On the one hand, this trend has sped up Poland’s efforts to assume a leading role in NATO amidst the US’ planned “Pivot (back) to Asia”, but it’s also led to Poland relying more on France to rebalance relations with the US and could turn into a full-blown pivot with far-reaching strategic consequences.
This article strikes me as outdated thinking. Tied to the illusion propagated by the US imperial project requiring Russia to be perceived as the ever present Threat justifying outdated NATO spending, basing, weaponry, and political controls, and alliances.
Assuming that Poland and any other NATO member refrain from indiscriminate bombardments of ethnic Russian populations and ethnic cleansing as practiced for 8 years by Kiev, what is the threat to NATO? There is none. Let Russia have its buffer state and go back to taking cheap Russian energy.
As for us Americans, we now see that the DC empire poses the only real threat to western Europe as the neocons in dc mercilessly subvert and overthrow any ally who dares take an independent course.
Trump should admit that NATO is a relic of the Cold War and see about framing a global security framework that includes Russia and China as a multipolar world. This idea that the US should worry about France or Poland or Germany is anachronistic thinking.
ALL nations who entered into an alliance with America are considering their options full time now. The value of NATO’s Section 5 guarantee has been deflated greatly in the last month. Poland, Romania and the Baltic States should shift away from their pro-war positions and seek a more balanced relation with Russia. Those who are waiting to be saved by France and the UK if they create a conflict will likely get disappointed also. America is rapidly gearing up for a conflict with China and cannot struggle with Russia at the same time. Under the surface there is a desperate struggle to gain back lost industrial productivity in the U.S. but this will be a long-term project – if it will work at all. The government and the military are just starting to realize what five decades of deindustrialization brought to them. And the greatest surprise is still ahead to face: They traded half of the American people of the 1950s for the unwanted population of the third world. Now, they will attempt to turn them into nuclear scientists and engineers.
They didn't trade them away - they are still there, but getting smaller and smaller in absolute terms due to crumbling fertility. With respect whether the struggle against de-industrialization will work - if there is enough modernization and repression at the same time, it might work. It worked for Russia or China, for example.
1973 was the last year when there was any growth in real income value for the U.S. working class and just about ALL economists agree on this point. Lack of income and financial stability is not a fertility issue, it is a government issue in a leading industrial state like America. At the same time the borders were practically open for colored immigration from around 1980. Also, the incoming colored population was subsidized with welfare programs at the expense of the White European population. This was coordinated effort that I referred above as a "population trade" although calling it the dissolution of the White majority would be also proper.
I have an immature idea. Americans' imperial power stems from many different factors, and the universal acceptance of USD is one of them. Given the international geopolitics and the smoldering inside the American House, realignment of alliances, or simply changing the weightings on multiple alliances is enough to reduce dependencies on USD. Once USD purchase power drops significantly, the USA would be less likely to behave like an empire and must relearn how to make a living by producing things at home. That change will make the American people poor at first, but they will be prosperous after the adjustment. Rising prices for commodities due to the falling values of USD will make material and energy efficiency more important, and emerging economies and the Global South a better prospect for economic development. One way or another, the existing mould would have to be broken for the world to evolve.
I don't accept personal attacks, whether directly or by insinuation, such as you suggesting that I'm an anti-Chinese racist. You have no idea who I am and actually just humiliated yourself. I've proudly written hundreds of analyses for CGTN and just published one for Global Times last week:
To your other disgusting personal attack against me, no, I'm not "desperate" to do anything and how delusional do you have to be to imagine that my analysis will get Putin to do anything? Russia can't stop US troops from deploying to Poland, it hasn't done any for those that went there after 2022.
You're now blocked for egregiously insulting me in such a shockingly rude way and I'll happily block anyone else who does so too. I'm all in favor of respectfully expressed contrarian views but I have zero tolerance for personal attacks. What "David" did went far beyond my red line.
In my opinion, it's not all that different from Serbs commemorating the lost Battle of Kosovo during what they call Vidovdan. It's natural for societies for pay respect to those of their ancestors who fought for their freedom even if they failed at the time.
I think some Poles go way overboard though in the sense of believing that they must follow in their ancestors' footsteps by always opposing Russia in the most dramatic way possible, but commemoration of failed battles in principle isn't a bad thing.
You seem to be Polish judging by your surname so I'm not directing this towards you, but generally speaking, I noticed that a lot of non-Poles online who make the same point that you do never once mention how Serbs do something similar.
It's not that they don't know, some of them do since they also promote pro-Serb causes on social media, they just for whatever reason don't want to make a comparison, perhaps because it raises questions about their political point.
Yes, I'm Polish. Paying respect to heroes and civilians who died for freedom is one thing, not learning a lesson that a suicidal uprising will end in a suicide, is another one. This narrative of shedding blood to shock the conscience of the world as a way to achieve a political goal, completely ignoring reality, is still alive and well in Poland. One can foresee Poland getting directly militarily involved in the Ukrainian conflict, followed by songs and poems about fallen heroes, when the adventure ends in a predictable disaster.
I fully agree with you. I'm Polish too (a dual national, born in the US to a Polish parent, but didn't learn Polish since I didn't grow up with them due to my parents divorcing when I was young) and I believe that some Poles go too far commemorating suicidal uprisings and the like.
It's important to pay respect to those before us, but we also shouldn't obsess over them and their struggle either since that can lead to Poles being manipulated by politicians at home and abroad into similarly suicidal adventures in the present like the one that you warned about.
On that topic, I don't think that Poland will conventionally intervene in Ukraine, at least not until after the presidential elections and then it would only be more likely (though still not guaranteed) if Trzaskowski wins. I expect Poland to logistically support those who might do so, but that's it.
G'day Andrew, even Australia does the same with Gallipoli and the ANZAC day national public holiday. It is even thought of as a founding national myth though we were an independent nation in 1900, 15years before the doomed Dardenelles campaign of Churchill's. By the way I also have Polish grandparents from Poznan who moved to Germay before WW1.
Both Chinese and Japanese, and perhaps Koreans as well, need to think like you: historical feuds should be taught and remembered, as bad things did happen. However, newer generations of people should not be burdened too much by the historical feuds, at least not to the extent between these three countries. Otherwise, there will not be peace lasting long enough. Anti-Japanese rhetoric and propaganda are still important tools for Chinese Communists to hold the nation together even though they took on only minor roles against the Japanese in WW2. Somewhat unfortunately, all three cultures put a lot of emphasis on history.
Poland and Ukraine could easily defeat Russia in defense of Ukraine. They would never invade Russia and so I have no reason to speculate about that scenario. The only issue would be Putin unleashing a tactical nuke which could change the outcome. Russia is a paper bear and Putin’s invasion turbocharged the global LNG industry which undermines Putin’s biggest advantage—piped gas to Europe. Any victory in Ukraine is a Pyhrric victory at this point for Putin because Ukrainians hate Russia more than ever and Putin’s goal was to win the hearts and minds of Ukraine.
Big difference btw Poles and Serbs and the treatment they apply to the past and lessons learned.
The loss of Kossovo (starting with Kossovopoljie) has happened during centuries, once the Southern Slavs were occupied by the Ottomans.
Poles on the other hand have dreams of imperium and there is the obnoxious infatuation of the Pans, who ultimately burried their country, never agreening on anything. Plus always casting coveting eyes in the east. An alliance between Western Europe and USSR prior to WWII was mainly not possible due to the Poles...
The Battle of Kosovo Field is actually what led to the Ottoman conquest of Serbia. As for restoring the Commonwealth, it's not a popular idea among Polish society nowadays.
Its eastern expansion was due to a combination of dynastic marriages, the collapse of ("Kievan"/Old) Rus, the Union with Lithuania, the security dilemma with then-Muscovy, and yes, ethno-sectarian supremacy in a way.
But it's not a simple as you're making it out to be in the sense of Poland just expanding eastward for the sake of it. Regarding the interwar period, it was unrealistic that Poland would ally with the USSR.
Their post-WWI partition of Belarus and Ukraine created an unresolvable security dilemma so it wasn't politically possible for Poland to allow the Red Army transit rights en route to Czechoslovakia to stop the Nazis.
About that, the USSR likely knew this an was thus just grandstanding since it didn't react similarly to Poland's spring 1938 ultimatum to Lithuania for restoring relations nor the Nazis' one a year later for what it called Memel.
This was in spite of the 1920 Soviet-Lithuanian Treaty whereby Moscow recognized Lithuania's claims to Vilnius and its then-existing control over what the Germans called Memel.
The USSR didn't request transit rights through Latvia to save Lithuania nor did it saber-rattle against Poland or request transit through its territory in spring 1939.
The situation is therefore much more complex than you're portraying it. I suggest reading this book, which you can find online for free with a Google search, to learn more Polish history if you're interested:
The spring 1939 ultimatum to Lithuania was by the Nazis and was their last territorial aggrandizement till the official start of WWII in Europe, yet the Soviets reacted very differently compared to Munich.
I believe that's because its Munich response was a combination of grandstanding and the last real chance to get the UK and France to try to coerce Poland into junior partnership status vis a vis the USSR.
After all, that's precisely what the outcome would have been if the Red Army was allowed to roll through Poland to Czechoslovakia, if they even went all the way there, that is.
They'd have certainly taken advantage of the situation to detach Western Belarus and Ukraine from the Second Polish Republic per their post-WWI territorial dispute.
By the time that the Memel Ultimatum came around, there was no longer any semi-realistic chance of having the UK and France do what the Soviets thought was the best for Europe and especially its own interests.
Instead of challenging the Nazis on its own, the Soviets let them do whatever they wanted with Lithuania since Munich proved that the UK and France weren't going to resort to force to stop Hitler.
Sure, the Soviets still engaged in talks with them all throughout that summer, but we know how that ended with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which divided Poland and the rest of Central & Eastern Europe.
But my point is that wider awareness of the Soviets' reaction to Poland and then the Nazis' ultimatums to Lithuania allow people to re-evaluate how they viewed the Soviets' reaction to Munich.
If Moscow was really against territorial changes in Europe, then it would have reacted similarly to the earlier Polish ultimatum to Lithuania that coerced Lithuania into de facto recognizing Poland's control over Vilnius.
The problem is that the Soviet-Lithuanian Treaty of 1920 saw Moscow recognize Vilnius as Lithuanian, not Polish, yet it did nothing to stop the resolution of this dispute in Poland's favor upon Warsaw's coercion.
It then made a fuss about Munich later that year, perhaps because that territorial dispute was more multilateralized through the involvement of the UK and France, but went quiet half a year later with Memel.
So we can conclude that the Soviets weren't against territorial changes in principle like their strong response to Munich made it seem, thus casting suspicion on its true intentions to send the Red Army through Poland.
I'm not judging it, Great Powers play great games, that's normal, I'm just adding more context to what you wrote since one of my hobbies is studying Polish history so I'm very familiar with these extra details.
This article strikes me as outdated thinking. Tied to the illusion propagated by the US imperial project requiring Russia to be perceived as the ever present Threat justifying outdated NATO spending, basing, weaponry, and political controls, and alliances.
Assuming that Poland and any other NATO member refrain from indiscriminate bombardments of ethnic Russian populations and ethnic cleansing as practiced for 8 years by Kiev, what is the threat to NATO? There is none. Let Russia have its buffer state and go back to taking cheap Russian energy.
As for us Americans, we now see that the DC empire poses the only real threat to western Europe as the neocons in dc mercilessly subvert and overthrow any ally who dares take an independent course.
Trump should admit that NATO is a relic of the Cold War and see about framing a global security framework that includes Russia and China as a multipolar world. This idea that the US should worry about France or Poland or Germany is anachronistic thinking.
ALL nations who entered into an alliance with America are considering their options full time now. The value of NATO’s Section 5 guarantee has been deflated greatly in the last month. Poland, Romania and the Baltic States should shift away from their pro-war positions and seek a more balanced relation with Russia. Those who are waiting to be saved by France and the UK if they create a conflict will likely get disappointed also. America is rapidly gearing up for a conflict with China and cannot struggle with Russia at the same time. Under the surface there is a desperate struggle to gain back lost industrial productivity in the U.S. but this will be a long-term project – if it will work at all. The government and the military are just starting to realize what five decades of deindustrialization brought to them. And the greatest surprise is still ahead to face: They traded half of the American people of the 1950s for the unwanted population of the third world. Now, they will attempt to turn them into nuclear scientists and engineers.
They didn't trade them away - they are still there, but getting smaller and smaller in absolute terms due to crumbling fertility. With respect whether the struggle against de-industrialization will work - if there is enough modernization and repression at the same time, it might work. It worked for Russia or China, for example.
1973 was the last year when there was any growth in real income value for the U.S. working class and just about ALL economists agree on this point. Lack of income and financial stability is not a fertility issue, it is a government issue in a leading industrial state like America. At the same time the borders were practically open for colored immigration from around 1980. Also, the incoming colored population was subsidized with welfare programs at the expense of the White European population. This was coordinated effort that I referred above as a "population trade" although calling it the dissolution of the White majority would be also proper.
It seems like Poland has always been more trouble that it's worth for allies.
I have an immature idea. Americans' imperial power stems from many different factors, and the universal acceptance of USD is one of them. Given the international geopolitics and the smoldering inside the American House, realignment of alliances, or simply changing the weightings on multiple alliances is enough to reduce dependencies on USD. Once USD purchase power drops significantly, the USA would be less likely to behave like an empire and must relearn how to make a living by producing things at home. That change will make the American people poor at first, but they will be prosperous after the adjustment. Rising prices for commodities due to the falling values of USD will make material and energy efficiency more important, and emerging economies and the Global South a better prospect for economic development. One way or another, the existing mould would have to be broken for the world to evolve.
I don't accept personal attacks, whether directly or by insinuation, such as you suggesting that I'm an anti-Chinese racist. You have no idea who I am and actually just humiliated yourself. I've proudly written hundreds of analyses for CGTN and just published one for Global Times last week:
https://www.cgtn.com/opinions/commentator/Andrew-Korybko.html
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202503/1330362.shtml
To your other disgusting personal attack against me, no, I'm not "desperate" to do anything and how delusional do you have to be to imagine that my analysis will get Putin to do anything? Russia can't stop US troops from deploying to Poland, it hasn't done any for those that went there after 2022.
You're now blocked for egregiously insulting me in such a shockingly rude way and I'll happily block anyone else who does so too. I'm all in favor of respectfully expressed contrarian views but I have zero tolerance for personal attacks. What "David" did went far beyond my red line.
Yes, it is very sad. Glorification of failed uprisings and military adventures of the past is one of the foundations.
In my opinion, it's not all that different from Serbs commemorating the lost Battle of Kosovo during what they call Vidovdan. It's natural for societies for pay respect to those of their ancestors who fought for their freedom even if they failed at the time.
I think some Poles go way overboard though in the sense of believing that they must follow in their ancestors' footsteps by always opposing Russia in the most dramatic way possible, but commemoration of failed battles in principle isn't a bad thing.
You seem to be Polish judging by your surname so I'm not directing this towards you, but generally speaking, I noticed that a lot of non-Poles online who make the same point that you do never once mention how Serbs do something similar.
It's not that they don't know, some of them do since they also promote pro-Serb causes on social media, they just for whatever reason don't want to make a comparison, perhaps because it raises questions about their political point.
Yes, I'm Polish. Paying respect to heroes and civilians who died for freedom is one thing, not learning a lesson that a suicidal uprising will end in a suicide, is another one. This narrative of shedding blood to shock the conscience of the world as a way to achieve a political goal, completely ignoring reality, is still alive and well in Poland. One can foresee Poland getting directly militarily involved in the Ukrainian conflict, followed by songs and poems about fallen heroes, when the adventure ends in a predictable disaster.
I fully agree with you. I'm Polish too (a dual national, born in the US to a Polish parent, but didn't learn Polish since I didn't grow up with them due to my parents divorcing when I was young) and I believe that some Poles go too far commemorating suicidal uprisings and the like.
It's important to pay respect to those before us, but we also shouldn't obsess over them and their struggle either since that can lead to Poles being manipulated by politicians at home and abroad into similarly suicidal adventures in the present like the one that you warned about.
On that topic, I don't think that Poland will conventionally intervene in Ukraine, at least not until after the presidential elections and then it would only be more likely (though still not guaranteed) if Trzaskowski wins. I expect Poland to logistically support those who might do so, but that's it.
G'day Andrew, even Australia does the same with Gallipoli and the ANZAC day national public holiday. It is even thought of as a founding national myth though we were an independent nation in 1900, 15years before the doomed Dardenelles campaign of Churchill's. By the way I also have Polish grandparents from Poznan who moved to Germay before WW1.
Keep up the great work!!
Thank you!
Both Chinese and Japanese, and perhaps Koreans as well, need to think like you: historical feuds should be taught and remembered, as bad things did happen. However, newer generations of people should not be burdened too much by the historical feuds, at least not to the extent between these three countries. Otherwise, there will not be peace lasting long enough. Anti-Japanese rhetoric and propaganda are still important tools for Chinese Communists to hold the nation together even though they took on only minor roles against the Japanese in WW2. Somewhat unfortunately, all three cultures put a lot of emphasis on history.
You're right, and everyone can learn from Putin's example that I wrote about here:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/putins-opposition-to-blaming-todays
Poland and Ukraine could easily defeat Russia in defense of Ukraine. They would never invade Russia and so I have no reason to speculate about that scenario. The only issue would be Putin unleashing a tactical nuke which could change the outcome. Russia is a paper bear and Putin’s invasion turbocharged the global LNG industry which undermines Putin’s biggest advantage—piped gas to Europe. Any victory in Ukraine is a Pyhrric victory at this point for Putin because Ukrainians hate Russia more than ever and Putin’s goal was to win the hearts and minds of Ukraine.
Big difference btw Poles and Serbs and the treatment they apply to the past and lessons learned.
The loss of Kossovo (starting with Kossovopoljie) has happened during centuries, once the Southern Slavs were occupied by the Ottomans.
Poles on the other hand have dreams of imperium and there is the obnoxious infatuation of the Pans, who ultimately burried their country, never agreening on anything. Plus always casting coveting eyes in the east. An alliance between Western Europe and USSR prior to WWII was mainly not possible due to the Poles...
The Battle of Kosovo Field is actually what led to the Ottoman conquest of Serbia. As for restoring the Commonwealth, it's not a popular idea among Polish society nowadays.
Its eastern expansion was due to a combination of dynastic marriages, the collapse of ("Kievan"/Old) Rus, the Union with Lithuania, the security dilemma with then-Muscovy, and yes, ethno-sectarian supremacy in a way.
But it's not a simple as you're making it out to be in the sense of Poland just expanding eastward for the sake of it. Regarding the interwar period, it was unrealistic that Poland would ally with the USSR.
Their post-WWI partition of Belarus and Ukraine created an unresolvable security dilemma so it wasn't politically possible for Poland to allow the Red Army transit rights en route to Czechoslovakia to stop the Nazis.
About that, the USSR likely knew this an was thus just grandstanding since it didn't react similarly to Poland's spring 1938 ultimatum to Lithuania for restoring relations nor the Nazis' one a year later for what it called Memel.
This was in spite of the 1920 Soviet-Lithuanian Treaty whereby Moscow recognized Lithuania's claims to Vilnius and its then-existing control over what the Germans called Memel.
The USSR didn't request transit rights through Latvia to save Lithuania nor did it saber-rattle against Poland or request transit through its territory in spring 1939.
The situation is therefore much more complex than you're portraying it. I suggest reading this book, which you can find online for free with a Google search, to learn more Polish history if you're interested:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/concise-history-of-poland/99A5EC8F7CE8C93CDACB890F1DDFD502
The spring 1939 ultimatum to Lithuania was by the Nazis and was their last territorial aggrandizement till the official start of WWII in Europe, yet the Soviets reacted very differently compared to Munich.
I believe that's because its Munich response was a combination of grandstanding and the last real chance to get the UK and France to try to coerce Poland into junior partnership status vis a vis the USSR.
After all, that's precisely what the outcome would have been if the Red Army was allowed to roll through Poland to Czechoslovakia, if they even went all the way there, that is.
They'd have certainly taken advantage of the situation to detach Western Belarus and Ukraine from the Second Polish Republic per their post-WWI territorial dispute.
By the time that the Memel Ultimatum came around, there was no longer any semi-realistic chance of having the UK and France do what the Soviets thought was the best for Europe and especially its own interests.
Instead of challenging the Nazis on its own, the Soviets let them do whatever they wanted with Lithuania since Munich proved that the UK and France weren't going to resort to force to stop Hitler.
Sure, the Soviets still engaged in talks with them all throughout that summer, but we know how that ended with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which divided Poland and the rest of Central & Eastern Europe.
But my point is that wider awareness of the Soviets' reaction to Poland and then the Nazis' ultimatums to Lithuania allow people to re-evaluate how they viewed the Soviets' reaction to Munich.
If Moscow was really against territorial changes in Europe, then it would have reacted similarly to the earlier Polish ultimatum to Lithuania that coerced Lithuania into de facto recognizing Poland's control over Vilnius.
The problem is that the Soviet-Lithuanian Treaty of 1920 saw Moscow recognize Vilnius as Lithuanian, not Polish, yet it did nothing to stop the resolution of this dispute in Poland's favor upon Warsaw's coercion.
It then made a fuss about Munich later that year, perhaps because that territorial dispute was more multilateralized through the involvement of the UK and France, but went quiet half a year later with Memel.
So we can conclude that the Soviets weren't against territorial changes in principle like their strong response to Munich made it seem, thus casting suspicion on its true intentions to send the Red Army through Poland.
I'm not judging it, Great Powers play great games, that's normal, I'm just adding more context to what you wrote since one of my hobbies is studying Polish history so I'm very familiar with these extra details.