Fruits Among Russian Neighbors

Russia’s attack on Ukraine has raised concerns among European nations. As a result, they are striving to rapidly enhance their defensive capabilities.

The latest news concerns Sweden, which has ordered 44 new Leopard 2A8 tanks from Germany. In addition to purchasing new tanks, the Swedish Armed Forces have agreed to modernize approximately 70 tanks that have been in service since the 1990s.

These numbers can be compared to the Finnish Defence Forces’ equivalent arsenal. Finland’s inventory consists of 100 Leopard 2A6 and 139 Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks, as well as 102 CV9030 and 110 BMP2 infantry fighting vehicles. In other words, this new investment is a significant boost to the combat capability of the Nordic countries and NATO.

Another recent development involved Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda, who proposed that the country allocate at least 5.5% of its GDP to defense in the future. Even with this increase, Lithuania would still spend less than five billion euros on its military preparations, compared to Russia’s defense budget of a staggering 122 billion euros.

Purchasing weapons is not enough; they must also be used effectively. That’s why it was welcome news that the Finnish Air Force is sending four F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets and 50 soldiers to Iceland to monitor its airspace. This allows Finland to develop its cooperation with NATO and ensure its capability to deploy a fighter detachment to an allied nation’s base if needed.

These actions have undoubtedly been noticed in Putin’s Russia. However, it remains unclear how they will respond. Will they resort to reckless countermeasures? Or will they finally acknowledge that Russia poses no real threat to NATO?

Unfortunately, it seems that the military objective of Vladimir Putin’s regime, even in Ukraine, is not to win the war, but to divert the public’s attention from the activities and failures of his administration. This is why it is absolutely crucial that neither Putin nor his successors see any so-called low-hanging fruit in neighboring countries—targets that might appear easy to seize.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?
Message from Finland's President to Vladimir Putin
Estonia is Arming its Military, but Does the Nation Have the Will to Defend Itself?

Bad News for Vladimir Putin and His Imperialistic Dreams

The Russians have recently received multiple pieces of bad news. The latest, which surfaced through social media, reports that in September, Russia experienced the highest average wartime losses: 1,271 soldiers killed or wounded daily.

Additionally, also according to information from social media, the Russian army has lost the equivalent of five divisions' worth of armored equipment in the Pokrovsk area of Eastern Ukraine over the past year. This information was gathered by compiling all recorded instances of Russian equipment destruction for which there is video evidence: a total of 539 tanks and around 1,020 armored vehicles.

If losses continue at this pace, it is possible that the Russians will eventually have to abandon their gradually successful offensives in the Pokrovsk area and retreat to defensive positions.

* * *

Another drawback for Putin comes from the Russian economy. Namely, Russia's state budget for next year includes a 12% increase, mainly due to a quarter rise in military spending from this year.

Military expenditures will amount to 6.3% of the country’s GDP. Additionally, it is likely that more military expenses have been concealed, related to the ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

However, Russia’s economy has not developed, as the government has simply shifted more costs onto citizens and businesses. For example, the corporate tax rate is rising from 20% to 25%, and personal taxes will become progressive. In addition, the costs of housing, services, and public transport will also be increased.

As a result, inflation is expected to accelerate to at least 5.5%. Therefore, Russia’s central bank was shocked by the budget and plans to raise the key interest rate from the current 18% to 20%, but even this is considered insufficient to keep inflation in check.

Thus, next year’s Russian budget brings three pieces of bad news: the budget growth comes solely from businesses and citizens’ pockets, despite structural balance, the budget will increase inflation, and there is no end in sight to the negative trends as the invasion continues.

However, it remains to be seen how all of this will ultimately affect Putin's army's ability to wage war in Ukraine. The possible loss of its fighting ability would be really bad news for Vladimir Putin and his imperialistic dreams.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
General Pekka Toveri, the Chair of the European Parliament's Delegation for Ukraine
Putin Set a Goal — Failure Would Be an Embarrassment
Turning Points in the War in Ukraine and the West's Responsibility