Germany and Poland each have their own interests in finalizing agreements for strengthening military ties between them. Germany’s are long-term and strategic with a view towards keeping an increasingly nationalist Poland close while also preparing the ground for a possible rapprochement if the opposition comes to power. By contrast, Poland’s are short-term and tactical since they mostly only concern the ruling party’s electoral interests ahead of fall’s vote.
I agree with you about its performance, but its importance in this context is that Europeans -- especially both Germans and especially Poles -- still think that it's a superior air defense system.
Due to their perceptions about it, the Patriots therefore take on a disproportionate role in their talks and all that they represent, which is why Poland wants Germany to extend their deployment while Berlin is balking a bit.
If Poland and/or Germany truly thought that the Patriots were junk, then this wouldn't be a subject of debate, and the first would have either not accepted them in the first place (or not wanted them to remain) while the second would have never deployed them or pulled them back already.
When analyzing countries' ties with one another, sometimes the subjective is much more important than the objective. In fact, failure to acknowledge subjective views held by the objects of analysis can lead to inaccurate assessments as we've seen when it comes to a lot of folks making predictions about the SMO.
To shift gears a bit, many Non-Russian Pro-Russians (NRPRs) in the Alt-Media Community (AMC) were convinced that just because they sincerely believe that something is objectively in Russia's interests, then this means that Moscow is doing it, even if this is being pursued via so-called "5D chess master plans".
We see, however, that this really isn't the case. For instance, do you recall the flurry of analyses last September around the time when Russia pulled back from Kharkov Region? I do, and I distinctly remember many of the AMC's NRPRs insisting that this was part of a "5D chess master plan" to "create a cauldron", yet no such outcome ever materialized.
Returning to the topic that you asked about, just because we objectively concluded that the Patriots are junk or at least aren't anywhere near as effective as they're advertised, doesn't mean that Germany and Poland still don't remain under subjective illusions about them and formulate policy accordingly, which should be incorporated into analyses about this.
The Patriot system seems to have proven itself a junkyard relic in Ukraine. Why do they put so much weight upon it?
I agree with you about its performance, but its importance in this context is that Europeans -- especially both Germans and especially Poles -- still think that it's a superior air defense system.
Due to their perceptions about it, the Patriots therefore take on a disproportionate role in their talks and all that they represent, which is why Poland wants Germany to extend their deployment while Berlin is balking a bit.
If Poland and/or Germany truly thought that the Patriots were junk, then this wouldn't be a subject of debate, and the first would have either not accepted them in the first place (or not wanted them to remain) while the second would have never deployed them or pulled them back already.
When analyzing countries' ties with one another, sometimes the subjective is much more important than the objective. In fact, failure to acknowledge subjective views held by the objects of analysis can lead to inaccurate assessments as we've seen when it comes to a lot of folks making predictions about the SMO.
To shift gears a bit, many Non-Russian Pro-Russians (NRPRs) in the Alt-Media Community (AMC) were convinced that just because they sincerely believe that something is objectively in Russia's interests, then this means that Moscow is doing it, even if this is being pursued via so-called "5D chess master plans".
We see, however, that this really isn't the case. For instance, do you recall the flurry of analyses last September around the time when Russia pulled back from Kharkov Region? I do, and I distinctly remember many of the AMC's NRPRs insisting that this was part of a "5D chess master plan" to "create a cauldron", yet no such outcome ever materialized.
Returning to the topic that you asked about, just because we objectively concluded that the Patriots are junk or at least aren't anywhere near as effective as they're advertised, doesn't mean that Germany and Poland still don't remain under subjective illusions about them and formulate policy accordingly, which should be incorporated into analyses about this.
Thank you Sir! Such a very well thought out and informative reply!
You're very welcome!