When will send them into battle Barack Obama
Military ambitions of the Young Europeans - a consequence of inadequate self-esteem
The crisis in Ukraine, which has turned into a new round of confrontation between Russia and the United States, cannot leave indifferent even small countries, and whose leadership, and simple people in the street, really want to feel the involvement in the most important events now taking place in south-eastern Europe.
Such aspirations are sometimes grotesque, as evidenced, say, by the statement of a Polish military “expert” about the ability of the Warsaw-mobilized army to reach Kaliningrad in 48 hours. Or, the Swedes suddenly decided to remind everyone of the former greatness of the kingdom of the times of Gustav-Adolf and Karl XII, searching for a mythical submarine, transparently, however, hinting that the submarine is Russian. And when about this stupid stories forgot, Stockholm told about the allegedly dangerous approach of the Russian Su-27 to a Swedish civilian aircraft.
Desire without opportunity
Against the background of all these curious statements do not stop - and on the sidelines of the military-political elites of different countries, and among the inhabitants - gossip about the possibility and prospects of a military conflict between Russia and NATO. These conversations are conducted against the background of threats from Brussels to deploy additional contingents of the Alliance troops in Eastern European and Baltic countries.
However, the harsh statements of "our Western partners" are diluted by their own statements about the unwillingness to enter into armed confrontation with Moscow and that it is not the enemy at all to the West.
It is possible to understand Western European politicians: on the one hand, they are under constant pressure from Washington, demanding a tough stance from the Old World in dialogue with the Kremlin, on the other hand, in Brussels, they are aware of the futility of a serious military conflict. Indeed, despite the external power of the alliance, it is internally weak as never before, as the events of the past decades testify to. They show us that the North Atlantic bloc demonstrates strength only by fighting against a deliberately weak adversary, incapable of an adequate response. The most vivid example is the former Yugoslavia: how many bombed it, killing more civilians than the military, but neither the morale of the Serbs, nor the lost strength of their armed forces, was ever broken. Alas, it took Chernomyrdin to allow Albanian terrorists, drug traffickers and other criminal rabble specializing in kidnapping and torturing people, with the help of Brussels and Washington, to occupy Kosovo (about the role of the Russian ex-prime minister in tearing the land away from Yugoslavia: see V. Udmantsev. “Waiting for Serbian unity”). There was no question of any ground operation then, for the current West is very sensitive to its own human losses and the inevitable mass funerals, invading NATO in Yugoslavia, would have shocked the refined European society.
Let us recall again the throw of the Russian landing battalion under the command of Lieutenant-General Viktor Zavarzin to the Pristina airport "Slatina" 12 June 1999 of the year. Then, the NATO members, of course, could knock out our fighters from the airfield, since they had a huge advantage in manpower and equipment, and also had air supremacy. But the fear of the Russians, as well as the unwillingness to bear combat losses, stopped the command of the alliance, in any case heading the British peacekeepers, General Jackson, who had the task of occupying Slatina.
The same can be said about the actions of the Americans and their allies in Iraq a little more than ten years ago. The fact that Saddam Hussein’s once truly combat-ready army didn’t have to wait for real resistance, it became clear when the retreating Iraqi units did not blow up the bridges across the Euphrates, although they had such an opportunity, leaving them to the enemy, and turn into a second Stalingrad.
In the case of the participation of NATO troops in military operations in Ukraine, substantial losses on their part are inevitable, the “easy walk” scenario is unrealizable here. Brussels is well aware that they are waiting for their soldiers in contact with militants motivated by the high idea of protecting their young republics.
It was all about money.
Why is the NATO military machine morally and psychologically so weak? The answer is contained in many sources, let us dwell on one of them - the book of the American researcher of Japanese origin, Francis Fukiyama, The End of History. Published a quarter of a century ago, it still provokes debate in intellectual circles of the West and Russia. Well, the book deserves to be.
The essence of Fukiyama's constructions can be expressed in one thesis: in the modern world there is no place for religious struggle and ideological confrontation, when people were ready to sacrifice themselves and others, to voluntarily go to hardship for the sake of their professed faith. The current struggle is purely economic in nature and is aimed at meeting exclusively the material needs of mankind.
In other words, modern society is not ready for sacrifice for its ideals. It is easy to see that the statement of the scientist is applicable to Western society, but not to Islamic, Indian or Chinese civilizations. Although, according to Fukiama, a gradual leveling of the sacrifice occurs in them.
And it is difficult to disagree with this - even in the Islamic world, the era of assassins and Ismailis, which is characterized by the utmost sacrifice of adherents of these sects for the sake of the ideals they professed, is far in the past.
In any case, the West will seek the realization of its expansionist goals, either by eliminating obviously weak opponents - as mentioned above, or where effective armed resistance is possible - by diplomatic or economic means, trying to avoid military losses. Washington chose the final path in relation to Russia.
A NATO member sounds proud ...
But there is one more way that allows NATO to pursue an aggressive policy, at least on a limited scale, using new members of the alliance, who once belonged to the Department of Internal Affairs, now trying to prove their loyalty to Brussels as cannon fodder. Question: are they ready for a serious war and significant casualties? Can become the trump card in the gambling of new owners?
To begin, let us draw attention to the common features inherent to all new members of the alliance in Eastern Europe. Perhaps the main thing that catches the eye when communicating with our yesterday’s partners in the socialist camp and getting acquainted with the products of their media is the transformation of the mental attitudes of both the military-political elite and the majority of ordinary people. It is expressed in the sense of belonging to the triumph of Western civilization, which won the Cold War.
And through the media, and through school textbooks of yesterday’s allies of the USSR, ideas are being imposed that the socialist model of development was allegedly forcibly implanted by the “semi-Asian” Soviet Union, which is now conceived as the evil empire - not to recall Reagan’s famous expression.
Eastern European society as a whole, especially the younger generation, is very susceptible to such myths. They are taken at face value, although the facts show otherwise. For example, thanks to the "semi-Asiatic" USSR, the same impoverished Bulgaria today, according to the estimation of the domestic economist Mikhail Khazin, in the seventies of the last century produced more industrial products than Turkey. It is no secret that after the collapse of the social camp the standard of living for the newly-minted members of NATO and the EU is steadily falling - the only exception is the Czech Republic.
But propaganda achieves its goals, and in the former socialist countries, the role of the USSR in the liberation of Eastern Europe from fascism, now perceived as a conquest, is being redefined. It must be admitted that in part these ideas are not unfounded. So, the commemorated Bulgaria in September 1944 was precisely occupied by Soviet units, since there were no longer any German troops on its territory, the Communists seized power. And for example, the Salashist army fought on the side of the Wehrmacht to the last, even after the surrender of Budapest. Recall the well-known facts of the suppression of the Hungarian uprising of the year 1956 and the Prague Spring in the 1968. Of course, it would be naive to believe that if the last two speeches of the country where they occurred succeed, they would take a course towards neutrality, as well as it’s obvious: if the Soviet troops had not been defeated by Army, they would crush the Polish communist government of Boleslav Beruta.
And the deployment in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia of NATO military contingents equipped with nuclear weapons, in the immediate vicinity of the Soviet borders would be a matter of the near future. Of course, the Kremlin could not present such a gift to a potential enemy, and the countries of Eastern Europe did not even think about leaving the ATS until the end of the 80-s.
But there was one more thing: the economic orientation of our allies in the social camp to the immense Soviet domestic market, where their goods were in demand, as well as the serious economic assistance of the Kremlin. In the countries of Eastern Europe, the USSR saw precisely allies, and not a raw materials appendage or a cheap labor market, as the EU perceives them.
With the termination of the Warsaw Pact, its former participants hurried to turn into today's essentially opponents of Russia, though not rich and powerful, as they naively dreamed of, but into beggars and still foreign to the West.
So, we come back to the question posed: are the new members of the alliance ready to shed blood for the interests of Brussels? The limited scope of the article allows us to consider no more than two countries as an example. Let it be Poland and Romania, because it was they who, after the collapse of the ATS, persistently try to convince everyone around and their own status as a state power, they strive not only to talk on an equal footing, but also, as they say, to “teach life” of the old members of the alliance. So, quite recently we witnessed how Warsaw directly demanded that Paris not transfer the Mistrals to Russia.
Who is dancing "Polka"?
We have already noted in the article “Russia and Poland - the origins of the confrontation” that the country is unusual, its inhabitants in the past saw themselves as ancient Sarmatians, then genuine Europeans - Western, of course. Although they were neither those nor others.
Once in the Russian Empire, the proud nobles raised revolts a couple of times, with the goal of not just restoring independence, but reviving the Commonwealth "from sea to sea." Well, the incommensurability of desires and possibilities, it seems, has always pursued our western neighbor. Yes, and now it is haunting, it suffices to recall the recent statement by ex-President Lech Walesa that in the event of a Russia-NATO military conflict, "at best, they (the Russians. - I.Kh.) will give us a couple of bruises." Such statements have always been peculiar to arrogant gentry, especially on the eve of the battles with the Cossacks, Russians or Swedes lost by them.
As for our relations with Warsaw, they have never been simple, which they remain to this day. Leaving the ATS one of the first, Poland immediately made every effort to join NATO. Warsaw's dream came true in 1999. True, this did not add to her benefits, but rather the opposite. During the Cold War, Germany was considered the likely territory of hostilities - with the most powerful tank the grouping of the socialist bloc in Eastern Europe had no other scenario.
But now, in the event of an armed conflict between Russia and NATO, Poland will already become a war zone and, of course, a “pair of bruises” will not do.
However, it does not seem to confuse Warsaw. The main thing for her is at least some kind of belonging to “civilized Europe”, whose loyalty the Poles very quickly proved by taking part in the inhuman bombardments of Yugoslavia. At the beginning of the XXI century, Warsaw was also in a hurry to participate in the Afghan adventure of the USA and the aggression against Iraq. For Poland, only according to official data, upholding overseas geopolitical interests turned out to more than fifty of those killed. The tragedy of Polish wives and mothers who have lost their loved ones in the snow-covered mountains of others and sun-scorched deserts is aggravated by its absolute meaninglessness. But politicians in Warsaw care little about it.
What are the armed forces of Poland at the present stage? The army that has gone over to a contractual basis is numerically small and unable to carry out large-scale offensive operations, and the technical potential of the Polish Army is now far from meeting NATO standards. It is more suitable for police operations anywhere in Iraq or the mountains of the former Yugoslavia. Actually, a similar role to the Poles is assigned to Brussels and Washington.
Yes, they are incapable of anything else, because Warsaw, figuratively speaking, still eats away the inheritance inherited from the USSR. By the way, in the ATS, the combat potential of the Polish Army was rated very highly and ranked third after the Soviet and East Germans. Having joined NATO, Poland, whether it wanted to or not, turned out to be in the ranks of military-economic outsiders.
According to experts, despite the fact that the individual training of a Polish contract soldier has increased in comparison with his compatriot-recruit of the NDP era, the overall combat capability of the army has decreased. The reason for this is motivation. Earlier, a Polish soldier was preparing to die for his homeland, now for money and alien interests, and few people want to die even for large sums.
But in any case, NATO can rely on Polish soldiers in local military operations, as, indeed, in a hypothetical conflict with Russia, relying on the hatred towards our country inherent in many young Poles.
Inglorious little ones
Romania from time to time tries on the prefix "Great" and with greediness glances at the Moldovan territories. However, like Warsaw, even weaker Bucharest has problems with an adequate assessment of its own military potential, as evidenced by the events of the past century.
Recall how, in 1916, Ferdinand I, fearing being late for the winners' table, entered the First World War on the side of the Entente, having rendered her a disservice without exaggeration. The Romanians were quickly defeated and the Russian army had to further stretch its already long front, for the newly minted allies demonstrated an extremely low level of combat capability.
And in World War II, the Romanians showed a military weakness, as evidenced by their unsuccessful actions in June 1941 on the border with the USSR, as well as the Battle of Stalingrad and the Yassko-Kishinev operation.
As is known, at the Department of Internal Affairs, Bucharest behaved quite independently of Moscow - it suffices to recall the Ceausescu regime’s condemnation of the entry of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia. Romania even claimed the status of the Balkan superpower, having a fairly large military-industrial complex, unable, however, to produce high-quality military equipment.
If we talk about the morale of the army, it is important to note the absence in its ranks of deep military traditions, since Romania as an independent state was formed by historical standards relatively recently - in the second half of the XIX century. And the First and Second World Wars did not bring glory to her arms.
After the crash of the Warsaw Pact, Bucharest, like Warsaw, rushed into NATO, naively believing that the alliance, as if by magic, would turn Romania into a regional power. Reception was held in 2004. However, Romania remained poor and weak, including militarily. It is enough to cite data from Adjara Kurtov and Sergey Yermakov: “Five years after joining the EU (the article“ The Ghost of “Greater Romania” was published on 2012-m. I.Kh.) in Romania there are still settlements that do not have electricity and hot water. Every fourth citizen does not have sufficient means of subsistence. ” But great-power aspirations found expression in the sending of their soldiers by Bucharest to Afghanistan and Iraq, where the Romanian contingent holds the second place after Poland among Eastern Europeans.
According to Yermakov and Kurtov, “despite the significant efforts that the government is making to reform and re-equip the national armed forces, budgetary and financial constraints do not allow realizing ambitions in the defense sphere. For example, Romania cannot comply with the NATO requirement for the level of defense spending of at least two percent of GDP. The country's current military spending is about 1,53 billion dollars, or about 1,33 percent of GDP. ”
In Iraq and Afghanistan, the Romanians have now lost more than 20 people. A little, but for sensible people it is obvious: the sacrifices were brought to the altar of US interests, for which both the Romanians and the Poles are not allies, what they were for the USSR, but only loose change and cannon fodder in the big geopolitical game.
The soldiers of this poor country with bloated geopolitical ambitions are incapable of large-scale hostilities and can, like the Poles, play an exclusively supporting role in local military conflicts. There is no need to count on the Romanian army in possible serious NATO operations, because, unlike the Polish army, it was never able to fight.
And all these great-power aspirations are very accurately characterized by Kurtov and Yermakov as "geopolitical marginalism." By the way, the researchers very fairly explain the anti-Russian rhetoric of the newly-minted members of NATO by the desire of the ruling elites of these countries "to justify in front of their own people the actual inconsistency of the economic course pursued with 90's."
Conclusion: neither Poland nor Romania is capable, in the event of a large-scale war, to effective combat operations, except for local operations.
The crisis in Ukraine, which has turned into a new round of confrontation between Russia and the United States, cannot leave indifferent even small countries, and whose leadership, and simple people in the street, really want to feel the involvement in the most important events now taking place in south-eastern Europe.
Such aspirations are sometimes grotesque, as evidenced, say, by the statement of a Polish military “expert” about the ability of the Warsaw-mobilized army to reach Kaliningrad in 48 hours. Or, the Swedes suddenly decided to remind everyone of the former greatness of the kingdom of the times of Gustav-Adolf and Karl XII, searching for a mythical submarine, transparently, however, hinting that the submarine is Russian. And when about this stupid stories forgot, Stockholm told about the allegedly dangerous approach of the Russian Su-27 to a Swedish civilian aircraft.
Desire without opportunity
Against the background of all these curious statements do not stop - and on the sidelines of the military-political elites of different countries, and among the inhabitants - gossip about the possibility and prospects of a military conflict between Russia and NATO. These conversations are conducted against the background of threats from Brussels to deploy additional contingents of the Alliance troops in Eastern European and Baltic countries.
However, the harsh statements of "our Western partners" are diluted by their own statements about the unwillingness to enter into armed confrontation with Moscow and that it is not the enemy at all to the West.
It is possible to understand Western European politicians: on the one hand, they are under constant pressure from Washington, demanding a tough stance from the Old World in dialogue with the Kremlin, on the other hand, in Brussels, they are aware of the futility of a serious military conflict. Indeed, despite the external power of the alliance, it is internally weak as never before, as the events of the past decades testify to. They show us that the North Atlantic bloc demonstrates strength only by fighting against a deliberately weak adversary, incapable of an adequate response. The most vivid example is the former Yugoslavia: how many bombed it, killing more civilians than the military, but neither the morale of the Serbs, nor the lost strength of their armed forces, was ever broken. Alas, it took Chernomyrdin to allow Albanian terrorists, drug traffickers and other criminal rabble specializing in kidnapping and torturing people, with the help of Brussels and Washington, to occupy Kosovo (about the role of the Russian ex-prime minister in tearing the land away from Yugoslavia: see V. Udmantsev. “Waiting for Serbian unity”). There was no question of any ground operation then, for the current West is very sensitive to its own human losses and the inevitable mass funerals, invading NATO in Yugoslavia, would have shocked the refined European society.
Let us recall again the throw of the Russian landing battalion under the command of Lieutenant-General Viktor Zavarzin to the Pristina airport "Slatina" 12 June 1999 of the year. Then, the NATO members, of course, could knock out our fighters from the airfield, since they had a huge advantage in manpower and equipment, and also had air supremacy. But the fear of the Russians, as well as the unwillingness to bear combat losses, stopped the command of the alliance, in any case heading the British peacekeepers, General Jackson, who had the task of occupying Slatina.
The same can be said about the actions of the Americans and their allies in Iraq a little more than ten years ago. The fact that Saddam Hussein’s once truly combat-ready army didn’t have to wait for real resistance, it became clear when the retreating Iraqi units did not blow up the bridges across the Euphrates, although they had such an opportunity, leaving them to the enemy, and turn into a second Stalingrad.
In the case of the participation of NATO troops in military operations in Ukraine, substantial losses on their part are inevitable, the “easy walk” scenario is unrealizable here. Brussels is well aware that they are waiting for their soldiers in contact with militants motivated by the high idea of protecting their young republics.
It was all about money.
Why is the NATO military machine morally and psychologically so weak? The answer is contained in many sources, let us dwell on one of them - the book of the American researcher of Japanese origin, Francis Fukiyama, The End of History. Published a quarter of a century ago, it still provokes debate in intellectual circles of the West and Russia. Well, the book deserves to be.
The essence of Fukiyama's constructions can be expressed in one thesis: in the modern world there is no place for religious struggle and ideological confrontation, when people were ready to sacrifice themselves and others, to voluntarily go to hardship for the sake of their professed faith. The current struggle is purely economic in nature and is aimed at meeting exclusively the material needs of mankind.In other words, modern society is not ready for sacrifice for its ideals. It is easy to see that the statement of the scientist is applicable to Western society, but not to Islamic, Indian or Chinese civilizations. Although, according to Fukiama, a gradual leveling of the sacrifice occurs in them.
And it is difficult to disagree with this - even in the Islamic world, the era of assassins and Ismailis, which is characterized by the utmost sacrifice of adherents of these sects for the sake of the ideals they professed, is far in the past.
In any case, the West will seek the realization of its expansionist goals, either by eliminating obviously weak opponents - as mentioned above, or where effective armed resistance is possible - by diplomatic or economic means, trying to avoid military losses. Washington chose the final path in relation to Russia.
A NATO member sounds proud ...
But there is one more way that allows NATO to pursue an aggressive policy, at least on a limited scale, using new members of the alliance, who once belonged to the Department of Internal Affairs, now trying to prove their loyalty to Brussels as cannon fodder. Question: are they ready for a serious war and significant casualties? Can become the trump card in the gambling of new owners?
To begin, let us draw attention to the common features inherent to all new members of the alliance in Eastern Europe. Perhaps the main thing that catches the eye when communicating with our yesterday’s partners in the socialist camp and getting acquainted with the products of their media is the transformation of the mental attitudes of both the military-political elite and the majority of ordinary people. It is expressed in the sense of belonging to the triumph of Western civilization, which won the Cold War.
And through the media, and through school textbooks of yesterday’s allies of the USSR, ideas are being imposed that the socialist model of development was allegedly forcibly implanted by the “semi-Asian” Soviet Union, which is now conceived as the evil empire - not to recall Reagan’s famous expression.
Eastern European society as a whole, especially the younger generation, is very susceptible to such myths. They are taken at face value, although the facts show otherwise. For example, thanks to the "semi-Asiatic" USSR, the same impoverished Bulgaria today, according to the estimation of the domestic economist Mikhail Khazin, in the seventies of the last century produced more industrial products than Turkey. It is no secret that after the collapse of the social camp the standard of living for the newly-minted members of NATO and the EU is steadily falling - the only exception is the Czech Republic.
But propaganda achieves its goals, and in the former socialist countries, the role of the USSR in the liberation of Eastern Europe from fascism, now perceived as a conquest, is being redefined. It must be admitted that in part these ideas are not unfounded. So, the commemorated Bulgaria in September 1944 was precisely occupied by Soviet units, since there were no longer any German troops on its territory, the Communists seized power. And for example, the Salashist army fought on the side of the Wehrmacht to the last, even after the surrender of Budapest. Recall the well-known facts of the suppression of the Hungarian uprising of the year 1956 and the Prague Spring in the 1968. Of course, it would be naive to believe that if the last two speeches of the country where they occurred succeed, they would take a course towards neutrality, as well as it’s obvious: if the Soviet troops had not been defeated by Army, they would crush the Polish communist government of Boleslav Beruta.
And the deployment in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia of NATO military contingents equipped with nuclear weapons, in the immediate vicinity of the Soviet borders would be a matter of the near future. Of course, the Kremlin could not present such a gift to a potential enemy, and the countries of Eastern Europe did not even think about leaving the ATS until the end of the 80-s.
But there was one more thing: the economic orientation of our allies in the social camp to the immense Soviet domestic market, where their goods were in demand, as well as the serious economic assistance of the Kremlin. In the countries of Eastern Europe, the USSR saw precisely allies, and not a raw materials appendage or a cheap labor market, as the EU perceives them.
With the termination of the Warsaw Pact, its former participants hurried to turn into today's essentially opponents of Russia, though not rich and powerful, as they naively dreamed of, but into beggars and still foreign to the West.
So, we come back to the question posed: are the new members of the alliance ready to shed blood for the interests of Brussels? The limited scope of the article allows us to consider no more than two countries as an example. Let it be Poland and Romania, because it was they who, after the collapse of the ATS, persistently try to convince everyone around and their own status as a state power, they strive not only to talk on an equal footing, but also, as they say, to “teach life” of the old members of the alliance. So, quite recently we witnessed how Warsaw directly demanded that Paris not transfer the Mistrals to Russia.
Who is dancing "Polka"?
We have already noted in the article “Russia and Poland - the origins of the confrontation” that the country is unusual, its inhabitants in the past saw themselves as ancient Sarmatians, then genuine Europeans - Western, of course. Although they were neither those nor others.
Once in the Russian Empire, the proud nobles raised revolts a couple of times, with the goal of not just restoring independence, but reviving the Commonwealth "from sea to sea." Well, the incommensurability of desires and possibilities, it seems, has always pursued our western neighbor. Yes, and now it is haunting, it suffices to recall the recent statement by ex-President Lech Walesa that in the event of a Russia-NATO military conflict, "at best, they (the Russians. - I.Kh.) will give us a couple of bruises." Such statements have always been peculiar to arrogant gentry, especially on the eve of the battles with the Cossacks, Russians or Swedes lost by them.
As for our relations with Warsaw, they have never been simple, which they remain to this day. Leaving the ATS one of the first, Poland immediately made every effort to join NATO. Warsaw's dream came true in 1999. True, this did not add to her benefits, but rather the opposite. During the Cold War, Germany was considered the likely territory of hostilities - with the most powerful tank the grouping of the socialist bloc in Eastern Europe had no other scenario.
But now, in the event of an armed conflict between Russia and NATO, Poland will already become a war zone and, of course, a “pair of bruises” will not do.
However, it does not seem to confuse Warsaw. The main thing for her is at least some kind of belonging to “civilized Europe”, whose loyalty the Poles very quickly proved by taking part in the inhuman bombardments of Yugoslavia. At the beginning of the XXI century, Warsaw was also in a hurry to participate in the Afghan adventure of the USA and the aggression against Iraq. For Poland, only according to official data, upholding overseas geopolitical interests turned out to more than fifty of those killed. The tragedy of Polish wives and mothers who have lost their loved ones in the snow-covered mountains of others and sun-scorched deserts is aggravated by its absolute meaninglessness. But politicians in Warsaw care little about it.
What are the armed forces of Poland at the present stage? The army that has gone over to a contractual basis is numerically small and unable to carry out large-scale offensive operations, and the technical potential of the Polish Army is now far from meeting NATO standards. It is more suitable for police operations anywhere in Iraq or the mountains of the former Yugoslavia. Actually, a similar role to the Poles is assigned to Brussels and Washington.
Yes, they are incapable of anything else, because Warsaw, figuratively speaking, still eats away the inheritance inherited from the USSR. By the way, in the ATS, the combat potential of the Polish Army was rated very highly and ranked third after the Soviet and East Germans. Having joined NATO, Poland, whether it wanted to or not, turned out to be in the ranks of military-economic outsiders.
According to experts, despite the fact that the individual training of a Polish contract soldier has increased in comparison with his compatriot-recruit of the NDP era, the overall combat capability of the army has decreased. The reason for this is motivation. Earlier, a Polish soldier was preparing to die for his homeland, now for money and alien interests, and few people want to die even for large sums.
But in any case, NATO can rely on Polish soldiers in local military operations, as, indeed, in a hypothetical conflict with Russia, relying on the hatred towards our country inherent in many young Poles.
Inglorious little ones
Romania from time to time tries on the prefix "Great" and with greediness glances at the Moldovan territories. However, like Warsaw, even weaker Bucharest has problems with an adequate assessment of its own military potential, as evidenced by the events of the past century.
Recall how, in 1916, Ferdinand I, fearing being late for the winners' table, entered the First World War on the side of the Entente, having rendered her a disservice without exaggeration. The Romanians were quickly defeated and the Russian army had to further stretch its already long front, for the newly minted allies demonstrated an extremely low level of combat capability.
And in World War II, the Romanians showed a military weakness, as evidenced by their unsuccessful actions in June 1941 on the border with the USSR, as well as the Battle of Stalingrad and the Yassko-Kishinev operation.
As is known, at the Department of Internal Affairs, Bucharest behaved quite independently of Moscow - it suffices to recall the Ceausescu regime’s condemnation of the entry of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia. Romania even claimed the status of the Balkan superpower, having a fairly large military-industrial complex, unable, however, to produce high-quality military equipment.
If we talk about the morale of the army, it is important to note the absence in its ranks of deep military traditions, since Romania as an independent state was formed by historical standards relatively recently - in the second half of the XIX century. And the First and Second World Wars did not bring glory to her arms.
After the crash of the Warsaw Pact, Bucharest, like Warsaw, rushed into NATO, naively believing that the alliance, as if by magic, would turn Romania into a regional power. Reception was held in 2004. However, Romania remained poor and weak, including militarily. It is enough to cite data from Adjara Kurtov and Sergey Yermakov: “Five years after joining the EU (the article“ The Ghost of “Greater Romania” was published on 2012-m. I.Kh.) in Romania there are still settlements that do not have electricity and hot water. Every fourth citizen does not have sufficient means of subsistence. ” But great-power aspirations found expression in the sending of their soldiers by Bucharest to Afghanistan and Iraq, where the Romanian contingent holds the second place after Poland among Eastern Europeans.
According to Yermakov and Kurtov, “despite the significant efforts that the government is making to reform and re-equip the national armed forces, budgetary and financial constraints do not allow realizing ambitions in the defense sphere. For example, Romania cannot comply with the NATO requirement for the level of defense spending of at least two percent of GDP. The country's current military spending is about 1,53 billion dollars, or about 1,33 percent of GDP. ”
In Iraq and Afghanistan, the Romanians have now lost more than 20 people. A little, but for sensible people it is obvious: the sacrifices were brought to the altar of US interests, for which both the Romanians and the Poles are not allies, what they were for the USSR, but only loose change and cannon fodder in the big geopolitical game.
The soldiers of this poor country with bloated geopolitical ambitions are incapable of large-scale hostilities and can, like the Poles, play an exclusively supporting role in local military conflicts. There is no need to count on the Romanian army in possible serious NATO operations, because, unlike the Polish army, it was never able to fight.
And all these great-power aspirations are very accurately characterized by Kurtov and Yermakov as "geopolitical marginalism." By the way, the researchers very fairly explain the anti-Russian rhetoric of the newly-minted members of NATO by the desire of the ruling elites of these countries "to justify in front of their own people the actual inconsistency of the economic course pursued with 90's."
Conclusion: neither Poland nor Romania is capable, in the event of a large-scale war, to effective combat operations, except for local operations.
Information