Dobry tekst z Wall Street Journal.
Luttwak ma sporo racji szkoda ze konkluduje
swoj tekst proba szantazu wycofania z Polski
wojsk amerykanskich.
Luttwak: Poland Is Not the Model NATO Ally
It wastes money on fancy helicopters and target-only frigates while not doing what responsible countries near Russia must do.
Andrew A. Michta’s op-ed “Station U.S. Troops in Poland, Not Germany” (Sept. 6) ignores that U.S. troops are conveniently stationed in
Germany to be deployable anywhere in Europe and beyond. They aren’t a garrison to defend Germany, Europe’s most populous country, which must provide whatever troops it deems necessary for its own defense.
To move the 25,000 or so troops from Germany to Poland, adding to the
10,000 already most unwisely stationed in that country, wouldn’t
suffice to defend Poland even against today’s poorly led Russian
army. Instead, it would transform the 25,000 from deployable forces to
a deterrence “trip wire”; an attack against them would be supposed to trigger an all-out war against Russia.
[…]
Basia <abj...@sbcglobal.net> pisze:
Dobry tekst z Wall Street Journal.
Luttwak ma sporo racji szkoda ze konkluduje
swoj tekst proba szantazu wycofania z Polski
wojsk amerykanskich.
Luttwak: Poland Is Not the Model NATO Ally
It wastes money on fancy helicopters and target-only frigates while not doing what responsible countries near Russia must do.
Andrew A. Michta’s op-ed “Station U.S. Troops in Poland, Not Germany”
(Sept. 6) ignores that U.S. troops are conveniently stationed in
Germany to be deployable anywhere in Europe and beyond. They aren’t a garrison to defend Germany, Europe’s most populous country, which must provide whatever troops it deems necessary for its own defense.
To move the 25,000 or so troops from Germany to Poland, adding to the 10,000 already most unwisely stationed in that country, wouldn’t
suffice to defend Poland even against today’s poorly led Russian
army. Instead, it would transform the 25,000 from deployable forces to
a deterrence “trip wire”; an attack against them would be supposed to trigger an all-out war against Russia.
[…]
Przemieszczenie "wszystkich" wojsk USA z Niemiec do RP3 w średniej perspektywie jest raczej mało prawdopodobne
Luttwak: Poland Is Not the Model NATO Allymost populous country, which must provide whatever troops it deems necessary for its own defense.
It wastes money on fancy helicopters and target-only frigates while not doing what responsible countries near Russia must do.
Andrew A. Michta’s op-ed “Station U.S. Troops in Poland, Not Germany” (Sept. 6) ignores that U.S. troops are conveniently stationed in Germany to be deployable anywhere in Europe and beyond. They aren’t a garrison to defend Germany, Europe’s
To move the 25,000 or so troops from Germany to Poland, adding to the 10,000 already most unwisely stationed in that country, wouldn’t suffice to defend Poland even against today’s poorly led Russian army. Instead, it would transform the 25,000from deployable forces to a deterrence “trip wire”; an attack against them would be supposed to trigger an all-out war against Russia.
But to station U.S. troops in Poland would also have an immediate, nonhypothetical and negative effect on Poland’s defense. It would legitimate and perpetuate the irresponsible Polish policy that wastes money on fancy helicopters and target-onlyfrigates in the Baltic Sea, while not doing what responsible countries near Russia must do. That is, to conscript their youth for short and intensive training for subsequent service in equipped reserve units that can be mobilized quickly to defend their
Finland does that, so that its 5.5 million inhabitants can field an army of 250,000 at short notice. Sweden restored conscription immediately after Russia’s seizure of Crimea.Polish troops on peacekeeping missions shouldn’t be ashamed of their old Soviet helicopters. Why the half-billion-dollar frigate? Answer: Because Poland is a naval power (?). Even the F-35s, bought most expensively, are mostly for show; very few
With around 40 million people, Poland had only 42,000 trained soldiers when the Ukraine war started. While in Warsaw in November 2021, I asked why. Answer: We can’t afford more. I asked why they were buying expensive helicopters. Answer: Because
Instead of sending more U.S. troops to Poland, a deadline should be set to withdraw them all unless Poland conscripts its youth to defend their own country, as the Finns and Swedes do. NATO membership wasn’t meant to be an excuse for irresponsibility.
Edward N. Luttwak
s most populous country, which must provide whatever troops it deems necessary for its own defense.Luttwak: Poland Is Not the Model NATO Ally
It wastes money on fancy helicopters and target-only frigates while not doing what responsible countries near Russia must do.
Andrew A. Michta’s op-ed “Station U.S. Troops in Poland, Not Germany” (Sept. 6) ignores that U.S. troops are conveniently stationed in Germany to be deployable anywhere in Europe and beyond. They aren’t a garrison to defend Germany, Europe’
from deployable forces to a deterrence “trip wire”; an attack against them would be supposed to trigger an all-out war against Russia.To move the 25,000 or so troops from Germany to Poland, adding to the 10,000 already most unwisely stationed in that country, wouldn’t suffice to defend Poland even against today’s poorly led Russian army. Instead, it would transform the 25,000
frigates in the Baltic Sea, while not doing what responsible countries near Russia must do. That is, to conscript their youth for short and intensive training for subsequent service in equipped reserve units that can be mobilized quickly to defend theirBut to station U.S. troops in Poland would also have an immediate, nonhypothetical and negative effect on Poland’s defense. It would legitimate and perpetuate the irresponsible Polish policy that wastes money on fancy helicopters and target-only
Polish troops on peacekeeping missions shouldn’t be ashamed of their old Soviet helicopters. Why the half-billion-dollar frigate? Answer: Because Poland is a naval power (?). Even the F-35s, bought most expensively, are mostly for show; very fewFinland does that, so that its 5.5 million inhabitants can field an army of 250,000 at short notice. Sweden restored conscription immediately after Russia’s seizure of Crimea.
With around 40 million people, Poland had only 42,000 trained soldiers when the Ukraine war started. While in Warsaw in November 2021, I asked why. Answer: We can’t afford more. I asked why they were buying expensive helicopters. Answer: Because
irresponsibility.Instead of sending more U.S. troops to Poland, a deadline should be set to withdraw them all unless Poland conscripts its youth to defend their own country, as the Finns and Swedes do. NATO membership wasn’t meant to be an excuse for
Edward N. Luttwak
Autor zaklada ze wlodarze PRL-bis'u moga
sobie pozwolic na szkolenie rzesz Polakow
w strzelaniu z broni palnej, nastepnie wyposazyc
na stale setki tysiecy w bron maszynowa badz
zapewnic szybki dostep, ...a pozniej permanentnie
utrzymywac kontrole nad uzbrojonym po zeby
liczacym grube setki tysiecy ludzi towarzystwem.
Czy Luttwak jest szalencem niewiem.
Gdybym miala prorokowac to ze beda transfery
amerykanskich zolnierzy z baz w Niemczech
a nie ze bedzie tworzone liczne wojsko na wzor
szwecki czy finski albo masowe uzbrajanie
populacji na modle szwajcarska.
Basi teza: Beda Amerykanie swoimi trepami
bronili PRL-bis'u, panie Luttwak.
Basia (Ona/Jej)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 12:39:15 |
| Calls: | 6,667 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,214 |
| Messages: | 5,336,453 |