Per @sgebert, my numbers are wrong. If I'm wrong, i'm wrong, and I appreciate being corrected. He writes: According to the official data, the numbers you provided are wrong. The official data: land forces (54,000), air force (17,200), navy (7000), special forces (3200) and territorial defence (36,000). Additionaly there are about 2200 soldiers in service for the cyberwarfare forces and about 3300 in the military police. Also the finance numbers are wrong, as Poland spent (2024) 159 billion zloty (40 bln usd) on military, and will spend 187 bln zloty next year (2025) which equals 47 bln dollars.
Thank you. It's a tough issue, as since Feb 24 all military type data is purposfuly distorted in PL, and we can't even tell the numbers with certainty anymore. Some say the total size of the armed forces grew to nearly 200k already (recruitment has been grew massively since Feb24). The official data remains as I put it there, only it should probably be treated as the lower end of the spectrum. Like I said, everything military related is very hush-hush in these parts of the woods.
And lastly let me say, as unimportant as it may be, that I'm a tough audience; I'm obsessed with details. But all in all I think your report is true and good and I appreciate the work you put into it.
You just provided excellent reasons why Berlin's idea about the European army is ridiculous one. Germans are in love with russia despite appearances. Therefore, they will be willing to sacrifice Easter European states in order to keep good standing with Kreml.
@@michaelshurkin613 above numbers for land forces are incorrect as understated. Professional army is at 139K, not 54K. Of that over 7K in basic training. Total armed forces including territorial units headcount is about 200K which makes it one of the largest in Nato.
Not only US, but entire West should really rethink they East European study. Because people there buy into many myths about the region, due to Russian imperialism and propaganda. But if we look closer beyond the Cold War, then we find out that Poland always was defender of the Europe, defeating supposedly undetectable Russians and Mongols on several occasions. They also were rich and quite modern state. We also see that during Interwar period, when Poland was rapidly growing before what happen during WW2. Ukrainians also were quite powerful before Mongols destroyed them. While Romania is technically remnant of Byzantine.
I'm Polish, and I do have intrest in military modernisation process (as a civilian hobbyst), there are few things I can clarify . - Poland is not buying Leopard tanks - at least that was not the plan for many yeras now. The Leopards you mention are used tanks of 2a4 and 2a5 type, some are being modernised to 2PL version. However both political situation, and unwillingness of germans to transfer manufacturing/technology seems to convince polish leadership that germans are not to be relied on, Leos will remain probably till they will be phased out by K2. that is why first 250 abrams M1A2 sep v 3 were wanted (request went to USA before 2022 fullscale russian invasion on Ukraine. ) than additional 116 M1A1 FEP were ordered , But main direction was to be K2 - as Koreans were seemingly most flexible on tech-transfer and production licence, the first general talks were about transfer of production and over all around 1000 K2 tanks ( including some produced in Korea) 180 were ordered from Korea - another 180 somewhat adapted to polish requierments were to be ordered till the end of this year, some of them will be assembled in Poland (at least that is what is the rumor in mili-bloger spheres , no details tho) and next batches would be produced in Poland. Now if US will offer good or better terms on M1 production it might go a bit differently. The goal seems to be to reach around 1300-1400 modern MBT (not counting Leos) for 6 divisions (2 armoured, rest mechanised) - attack hellicopters - some commentators in Poland are worried that 96 Apaches is a bit much (costs of upkeep , etc) but the order was made so 96 it will be , probably 16 per division. As for their use - the rumor is that russian attack helis did a lot of work in stopping the attempt to cut Crimean corridor in June 2023- fireing ATGMs at Ukrainians forming up for mechanized attack - missiles 10 km+ outside of MANPADS range, so still good for quick anti armor hunting from behind your own lines, at night, I guess. - Artylery in Poland - K9 and KRAB share chassis (with some modifications in Polish one as it is licence build in Poland) , Turrets are different , gun similar 155mm L52 , both will have polish TOPAZ firecontrol system (K9 are fitted with it in Poland) - Himmars - the request was for 500 or so, but since almost 300 korean K239 have been ordered I doubt full 500 will be ordered -IFV - Borsuk plans are for around 1400 vehicles (400 in diffrent variants than IFV) - First production batch will be ordered within a copule of months - Heavy IFV - planned - does not exist yet. probably will have same unmanned turret as Borsuk in IFV version Soviet era equipment. Poland decided to get rid of soviet era and ammo standard , hence a lot of new orders. Polish president said officially some time ago that Poland transfered more than 1000 picies of heavy equipment ( tanks, bmps, soviet calliber artylery systems, some soviet MLRS systems etc) including close to 400 tanks. There are still around 150-200 PT-91 (polish modernisation of T-72) so M1 Abrams and first K2 batch are replacement for them.
Great comment! I would only add that declarations about territorial defense to just stay behind enemy lines are fantasy. How would they get supplies? Plus they are regular people trained on the weekends and staying behind the lines is very hard even for full professionals. Already during the cold war this idea of light infantry on the back of invading force was demised because of that. They should be useful as a base for light infantry though, as Poland regular forces are lacking it.
I like what Perun joked about this. It's like Poland turned up at an arms show, a salesman asked "what requirements do you have?" and Poland said "YES."
@@michaelshurkin613 We're gonna phase out soviet and post soviet equipment, so in this case get rid of t-72ms and pt-91s (about 300 alltogether went to Ukraine already). Poland already had Leos and wanted to get more of those, but Germany said that it needs over a decade to deliver, so we chose abrahms over challengers.
@@michaelshurkin613 Maybe that will allow them to see what works for armor on the plains of Poland, I guess? I don't know too much about the military industrial complex but even if that's not the strategy it still looks like a benefit to me.
It might not be a good idea for them to have one source. Trump might cut Polands access to Abrams German AfD might cut off Leopard A war in Korea might see Korean tanks banned from export.
@scatterlite2266 poland was attacked by russia and Germany at once. France lasted 1 months too. Only poland never surrendered and fought on every front in ww2 from start to finish. The first foreign flag to fly in Berlin was a polish flag. Ur a uneducated American that doesn't know his history. U cant even name the 50 states in the usa. I'm not suprised u dont know world history
Those countries that "enjoyed" the hospitality of Putin's employees NKVD/KGB and tbeir affiliates in the baltic states and Poland knew exactly what a country without a credible military meant....it's not losing a few islands in the south Atlantic. Its actually knock on the door at night and people disappeared.
Buying from the Koreans means technological transfers and sharing of full technical specifications, allowing Poland to manufacture domestically and letting Korea enter the European arms market.
@@michaelshurkin613Even more. By letting Poland to have licenses for its products Korea has someone who will help with military equipment backup in the event of Korea vs Korea war.
It’s the perfect deal, in the case of Poland-Russia, the production of munitions will be shipped to Poland, and in the case of SK - NK/China Polish production will be shipped to SK. It makes SK more secure.
I hope Poland will do future procurement with their own Industry or Europe. With all the regards towards the US, I don't think the Poles will want to have the USA have a say over how they use their HIMARS. The storm shadows being blocked over 1/2 US components in hundreds reinforce that need for strategic autonomy.
That is what most Europeans who are interested in the collective defence against our nutjob neighbour would hope. The problem is and remains what Europe is. Its fundamentally a large group of small and medium sized countries that like to bicker and outcompete each other at every opportunity, just to be better. We have fortunately finally stopped shooting at each other every five minutes over every dispute, but that spirit is very much alive. Every European country likes to be better than its neighbours, just to rub it in. To a degree its really a wealthy suburban neighbourhood where you need to have the largest car and the best garden to show superiority.😅 Its both the immense strength of Europe and its weakness. Because all these countries are fundamentally in it for themselves and then look if they can cooperate on something they need or want. That results in chaotic, unpredictable behaviour which makes European procurement strategy a nightmare. And its wasteful because it leads to countries doing it on their own, repeating each others developments and spending much more on less. The big advantage in all of this, is that it creates constant competition and filters out who is doing well and who isn't. That is the great strength of Europe. Its a dysfunctional system that always repairs itself because the countries that fall behind, get exposed and then find themselves eventually forced to adapt proven methods. For example Poland would do great to cooperate with the German arms industry. Its established, very well respected and capable. And you can usually make a deal with the Germans that they invest a good bit of the money back into your economy. Reality is very different. Its not just politics or history, its also interests not aligning. For example when the Kremlin decided to be the Kremlin again, Poland realised they where next and became hawkish and started to prepare. Germany needed a long time to realise the Kremlin was back to being the Kremlin. Poland could not rely on that attitude, so they went their own way. Now Germany for example is trying to get a large Leopard 2A8 coalition going and doing the same for AA systems like IRIS-T and German made Patriot missiles. Meanwhile Poland already went on its own way for tanks. And there are countless examples of this. France always does whatever they want. Spain usually likes following Germany and often is quite ant French. The Italians often go domestic or German etc. The Netherlands wanted to jointly develop new frigates with Germany, but that seems to be dead because the Germans seem to want to get US and domestic radar systems, the Netherlands has its own world beating APAR and Smart-L combination with its own FC, which Germany now also uses. The Netherlands also seems to be considering maybe switching to European MBDA missiles for its navy, Germany would lock itself into the US systems like that. Its always that sort of mess that blocks such cooperation. The European Commission is trying to do something about it, but this is very sensitive and complicated.
Yes there have been restrictions on Ukraine but Poland is NATO member if Poland were to be attacked there would be no restrictions. Also there are more restrictions in European weapons than American, especially with Germany and France being the major powers in the continent. The UK gave Ukraine Storm Shadow first in which France protested. Germany was not going to give Ukraine Leopard tanks but when the US and UK gave tanks to Ukraine they were fine.
@@hellbreaksloose5536 "The UK gave Ukraine Storm Shadow first in which France protested". Nonsense. France gave SCALP at the same moment the UK gave Storm Shadow.
This has already been planned and accounted for. Poland isnt going to be solely reliant on HIMARS. Poland also is buying 290 Homar-K, the south korean version of HIMARS. They have already signed a deal with south korea to build CGR-080 missiles for the Homar-K system in poland.
Excellent presentation, thank you. Poland is definitely trying to avoid a repeat of 1939 and, unlike the Western European countries, is serious about acting. Notwithstanding the presence of American soldiers, the US military is much, much smaller than it used to be and is spread to thinly. I applaud the Poles for being so proactive.
Polską nie rządzą Polacy tylko naród z Azji Mniejszej. To samo masz w USA. Sprawdź kogo nie możesz krytykować. To samo na Ukrainie - Zełesnki to kto? Szmychal - premier Ukrainy to kto?
Attack helicopters might perform better in a tank destroyer role, being able rapidly to respond to where enemy mass attacks of armor attempt to break through lines, than the strike role it seems like Russia attempted in Ukraine.
From PL - thank you! What is especially interesting about the massive Mil spendings in PL (and its 5% / 4%) repercussions on the Polish Budget is that it does not really matter whether the citizens here are Conservative or more Liberal. The general consensus among the population is the same on that front: A clear understanding of the implications of a "losing Ukraine" is an option which would result in a net economic loss for PL for the next few decades. Now at the center of Poland's Mil shoppings spree is also Business-driven, with the multiple joint ventures with the RoK. It is understood that this will give the country a chip in the game in the EU Weapons market which has been happy with producing "haute couture" production. Next, you are 100% correct about the centers of power in the EU. In 2008 (for example), we hardly read in LeMonde or The Guardian about "what Poland has to say" on anything. Today? There are 4 Centers of Power in Europe: London - Paris - Berlin - Warsaw. Forget Rome or Madrid in that power game. Lastly, and if you ask me, I would have chosen for PL the Rafales and not the F-35... Lower cost, lower cost of ownership. But this may be the French in me! Thank you for the video Sir!
Hi! Thanks for watching. A question for you: To what extent are Poles aware of or think about what happened in the 1930s, when UK and FR basically abandoned Poland? I know some Czechs who are well aware of how the UK and FR screwed them. They only trust the US. As for the F-35s, that's a tough call. I think it behooves Euro countries to purchase Euro weapons as much as possible, and Rafales are excellent. The purported advantages of the F-35 are unproven (the Israelis alone know). But politics count, and the Poles clearly are more interested in currying favor with the US than France, are they not?
@@michaelshurkin613 Hey- Great questions about the Poles vis-a-vis the blurries 1930's (and before and after and Europe). You see, I live in Silesia (Katowice) since 2008, so some 40km's from Auschwitz. This should be important here, yes? But not as much as one would think. At least not as much as "we" in the West would think. Why? Look, I cannot talk for the rest of Poland since they always talk about Silesia as "a weird region where people are like American New Yorkers, always talking about work and fast-living" - that's a cultural thing one gets unless living here... But I can say this: You won't find a Pole justifying his or her vote at the EU level because of past, vindictive issues towards the West (France or others). Nope. They instead perfectly understand the role of ru was dedtrimental to the country's development. About the Czechs and them "only trust the US"? Maybe! You see, the Czechs are, for Poles, our neighbor's kids where we send our daughter to babysit. Again, I am joking. But not. In 2008, I would not have said that. Today? I say this because in the Polish society, there is a firm understanding that Poland is now the 4th center of Europe (Politically and economically). Poles are done with the past and they know their pull in Europe. What you explain in your video (that 5% Mil Def Budget)... There are reasons why in Poland nobody bats an eyelid on that. Now an interesting topic is how the Poles drastically changed their view on Ukraine between the Ukraine-Poland Euro Football Cup of 2012 (when we still considered them as just another ru space below us). And in 2014. Then 2022 with the full-fledge fuckary. A lot could be said here! A lot more important than you may think in terms of sociat flip. 2022 was a MASSIVE event socially in Poland because we had to forego our "we are better than the Ukrainians because we are in the EU/NATO" and we ALL have nice cars and houses. Much of this is difficult to explain. But I dare say that having thousands of Ukrainians Middle Class Football fans visiting Poland in 2012 by bus was not a click for them. You cannot go to a football match from Kyiv to Krakow without seeing how your Polish brothers have nice houses and nice rental Audis "Just like the Americans".
@@michaelshurkin613 What happened in 1939 is definitelly still in top 20 everyday conversational subjects for most Poles to this day. I'm not joking. History, and specifically WWII history, is something everyone here (PL) is greatly invested in. And the betrayal, as we see it, of France and Britain (as they literally could have ended the war back in 39 with the Saar offensive) in 1939 is percisely the reason why we are ordering so much. We simply can't trust foreign military's to come and save us. Which is why this much money being poored into the military, despite the country not being very wealthy, has support from left to right.
Najbardziej ironiczne jest to że miasto w którym zdecydowano w1939 roku o zaniechaniu pomocy polsce, w 1944 wyzwoliła dywizja pancerna polska pod dowództwem gen. Maczka.
A lot of people seem to focus on this idea of Poland becoming this hugely powerful military state, but there are important gaps to note in Poland’s forces, particularly in drones & EW systems. Although Poland currently has tons of self propelled guns & MLRS for infantry fire support, they lack ISR drones in quantity to find targets and do fire correction. Even though Poland has domestically sourced UAVs like FlyEye, they have only small inventories. As Ukraine has shown, UAVs are vital for effective artillery use, but they are also easily attrition and are needed in very high numbers, with constant resupply. On a similar note, Poland lacks any use of those explosive FPV style drones used in Ukraine- long range loiter munitions that can be used and carried by 1-2 soldiers. These are really game changers for the ground pounder, and will be needed both for modernizing the arsenal and training against Russia’s new tactics. Further, Poland’s EW and C-UAS capabilities seem to be very mediocre. The Polish domestic system Przebiśnieg has been criticized for its inefficacy and low numbers, and it’s also based on Soviet vintage MT-LB APCs instead of the more modern APCs Poland is adopting. The Poles have limited options for effective C-UAS other than EW. Although they have a lot of short range missiles, these will probably be too expensive for use against UAVs. Their 23mm ZU-23 anti-aircraft guns, while numerous and equipped with fairly modern targeting systems, lack newer programmable air burst ammo developed for use against drones for guns like the 35mm GDF or 40mm Bofors L/70. So although Poland is getting quite a massive boost to its military, they might still have to play catch-up in many areas of modern warfare.
European arms purchases Poland 2023/24. Last year Poland bought Italian helicopters, French satellites and latest French pontoon bridges, British Helicopters, huge order MBDA CAMM and CAMM ER air defence batteries in total 60 batteries, 3 Babcock frigates, 2 Swedish Saab 340 AEW&C planes, Norway's Kongsberg 4 squadrons of the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) Coastal Defence System. 2024 Huge order of Swedish Carl Gustaf. It’s not only USA & South Korean weapons.
What's funny about the small number of CAESARs that France is making is that the whole point of it is that, compared to the tracked stuff, it's *cheap*. (Like the advantage of HIMARS over the original MLRS).
Basically what does France need hundreds of Artillery for? Ofcourse they need a certain amount of it to make their army work, but France's border is basically in eastern Poland. It makes more sense that the arty is already there, not to mention that Poland probably has to spread it out all acros the border. Does that make sense? LIke if France buys tons of arty they'd probably want to station atleast a big part of it on NATO's borders, because what use would a bunch of artillery be in France? So then maybe it makes more sense that France buys stuff like Aircraft carriers and Amphebious landing ships and what have you not and that Poland buys a ton of loooooong guns.
@MrHvleeuwen It's a charitable perspective. More realistically France doesn't get much artillery because the African countries they invade don't have much artillery themselves, so it's unnecessary for their neo colonial projects.
The Polish modernization effort, aimed at forming a military with modern conventional warfar capabilities, began in 2010, with particular rearview focus on the Russian assault on Georgia. Polish politicians already spoke of the military threat posed by Russia, famously Radislaw Sikorski in 2013 spoke "war in Europe is imaginable", in response to an EU counterpart. While its true the modernization effort was extremely modest, it was done in light of Polands strategic position, as a member of NATO and the EU. In 2016 the startegy changed, and greater emphasis on having own capabilities was placed. However its only in 2022 that real economic weight is thrown behind these efforts.
Ka-52S were extreme effective against Ukrainian assault columns during the 2023 summer offensive. Apache’s have similar specs and should be able to perform even better as they’ll have air near total air supremacy thanks to NATO (the US).
Apache choppers are more effective than K52 because they don't need to point with laser their targets like russians do. Apache aquires the target launches missile and hides.
Ka52 były tylko medialne.naprawde zatrzymały ukraincow naprawdę gęste i olbrzymie pola minowe ( nawet 5 min na metr kwadratowy i na glebokosc kilkunastu kilometrow..) Oraz masowe wykorzystywanie artylerii. Że strony ukrainskiej. Za malo pojazdow rozminowania i atak w najmocniejszym miejscu..
Ka-52s were able to strike outside manpads range only when defending from mobile attackers, I don't think attack helis are obsolete but the range of helis and mobile AAs is dangerously similar.
Yes, a national army is going to maybe fight better than a coalition. But NATOs whole structure, based on the allied experience in WW2, is to try and make a coalition that fights as one army. When the US 6th army fought through Alsace into Bavaria General Devers of the US 6th army group was commanding, among others, Jean de Lattre de Tassigny of the French 1st army.
Corrections: 116 Abrams are M1A1 FEP, they do not have option for APS Trophy until modernization to M1A2 Sep v3 250 Abrams M1A2 Sep v3 will come w/o APS, but the plan is to procure separately 180 K2 tanks do not have APS, the plan is to install after modernization to K2PL standard Frame agreement is for 1000 K2 tanks, where 820 supposed to be K2PL. Next deal for 2nd batch of 180 K2PL is expected to be signed soon. It is not clear if they will have APS from the start. Poland to start participate in production. Poland is not buying more Leopard 2 tanks, only modernizing remaining 2A4 to 2PL standard. 1400 Borsuk IFV and support vehicles - this is only a frame agreement at this point. Borsuk is still going through trials with a modified drive system. 700 CWBP (heavy IFV) - this is a vision at this point. No design exist. Apache - the fact that Russian do not use attack helicopters correctly (directly over-flying enemy force), does not mean that AH-64 will be useless. Even Russian used them well during Zaporizhzhia offensive. Frame agreement for K9 is higher - 672. 1st batch on order - 212, 2nd batch on order - 146. 500 Himars is just a frame agreement. No order was placed. Most likely to be cut to 50% or 25%.
Thanks. Excellent talk and analysis. Good on the Poles - doing what i wish the UK had been doing in recent decades rather than the endless cuts and continuing diminishing capabilities. I haven't got high hopes of the Starmer government but we shall have to see. I was amazed to hear recently a strongly left wing British commentator in talking about the current British budget and funding deliberations identifying, in his view, the need for increased defence spending as the number one priority. Surprising because I can't recall any British politician or commentator whether left or right (including even Thatcher) ever prioritising defence spending in these terms ahead of the usual mantra for spending commitments eg health, education, economy, taxation etc.
The UK is weird in that the Left often has been more supportive of defense spending (I guess because of jobs and trades unions?) than the Right, which historically has been more interested in budgets.
Some of these numbers really are crazy, particularly when it comes to long-range fires, for example, the UK is doubling its MLRS fleet to about 85 vehicles, however even these numbers are dwarfed. It does make you wonder how they can afford to spend such a large amount.
@@Hussar-fm8iy Absolutely, I understand we aren't a land power and that we have vastly different needs/goals, but that being said our numbers across the board have dropped to worryingly low levels and to say we are a maritime nation our navy is nowhere near big enough, it should really be double the size IMO.
Gr8 video, the Polish really woke up (specifically after Lavrov told them they're next in line for 'denazification') and build a big army although m7ch focussed on old-style equipment: tanks, attack helis and howitsers. They are, like the Bundeswehr used to be, a focussed & reliable eastern shield of NATO. Arguably that would force Russia north to establish a corridor to Kaliningrad which is now bordered by a NATO lake. And the Baltics provide a better excuse (to 'protect' russian-speakers) to attack while staying below the art V radar. Actually just like Hitler took the Sudetenland earlier on: the Polish learned fm history, did we (the rest)?
Excellent analysis. One thing Putin has achieved is a unity of purpose in NATO with an increase in spending. Poland has led the way in warning about and recognising resurgent Russian aggression.
If Trump wins, do you think Germany and France and even the UK will kick it into high gear and actually build up capabilities that they largely would rely on the US for? They’ve been talking alot since 2022 but they have made too much progress imo
UK's depths of financial difficulty will prohibit any spending increases. The population does not see it as a priority over pensions and healthcare. Germany will spend a lot and obtain very little. France may well do better, if only by default.
I think you underestimate the role of the EU in this. Ursula von der Leyen and her administration have been amongst the staunchest supporters of Ukraine. They could be pivotal in filling any leadership vacuum left by Trump/US. One of the main reasons for Poland's investment in equipment and varied equipment is that in a war situation allied troops would be expected to arrive quicker than their equipment. Having excess hardware on hand is a big difference. And having a variety means it's more likely to be familiar to those allied troops.
Hardware is wasted withouth coherent doctrine, trained soldiers AND commanders. Ukraine is painfully learning this lesson, Russians are digesting the problem.
@@piotrd.4850doktryny maja to do siebie że bywają zmieniane. . Zauważ że mamy swietne zagluszarki i pracujemy nad dronami antydronowymi czy efektorami kinetycznymi ,ale nie wprowadzono ich na większą skalę. Nadal się projektuje lepsze wersje . Wyprodukowanie dronow jest szybsze i tańsze niż czołgów, bwp czy dział..
According to the official data, the numbers you provided are wrong. The official data: land forces (54,000), air force (17,200), navy (7000), special forces (3200) and territorial defence (36,000). Additionaly there are about 2200 soldiers in service for the cyberwarfare forces and about 3300 in the military police. Also the finance numbers are wrong, as Poland spent (2024) 159 billion zloty (40 bln usd) on military, and will spend 187 bln zloty next year (2025) which equals 47 bln dollars.
Also, at the moment there's absolutely no reason to say that European defence is or is going to move away from Germany. At least not from where I'm sitting. Germany is still the main hub and until we hear the PEntagon declaring major infrastructure investments in Poland, there is no reason to think it is going to change. Not to mention Germany has its own rearnament plan, even more ambitious than the Polish one, although they do not seem to be moving ahead with it at all at the moment.
@@michaelshurkin613 I mean, the orders have been made for A LOT. Frigates, subs, planes, ifvs, APCs, and much more. It's just they do it the German way, so it's going to take 3x the time. But fair enough. I on the other hand haven't seen any evidence that European defence is moving away from them. Like, what would you even mean by that? Tens of billions would need to allocated into building new bases in PL, and there's really no need as Germany is so close. I'm betting things are going to remain the same, at least in the short run.
Absolutely spot-on analysis of the military situation on NATO's eastern flank. And thank you for so eloquently describing the impressive investment that Poland is making in its military and overall self-defence capabilities. Every military and intelligence officer in NATO needs to understand this. From company-grade on up. In reality, the abysmal performance of the Russian military in Ukraine makes a serious Russian attempt to invade or otherwise militarily destabilise Poland increasingly less plausible. But that doesn't mean it might not be attempted. That's the way degenerate gamblers like Putin operate. The goal of the other European NATO partners, from the UK to Norway, France to Italy, ought to be to ask themselves the question: How might our country, with whatever strengths and capabilities we have at our disposal, best augment and support Poland? Because the frontiers of Britain and France aren't now the Channel or the Rhine. They run now from the Baltic to the Sea of Azov. Don't let anyone tell you different. Good, effective defence is the cheapest, and least costly in terms of human life and suffering, way of preventing war. Boże, coś Polskę
Thanks for Your analysis. It is perhaps too optymistic in regards to Warsaw weight in Europe. On the other hand it is important to emphasize Poland holds the only land route to support defense of Baltic states and nearly so in case of Ukraine.
Big players will abandon Baltics, and Poland. France, Germany, Spain or UK won't fight for them. Germans will give stalled promises and France empty promises.
I would like to see an analysis of the Polish capability in supporting systems. What do they use to target their artillery and missiles? What systems are they buying to keep their tanks viable in the face of both ISR drones and killer drones? Without those systems, the items they are purchasing are not going to perform well.
Last year poland bought French satellites. Poland also has its own satellites eagle eye in space. Leased Reaper drones form USA , medium drones from turkey Baraktar, polish small drones Flyeye for SPH targeting currently used in Ukraine with Polish SPH Krab. All Polish rocket artillery, self propelled howitzers and drones are linked with Polish fire control system Topaz certified last year to work with other nato certified fire control systems.
Husarii dobrze napisał ale pragniemy utwory możliwość by samemu instalować polskie małe satelity radarowe i optyczne na orbicie. To w razie wyczyszczenia przez rosje z satelit atomowka.. dalekonośne drony wyposażamy w AI by mogły pracować bez operatora. Łączność jest dość dobra ,mamy technologie pracy dronow gdy bedzie trzeba zainstalować, że będą pracować na różnych satelitach w tym samym czasie z różnymi konstelacjami satelit i można równocześnie przekazywać łączność dron do drona. A i tak w razie przerwania drony sa z AI. To ma zapewnić skuteczna ich pracę.
Not a military member myself but as someone who has followed the Ukraine war closely since day one i can tell you that your observation about attack helicopters being useless on the modern battlefield is wrong for a number of reasons. Western attack helicopters have the ability to employ stand off weapons which keeps the actual aircraft outside the range of enemy SHOR-A-D. It wasn't talked about in the media space but one of the reasons Ukraine's 2023 southern offensive failed was because Russia was able to use it's Ka-52 helicopters with stand off weapons to attack advancing Ukrainian armor. Ukraine is limited by the fact that they have less advanced, and less numerous aircraft to use, that's why the majority of Ukrainian copters perform low level pitch up rocket attacks. As an example of how Russia cannot effectively employ combined arms tactics. during the Kursk incursion a Russian Ka-52 actually shot up a Russian military convoy. The coordination between Russian ground and air units is poor to almost none existent. besides, the kind of static warfare we're seeing in Ukraine is not the kind of fight a NATO army would ever fight, NATO would never play Russia's little game of Attritional warfare.
Tak, u nas dawny dowódca wojska ,powiedział że atakował by tam gdzie rosjanie atakują. Sparaliżować udezeniami logistykę, zniszczyc w ciagu dwóch, trzech dni pancerz rosyjski i przebić się na zaplecze wrogiej armi. Przypomne ze nadal mamy duze zapasy broni kasetowej oraz nieokreślona liczbę termobarycznej. oraz kupujemy dosc znaczna ilosc artylerii rakietowej i lufowej. Jedna z dywizji bedzie miec . Sześć batalionów czolgow a 1 batalion to 58 czolgow w polskiej wersji.. Czyli jedna z polskich dywizji będzie mieć więcej czolgow niż niemiecka armia..
10:50 The funny thing that makes me wonder whether we are doing overkill in the context of Himars purchases is that the quantity we buy after the entire order is done is not only higher than western countries such as Germany, France, UK combine, but it is twice as much as the US currently has XD. You know, it doesn't seem realistic to me. After all, we are not the only buyers and the US will also buy for itself. I have doubts about how many years we will wait for all these Himars to be delivered.
Granted the US already had around 1000 M270 or derivatives in inventory by the time the lighter/cheaper M142 (aka HIMARS) started production. They fire the same rockets, and use the same loading pod system, but the M270 has twice the capacity of rockets.
@@RoozyyKfakt,uznano że rosja nie jest pokojową. Dodatkowo też do rozważań dodano propozycje rosji by rozebrać ukraine. Uznano że mogą rosjanie też dawać propozycje rozbioru polski.. A nie wszyscy jak polska mogą chcieć powiedzieć nie ,putinowi.
What do you think Poland’s buying spree of so many different systems from so many different vendors (tanks with 3 different sources + Israeli protection integrated) how will Poland maintain all the off the shelf purchases in the long run and can operate them in a successful manner? What does it mean for the financial capacity of not one of the richest countries of Eastern Europe?
It's definitely a headache. Ukraine has no choice; Poland probably would be wise to try to reduce diversity. Why three types of tanks from three manufacturers? Still, if an army has good logistical capabilities, they can manage it. The African armies I watch fail miserably. They can't support the equipment they have and keep buying stuff from multiple vendors.
@@BenyNukem I challenge you to produce a single credible source regarding retiring the Leo fleet. Or I can save your time, and tell you right now that what you wrote is not true and Poland will, in fact, continue to use three different types of MBTs in the next decade or two, which is a global phenomenon I believe, and obviously a bad decision. Leos will not retire anytime soon, many of them have just finished being upgraded to the PL version, and they will be kept in the west, whilst K2s and M1A2s will stay close to the eastern borders.
Very good video. Thanks. As I read one of the comment, why they bought material from the US or RoK. May be they trust the US more than UK or France (WWII), but also may be because the US and the RoK can deliver large volume of material relative quickly. But the question can be asked, the EU have invested large amount of money in Poland (as others older Eastern block countries), may be buy (some) european material and not only US, will be a good EU integration.
It's a paradox: European industry can't provide what's required unless it's given the necessary investment. But if you want stuff soon, one has to invest elsewhere. Poles I guess figure they can't wait, and if the British, French, Germans, and Italians aren't willing to put their own money into expanding industrial capacity, that's just too bad.
@@michaelshurkin613 That is exactly it. Before going to Seul and Washington we contacted the Germans about the tanks, and were told to wait a decade for them. And that was something noone in Poland was willing to do after Feb 24.
@@michaelshurkin613 and above this, the korean armor might be good for korea: hard soil, mountain terrain, not much space for the enemy to use their tanks, therefore mostly frontal assaults to expect. just as it was the case back in 1950. nothing alike in the case of eastern poland.
Can we really take all of the Polish procurement figures at face value? Im looking specifically at the aim of acquiring 500 Himars. That seems like an excessive number of launchers for the ammunition available. Even the few dozen Ukrainian Himars are burning through significant numbers of rockets. Im thinking that at lot of the Polish procurement numbers act more as a ceiling and will very likely be steadily scaled down to workable numbers. In particular the MBT, SPG and rocket artillery numbers ( which are around 1000 for each category).
A good question. Poland is working on making its own HIMARs rockets, and it has the industrial capability. Ukraine unfortunately does not, and is dependent on Western handouts.
500 himars was never official, and it came from the previous government. Not to mention since then Poland ordered over 200 chunmoo (Korean himars), so that almost certainly cancels the previous inquiry. Unfortunately, we seem to be stickicng to the Apache order (96 helicopters), which is absolutely insane (they're going to replace Mi-24s, of which we have 31. It's either our governments panic, or simply corruption, as an order of this magnitude makes no sense whatsoever.
@@michaelshurkin613 "Poland is working on making its own HIMARs rockets, and it has the industrial capability. Ukraine unfortunately does not," -- sadly it used to have. Historically USSR missile production and development was largely in Ukraine.
@@JohnHughesChampigny Theyre bringing it back to life as we speak. As for Poland, he probably meant Hanwha Aerospace's planned investment in PL, as as we speak, there is virtually no rocket production capability in PL unfortunatelly.
@@sgebert didn't know that, Wikipedia still lists the 500 Himars. + several hundred Korean MLRs. The numbers just sounded fishy to me. The almost 100 apaches is also a pretty insane number considering the costs. I still think they will be useful though, Russian KA-52s did poor on the offense but were a big problem for Ukraines own offensives.
When you say that Poland is to be Europe’s greatest land power, are you including or excluding Ukraine and Russia? My understanding is that they had been numbers 1 and 2, at least in terms of tank fleet size.
@@michaelshurkin613 After Turkey of course. This I think is doable, despite both France and Germany investing heavily into their own armed forces, because in their cases most of the money go into the navy and airforce, whilst with the exception of F35s and Apaches, all the big bucks in Poland go to land forces.
Can you do a video on why the Obama administration reset of Russian relations failed? If you were working with the CIA at that time, I am curious for your insight.
Is it perhaps a bit shortsighted the current efforts to revive european defense industries? With poland now wanting to expand its defense industry you have most major defense powers in Europe pursuing their own industrial policies. This seems like could be very inefficient in the long run as France, Germany, Poland and whoever else end up developing their own equipment, industry and expertise but none alone can substitute the might of the US if that ever needed. Integrating all the different European defense industries and coordinating policies meant to help revive it and expand it seems like would be the most efficient as expertise could be shared, costs cut and redundancies avoided. But for the moment it seems like everyone is just doing their own policies with no much thinking of actually coordinating. If for example, Poland, France and Germany end all developing their own next generation tank by themselves it would seem to be the most inefficient outcome. You miss on the economies of scale of joint procurement, the benefits of technology sharing and create more logistical issues if they were to ever operate together.
@@OchotaJack Europe has been fighting each other since before the Roman Empire, so most European neighbours have a history of war. Time to put serious effort into peace for the future is it not?
Another very good analysis. I would not put it past the Poles to build a nuclear capability if Trump were to win and turn his back on NATO. That could be the logical step given how Poland was left stranded by its allies in WWII. It's interesting to compare the similarities between the situation now of Poland and the German Bundesrepublik in the Cold War: front-line state, potential major battlefield, interest in stationing allied troops on its soil, large land army, major military investments. Germany is no longer a front-line state and the governments under Merkel and Scholz have preferred to pay their way out of conflicts, real or potential. The RU influence on the SPD in the East of Germany and also on more recent parties leaves food for thought and speculation.
A total waste of money. Western Europe already has two nuclear weapons states. A real nuclear deterrent is, to use a technical term, fucking expensive. If Trump quits NATO neither France nor Britain will, and the both have the means to totally destroy Russia.
I'm sure I'm not the first to wonder whether this will actually happen. Announcing that you will spend X billions some time in the next parliament is different from spending it. I especially wonder how they're going to recruit the extra people when their demographics are really not that good. That said, even if they do half of it they'll still be doing a lot, and given that the Russian military has been looking overhyped lately...
@@michaelshurkin613 First F-35s arrived already, same for FA-50s, Abrahms, British air defence systems, same for Poland's first awacs planes, KRAB mobile howitzers and RAK mobile mortars and many, many more. Investment into shared cruise missile r&d projects with Germany is on the way, an order for 1400 new homemade IFVs is in place. Narew&Wisla programs for air defence funded and running. Himars and apache deals are uncertain I would say, same for the Korean deal for K2s and K9s. I do expect however that Poland will get more fighter jets; whether its going to be f16s, f35s, f15s, or eurofighters is anybodys guess. As for recruiting 300 thousand soldiers: this was always fake news, unfortunately straight from Polands (previous) government. It simply cannot happen in these demographics.
Its happening, a huge portion of planned expenses are already being carried out. Further purchases are planned. The plan to increase the army size is gradual, over the course of 15 years. There's good likelihood it wont reach that, but that is the nominally permitted strength of the armed forces now according to the law nonetheless.
Could you do a video imagining a eu army? What equipment, tactics… It was an interesting video, but I find shameful that the poles didn’t bought French or Italian equipment, like rafales or Caesar howitzers. I think that buying a variety of foreign equipment (non eu) is weakening the ideal of an eu army.
you can flip it around and ask why did European arms manufactures didn't want to go on any concessions and were not able to offer even remotely comparable to one from a country on other other side of the globe
Also it's worth mentioning here that years before the war Poland wanted to join the Leo group, and was turned down. It's not so much that Poland doesn't want to do business in Europe (we have made a number of deals [about 2 bln usd worth] for British AA weapons, and bough navy helicopters from Italy), as France and Germany don't seem to be willing to sell.
attack helicopters have been one of the biggest tank killers in Ukraine. They are definitely useful. What is not useful is Poland buying every helicopter design possible
I look back to history and see what difficulties existed between Britain and the commonwealth and the United States. NATO is made up of 32 nations. The good old USA may attempt to exert leadership, but the difficulties may be exacerbated. Poland may be constructing the Maginot line of the 21st century. We know what happened there in1940. Also, doesn't Nato bear some of the responsibility for the Russian return to military significance?
Since you have interesting takes on these kinds of issues, how about taking the opposite view (the Russian perspective on this matter) of increased militarization as provocation. We shouldn't always view the Russians being up to no good - they have a long history of invasion and lost 15 million people in WWII - in comparison, in WWII the US lost 500,000, the British 250,000 and the Germans 4,000,000. Of course the USSR (the Soviets) were not innocent players in WWII (by any stretch) but that's how they see it - a moral equivalence if you would. Georgia armed itself, Russia took it as provocation and Georgia was invaded. The other thing is that Russians, like the Chinese, play the long game, they'll grind out a win if necessary and the win is all that matters (and they're right, and they now have victory in their sights in Ukraine) - they don't see it the way we do in the West. I say this because too often analysts fail to get into the heads of the Russian hierarchy and if you've played chess competitively you know anticipating the next move is key.
Don't forget that the USSR started WW2 by aligning with Hitler and invading Poland. I see Russia as being full of resentment and having a centuries-long inferiority complex that sits poorly with their self identity as being superior to the West (I think it's an Orthodox Church vs Western Church thing, but I'm just speculating). It's also true that Russia has been ruled by one cruel authoritarian government after another. It's always been a horrible place.
@@michaelshurkin613 I think we’re better off with both sides, Russia and NATO/Ukraine finding a mutual off ramp in the war in Ukraine and somehow, someway finding a way to turn Russia into an ally - we could use their help. I think most Russians intuitively know there’s no future with BRICs as allies and that Includes India - China and India have Russia over a table at this time wrt Ukraine. We need allies to deal with a bigger problem in China. I’m certain China is enjoying the spectacle of Europeans at war with each other, weakening themselves, bankrupting themselves. In the 4th and 5th centuries the Roman Empire was too busy at war with itself (civil war) to take notice of a bigger problem forming to East of them. After they bankrupted themselves, German tribes eg Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths etc ran rampant throughout the empire with relatively few numbers I might add, but who were easily dealt with in the previous centuries, but the Romans were now helpless. The British bankrupted themselves in WWII. This situation today looks similar.
It means little because Poland is not a fully sovereign country unfortunately. Certain political decisions only make sense if you consider them as realising foreign political demands. Consecutive elections only change whether the orientation is more towards Washington or Berlin. For both we are only playing an instrumental role. Hence all the purchases are done outside of our military industrial complex and all attempts at changing this situation are met with happy little coincidences ending up with key local defence companies being ultimately sold or bankrupted.
@@michaelshurkin613 while it would be naive to disagree, being part of the american world also commes at a steep price. You have to observe your own culture, your values get completely substituted by something foreign and detached from your spiritual heritage. In short - being part of Pax Americana means many more people will have a chance to drive much nicer cars while being under influence of much stronger antidepressants.
I think this is a philosphical question and therefore mostly not worth discussing. But you are quite wrong in your assessments, you view it from a simple prism of client and patron, but youre not quite aware of the complexities. For example, regarding Polish industry, which by no means is being abandoned or bankrupted.
I hope Poland does not fall in to the trap flacid NATO is building for it and accepts some "peace talks" with Russia. I hope Poland will step out if necessary and wont allow for a new cold war.
I am worried about monopolisation - no pun intended - of military power in Europe, especially if Poland elects a far right government again. PiS embers openly called for annexing all lands to the Elbe river because of obscure history 1.000 years ago. We would get another and more severe crisis after putins russia, if polish leaders let their intrusive thoughts guide their actions.
As much as I hate PiS, what you wrote is not true. Noone talked about reclaiming old lands, that is something everyone in this part of Europe is very sensitive about and we do not want to reopen this box. Not even the actual far right, which would be Konfederacja, does that. This is not a risk at all in my view.
Per @sgebert, my numbers are wrong. If I'm wrong, i'm wrong, and I appreciate being corrected. He writes:
According to the official data, the numbers you provided are wrong. The official data: land forces (54,000), air force (17,200), navy (7000), special forces (3200) and territorial defence (36,000). Additionaly there are about 2200 soldiers in service for the cyberwarfare forces and about 3300 in the military police. Also the finance numbers are wrong, as Poland spent (2024) 159 billion zloty (40 bln usd) on military, and will spend 187 bln zloty next year (2025) which equals 47 bln dollars.
Thank you. It's a tough issue, as since Feb 24 all military type data is purposfuly distorted in PL, and we can't even tell the numbers with certainty anymore. Some say the total size of the armed forces grew to nearly 200k already (recruitment has been grew massively since Feb24). The official data remains as I put it there, only it should probably be treated as the lower end of the spectrum. Like I said, everything military related is very hush-hush in these parts of the woods.
And lastly let me say, as unimportant as it may be, that I'm a tough audience; I'm obsessed with details. But all in all I think your report is true and good and I appreciate the work you put into it.
You just provided excellent reasons why Berlin's idea about the European army is ridiculous one. Germans are in love with russia despite appearances. Therefore, they will be willing to sacrifice Easter European states in order to keep good standing with Kreml.
@@michaelshurkin613 above numbers for land forces are incorrect as understated. Professional army is at 139K, not 54K. Of that over 7K in basic training. Total armed forces including territorial units headcount is about 200K which makes it one of the largest in Nato.
Not only US, but entire West should really rethink they East European study. Because people there buy into many myths about the region, due to Russian imperialism and propaganda. But if we look closer beyond the Cold War, then we find out that Poland always was defender of the Europe, defeating supposedly undetectable Russians and Mongols on several occasions. They also were rich and quite modern state. We also see that during Interwar period, when Poland was rapidly growing before what happen during WW2. Ukrainians also were quite powerful before Mongols destroyed them. While Romania is technically remnant of Byzantine.
I'm Polish, and I do have intrest in military modernisation process (as a civilian hobbyst), there are few things I can clarify .
- Poland is not buying Leopard tanks - at least that was not the plan for many yeras now. The Leopards you mention are used tanks of 2a4 and 2a5 type, some are being modernised to 2PL version. However both political situation, and unwillingness of germans to transfer manufacturing/technology seems to convince polish leadership that germans are not to be relied on, Leos will remain probably till they will be phased out by K2. that is why first 250 abrams M1A2 sep v 3 were wanted (request went to USA before 2022 fullscale russian invasion on Ukraine. ) than additional 116 M1A1 FEP were ordered , But main direction was to be K2 - as Koreans were seemingly most flexible on tech-transfer and production licence, the first general talks were about transfer of production and over all around 1000 K2 tanks ( including some produced in Korea) 180 were ordered from Korea - another 180 somewhat adapted to polish requierments were to be ordered till the end of this year, some of them will be assembled in Poland (at least that is what is the rumor in mili-bloger spheres , no details tho) and next batches would be produced in Poland. Now if US will offer good or better terms on M1 production it might go a bit differently. The goal seems to be to reach around 1300-1400 modern MBT (not counting Leos) for 6 divisions (2 armoured, rest mechanised)
- attack hellicopters - some commentators in Poland are worried that 96 Apaches is a bit much (costs of upkeep , etc) but the order was made so 96 it will be , probably 16 per division. As for their use - the rumor is that russian attack helis did a lot of work in stopping the attempt to cut Crimean corridor in June 2023- fireing ATGMs at Ukrainians forming up for mechanized attack - missiles 10 km+ outside of MANPADS range, so still good for quick anti armor hunting from behind your own lines, at night, I guess.
- Artylery in Poland - K9 and KRAB share chassis (with some modifications in Polish one as it is licence build in Poland) , Turrets are different , gun similar 155mm L52 , both will have polish TOPAZ firecontrol system (K9 are fitted with it in Poland)
- Himmars - the request was for 500 or so, but since almost 300 korean K239 have been ordered I doubt full 500 will be ordered
-IFV - Borsuk plans are for around 1400 vehicles (400 in diffrent variants than IFV) - First production batch will be ordered within a copule of months -
Heavy IFV - planned - does not exist yet. probably will have same unmanned turret as Borsuk in IFV version
Soviet era equipment.
Poland decided to get rid of soviet era and ammo standard , hence a lot of new orders.
Polish president said officially some time ago that Poland transfered more than 1000 picies of heavy equipment ( tanks, bmps, soviet calliber artylery systems, some soviet MLRS systems etc) including close to 400 tanks. There are still around 150-200 PT-91 (polish modernisation of T-72) so M1 Abrams and first K2 batch are replacement for them.
Great comment! I would only add that declarations about territorial defense to just stay behind enemy lines are fantasy. How would they get supplies? Plus they are regular people trained on the weekends and staying behind the lines is very hard even for full professionals. Already during the cold war this idea of light infantry on the back of invading force was demised because of that.
They should be useful as a base for light infantry though, as Poland regular forces are lacking it.
I like what Perun joked about this. It's like Poland turned up at an arms show, a salesman asked "what requirements do you have?" and Poland said "YES."
Best customer ever
I think they're doing better than that, but I'm not entirely sure. The HIMARS buy makes sense. I wonder about them buying three kinds of tanks. Why?
@@michaelshurkin613 We're gonna phase out soviet and post soviet equipment, so in this case get rid of t-72ms and pt-91s (about 300 alltogether went to Ukraine already). Poland already had Leos and wanted to get more of those, but Germany said that it needs over a decade to deliver, so we chose abrahms over challengers.
@@michaelshurkin613 Maybe that will allow them to see what works for armor on the plains of Poland, I guess? I don't know too much about the military industrial complex but even if that's not the strategy it still looks like a benefit to me.
It might not be a good idea for them to have one source.
Trump might cut Polands access to Abrams
German AfD might cut off Leopard
A war in Korea might see Korean tanks banned from export.
The French mistake wasn't relying on the Maginot line, it was relying on Belgium.
@@JohnHughesChampigny I mean what were they supposed to do when Poland only lasted for 1 month.
Belgium was neutral. Hitler had a habit of invading neutral countries: Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg
French, British, Polish and Russian mistakes at the beggining of the war were, old doctrines and ww1 war mentality.
@@scatterlite2266 two weeks it was
@scatterlite2266 poland was attacked by russia and Germany at once. France lasted 1 months too. Only poland never surrendered and fought on every front in ww2 from start to finish. The first foreign flag to fly in Berlin was a polish flag. Ur a uneducated American that doesn't know his history. U cant even name the 50 states in the usa. I'm not suprised u dont know world history
Those countries that "enjoyed" the hospitality of Putin's employees NKVD/KGB and tbeir affiliates in the baltic states and Poland knew exactly what a country without a credible military meant....it's not losing a few islands in the south Atlantic. Its actually knock on the door at night and people disappeared.
Well put.
For their Freedom, and ours!
Buying from the Koreans means technological transfers and sharing of full technical specifications, allowing Poland to manufacture domestically and letting Korea enter the European arms market.
It's a win win. Unless you are KNDS or BAE :)
@@michaelshurkin613Even more. By letting Poland to have licenses for its products Korea has someone who will help with military equipment backup in the event of Korea vs Korea war.
@@michaelshurkin613tylko czy oni zwiększyli produkcję?
It’s the perfect deal, in the case of Poland-Russia, the production of munitions will be shipped to Poland, and in the case of SK - NK/China Polish production will be shipped to SK. It makes SK more secure.
I hope Poland will do future procurement with their own Industry or Europe.
With all the regards towards the US, I don't think the Poles will want to have the USA have a say over how they use their HIMARS.
The storm shadows being blocked over 1/2 US components in hundreds reinforce that need for strategic autonomy.
That is what most Europeans who are interested in the collective defence against our nutjob neighbour would hope.
The problem is and remains what Europe is. Its fundamentally a large group of small and medium sized countries that like to bicker and outcompete each other at every opportunity, just to be better. We have fortunately finally stopped shooting at each other every five minutes over every dispute, but that spirit is very much alive. Every European country likes to be better than its neighbours, just to rub it in. To a degree its really a wealthy suburban neighbourhood where you need to have the largest car and the best garden to show superiority.😅
Its both the immense strength of Europe and its weakness. Because all these countries are fundamentally in it for themselves and then look if they can cooperate on something they need or want. That results in chaotic, unpredictable behaviour which makes European procurement strategy a nightmare. And its wasteful because it leads to countries doing it on their own, repeating each others developments and spending much more on less. The big advantage in all of this, is that it creates constant competition and filters out who is doing well and who isn't. That is the great strength of Europe. Its a dysfunctional system that always repairs itself because the countries that fall behind, get exposed and then find themselves eventually forced to adapt proven methods.
For example Poland would do great to cooperate with the German arms industry. Its established, very well respected and capable. And you can usually make a deal with the Germans that they invest a good bit of the money back into your economy. Reality is very different. Its not just politics or history, its also interests not aligning. For example when the Kremlin decided to be the Kremlin again, Poland realised they where next and became hawkish and started to prepare. Germany needed a long time to realise the Kremlin was back to being the Kremlin. Poland could not rely on that attitude, so they went their own way. Now Germany for example is trying to get a large Leopard 2A8 coalition going and doing the same for AA systems like IRIS-T and German made Patriot missiles. Meanwhile Poland already went on its own way for tanks.
And there are countless examples of this. France always does whatever they want. Spain usually likes following Germany and often is quite ant French. The Italians often go domestic or German etc. The Netherlands wanted to jointly develop new frigates with Germany, but that seems to be dead because the Germans seem to want to get US and domestic radar systems, the Netherlands has its own world beating APAR and Smart-L combination with its own FC, which Germany now also uses. The Netherlands also seems to be considering maybe switching to European MBDA missiles for its navy, Germany would lock itself into the US systems like that.
Its always that sort of mess that blocks such cooperation. The European Commission is trying to do something about it, but this is very sensitive and complicated.
Yes there have been restrictions on Ukraine but Poland is NATO member if Poland were to be attacked there would be no restrictions. Also there are more restrictions in European weapons than American, especially with Germany and France being the major powers in the continent. The UK gave Ukraine Storm Shadow first in which France protested. Germany was not going to give Ukraine Leopard tanks but when the US and UK gave tanks to Ukraine they were fine.
I'd say such a view is ultimately foolish and unrealistic.
@@hellbreaksloose5536 "The UK gave Ukraine Storm Shadow first in which France protested". Nonsense. France gave SCALP at the same moment the UK gave Storm Shadow.
This has already been planned and accounted for.
Poland isnt going to be solely reliant on HIMARS.
Poland also is buying 290 Homar-K, the south korean version of HIMARS. They have already signed a deal with south korea to build CGR-080 missiles for the Homar-K system in poland.
Insightful as usual; thanks for your content.
Excellent presentation, thank you. Poland is definitely trying to avoid a repeat of 1939 and, unlike the Western European countries, is serious about acting. Notwithstanding the presence of American soldiers, the US military is much, much smaller than it used to be and is spread to thinly. I applaud the Poles for being so proactive.
Me, too.
Polską nie rządzą Polacy tylko naród z Azji Mniejszej. To samo masz w USA. Sprawdź kogo nie możesz krytykować. To samo na Ukrainie - Zełesnki to kto? Szmychal - premier Ukrainy to kto?
@@panpunkt5185 oho, konfederuski spotted xD
@@bohomazdesign725 widzę, że język ewoluował, za moich czasów to się po prostu nazywało idiota
@@panpunkt5185 Wiesz że gadanie o żydach jest trochę 2010 mordo?
The whole point of having nuclear weapons is to make sure the conflict _stays_ conventional.
Nie tylko . Ma sens że nie można przegrać. Przegrywając można zrobić że i przeciwnik przegra.
Also,we are defending from east,but gut feel tell me,we need to defends against germany,history likes turn circles
Attack helicopters might perform better in a tank destroyer role, being able rapidly to respond to where enemy mass attacks of armor attempt to break through lines, than the strike role it seems like Russia attempted in Ukraine.
Thank you for your videos, very interesting topics!
Glad you like them!
Well there is small miss info,we dont but leopards,bcos rheinmetal dont produce them...
From PL - thank you!
What is especially interesting about the massive Mil spendings in PL (and its 5% / 4%) repercussions on the Polish Budget is that it does not really matter whether the citizens here are Conservative or more Liberal. The general consensus among the population is the same on that front:
A clear understanding of the implications of a "losing Ukraine" is an option which would result in a net economic loss for PL for the next few decades.
Now at the center of Poland's Mil shoppings spree is also Business-driven, with the multiple joint ventures with the RoK. It is understood that this will give the country a chip in the game in the EU Weapons market which has been happy with producing "haute couture" production.
Next, you are 100% correct about the centers of power in the EU. In 2008 (for example), we hardly read in LeMonde or The Guardian about "what Poland has to say" on anything.
Today?
There are 4 Centers of Power in Europe: London - Paris - Berlin - Warsaw. Forget Rome or Madrid in that power game.
Lastly, and if you ask me, I would have chosen for PL the Rafales and not the F-35... Lower cost, lower cost of ownership. But this may be the French in me!
Thank you for the video Sir!
Hi! Thanks for watching. A question for you: To what extent are Poles aware of or think about what happened in the 1930s, when UK and FR basically abandoned Poland? I know some Czechs who are well aware of how the UK and FR screwed them. They only trust the US. As for the F-35s, that's a tough call. I think it behooves Euro countries to purchase Euro weapons as much as possible, and Rafales are excellent. The purported advantages of the F-35 are unproven (the Israelis alone know). But politics count, and the Poles clearly are more interested in currying favor with the US than France, are they not?
@@michaelshurkin613 Hey-
Great questions about the Poles vis-a-vis the blurries 1930's (and before and after and Europe).
You see, I live in Silesia (Katowice) since 2008, so some 40km's from Auschwitz.
This should be important here, yes? But not as much as one would think. At least not as much as "we" in the West would think. Why?
Look, I cannot talk for the rest of Poland since they always talk about Silesia as "a weird region where people are like American New Yorkers, always talking about work and fast-living" - that's a cultural thing one gets unless living here...
But I can say this:
You won't find a Pole justifying his or her vote at the EU level because of past, vindictive issues towards the West (France or others).
Nope. They instead perfectly understand the role of ru was dedtrimental to the country's development.
About the Czechs and them "only trust the US"? Maybe!
You see, the Czechs are, for Poles, our neighbor's kids where we send our daughter to babysit. Again, I am joking.
But not.
In 2008, I would not have said that. Today?
I say this because in the Polish society, there is a firm understanding that Poland is now the 4th center of Europe (Politically and economically).
Poles are done with the past and they know their pull in Europe.
What you explain in your video (that 5% Mil Def Budget)... There are reasons why in Poland nobody bats an eyelid on that.
Now an interesting topic is how the Poles drastically changed their view on Ukraine between the Ukraine-Poland Euro Football Cup of 2012 (when we still considered them as just another ru space below us). And in 2014. Then 2022 with the full-fledge fuckary.
A lot could be said here!
A lot more important than you may think in terms of sociat flip.
2022 was a MASSIVE event socially in Poland because we had to forego our "we are better than the Ukrainians because we are in the EU/NATO" and we ALL have nice cars and houses.
Much of this is difficult to explain.
But I dare say that having thousands of Ukrainians Middle Class Football fans visiting Poland in 2012 by bus was not a click for them.
You cannot go to a football match from Kyiv to Krakow without seeing how your Polish brothers have nice houses and nice rental Audis "Just like the Americans".
@@michaelshurkin613 What happened in 1939 is definitelly still in top 20 everyday conversational subjects for most Poles to this day. I'm not joking. History, and specifically WWII history, is something everyone here (PL) is greatly invested in. And the betrayal, as we see it, of France and Britain (as they literally could have ended the war back in 39 with the Saar offensive) in 1939 is percisely the reason why we are ordering so much. We simply can't trust foreign military's to come and save us. Which is why this much money being poored into the military, despite the country not being very wealthy, has support from left to right.
Rafales are excellent aircraft but Dassault does not manufacture them outside France and it has very long delivery lead times.
@@michaelmazowiecki9195 yes, thanks for clearing that out! Your 1 sentence was pure help!
The most ridiculous moment in the beginning of WW2 is when France invaded Germany. Then withdrew. WTAF.
mentioned that in another comment. kindred spirit
They did the same at the start of the Franco Prussian War in 1870. Nothing really changes.
Najbardziej ironiczne jest to że miasto w którym zdecydowano w1939 roku o zaniechaniu pomocy polsce, w 1944 wyzwoliła dywizja pancerna polska pod dowództwem gen. Maczka.
@@oconnem1a najśmieszniejsze jest to że plan obrotowych drzwi w Belgii 1940r. wymyslil zniemczony polak..
I am Pole, we we have not forgotten also on 1919, when Red Army attacked and we have to stop them.
A lot of people seem to focus on this idea of Poland becoming this hugely powerful military state, but there are important gaps to note in Poland’s forces, particularly in drones & EW systems. Although Poland currently has tons of self propelled guns & MLRS for infantry fire support, they lack ISR drones in quantity to find targets and do fire correction. Even though Poland has domestically sourced UAVs like FlyEye, they have only small inventories. As Ukraine has shown, UAVs are vital for effective artillery use, but they are also easily attrition and are needed in very high numbers, with constant resupply. On a similar note, Poland lacks any use of those explosive FPV style drones used in Ukraine- long range loiter munitions that can be used and carried by 1-2 soldiers. These are really game changers for the ground pounder, and will be needed both for modernizing the arsenal and training against Russia’s new tactics.
Further, Poland’s EW and C-UAS capabilities seem to be very mediocre. The Polish domestic system Przebiśnieg has been criticized for its inefficacy and low numbers, and it’s also based on Soviet vintage MT-LB APCs instead of the more modern APCs Poland is adopting. The Poles have limited options for effective C-UAS other than EW. Although they have a lot of short range missiles, these will probably be too expensive for use against UAVs. Their 23mm ZU-23 anti-aircraft guns, while numerous and equipped with fairly modern targeting systems, lack newer programmable air burst ammo developed for use against drones for guns like the 35mm GDF or 40mm Bofors L/70.
So although Poland is getting quite a massive boost to its military, they might still have to play catch-up in many areas of modern warfare.
European arms purchases Poland 2023/24. Last year Poland bought Italian helicopters, French satellites and latest French pontoon bridges, British Helicopters, huge order MBDA CAMM and CAMM ER air defence batteries in total 60 batteries, 3 Babcock frigates, 2 Swedish Saab 340 AEW&C planes, Norway's Kongsberg 4 squadrons of the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) Coastal Defence System. 2024 Huge order of Swedish Carl Gustaf. It’s not only USA & South Korean weapons.
What's funny about the small number of CAESARs that France is making is that the whole point of it is that, compared to the tracked stuff, it's *cheap*. (Like the advantage of HIMARS over the original MLRS).
Basically what does France need hundreds of Artillery for? Ofcourse they need a certain amount of it to make their army work, but France's border is basically in eastern Poland. It makes more sense that the arty is already there, not to mention that Poland probably has to spread it out all acros the border.
Does that make sense?
LIke if France buys tons of arty they'd probably want to station atleast a big part of it on NATO's borders, because what use would a bunch of artillery be in France? So then maybe it makes more sense that France buys stuff like Aircraft carriers and Amphebious landing ships and what have you not and that Poland buys a ton of loooooong guns.
@MrHvleeuwen It's a charitable perspective. More realistically France doesn't get much artillery because the African countries they invade don't have much artillery themselves, so it's unnecessary for their neo colonial projects.
The Polish modernization effort, aimed at forming a military with modern conventional warfar capabilities, began in 2010, with particular rearview focus on the Russian assault on Georgia. Polish politicians already spoke of the military threat posed by Russia, famously Radislaw Sikorski in 2013 spoke "war in Europe is imaginable", in response to an EU counterpart.
While its true the modernization effort was extremely modest, it was done in light of Polands strategic position, as a member of NATO and the EU. In 2016 the startegy changed, and greater emphasis on having own capabilities was placed.
However its only in 2022 that real economic weight is thrown behind these efforts.
Ka-52S were extreme effective against Ukrainian assault columns during the 2023 summer offensive. Apache’s have similar specs and should be able to perform even better as they’ll have air near total air supremacy thanks to NATO (the US).
Apache choppers are more effective than K52 because they don't need to point with laser their targets like russians do. Apache aquires the target launches missile and hides.
Ka52 były tylko medialne.naprawde zatrzymały ukraincow naprawdę gęste i olbrzymie pola minowe ( nawet 5 min na metr kwadratowy i na glebokosc kilkunastu kilometrow..) Oraz masowe wykorzystywanie artylerii. Że strony ukrainskiej. Za malo pojazdow rozminowania i atak w najmocniejszym miejscu..
Ka-52s were able to strike outside manpads range only when defending from mobile attackers, I don't think attack helis are obsolete but the range of helis and mobile AAs is dangerously similar.
Yes, a national army is going to maybe fight better than a coalition. But NATOs whole structure, based on the allied experience in WW2, is to try and make a coalition that fights as one army. When the US 6th army fought through Alsace into Bavaria General Devers of the US 6th army group was commanding, among others, Jean de Lattre de Tassigny of the French 1st army.
Corrections:
116 Abrams are M1A1 FEP, they do not have option for APS Trophy until modernization to M1A2 Sep v3
250 Abrams M1A2 Sep v3 will come w/o APS, but the plan is to procure separately
180 K2 tanks do not have APS, the plan is to install after modernization to K2PL standard
Frame agreement is for 1000 K2 tanks, where 820 supposed to be K2PL. Next deal for 2nd batch of 180 K2PL is expected to be signed soon. It is not clear if they will have APS from the start. Poland to start participate in production.
Poland is not buying more Leopard 2 tanks, only modernizing remaining 2A4 to 2PL standard.
1400 Borsuk IFV and support vehicles - this is only a frame agreement at this point. Borsuk is still going through trials with a modified drive system.
700 CWBP (heavy IFV) - this is a vision at this point. No design exist.
Apache - the fact that Russian do not use attack helicopters correctly (directly over-flying enemy force), does not mean that AH-64 will be useless. Even Russian used them well during Zaporizhzhia offensive.
Frame agreement for K9 is higher - 672. 1st batch on order - 212, 2nd batch on order - 146.
500 Himars is just a frame agreement. No order was placed. Most likely to be cut to 50% or 25%.
Thanks. Excellent talk and analysis. Good on the Poles - doing what i wish the UK had been doing in recent decades rather than the endless cuts and continuing diminishing capabilities. I haven't got high hopes of the Starmer government but we shall have to see. I was amazed to hear recently a strongly left wing British commentator in talking about the current British budget and funding deliberations identifying, in his view, the need for increased defence spending as the number one priority. Surprising because I can't recall any British politician or commentator whether left or right (including even Thatcher) ever prioritising defence spending in these terms ahead of the usual mantra for spending commitments eg health, education, economy, taxation etc.
The UK is weird in that the Left often has been more supportive of defense spending (I guess because of jobs and trades unions?) than the Right, which historically has been more interested in budgets.
Some of these numbers really are crazy, particularly when it comes to long-range fires, for example, the UK is doubling its MLRS fleet to about 85 vehicles, however even these numbers are dwarfed. It does make you wonder how they can afford to spend such a large amount.
No Nuclear deterrent, small navy, medium size Airforce. Spending most of the money on land forces and air defence.
@@Hussar-fm8iy Absolutely, I understand we aren't a land power and that we have vastly different needs/goals, but that being said our numbers across the board have dropped to worryingly low levels and to say we are a maritime nation our navy is nowhere near big enough, it should really be double the size IMO.
Gr8 video, the Polish really woke up (specifically after Lavrov told them they're next in line for 'denazification') and build a big army although m7ch focussed on old-style equipment: tanks, attack helis and howitsers. They are, like the Bundeswehr used to be, a focussed & reliable eastern shield of NATO. Arguably that would force Russia north to establish a corridor to Kaliningrad which is now bordered by a NATO lake. And the Baltics provide a better excuse (to 'protect' russian-speakers) to attack while staying below the art V radar. Actually just like Hitler took the Sudetenland earlier on: the Polish learned fm history, did we (the rest)?
Excellent analysis. One thing Putin has achieved is a unity of purpose in NATO with an increase in spending. Poland has led the way in warning about and recognising resurgent Russian aggression.
If Trump wins, do you think Germany and France and even the UK will kick it into high gear and actually build up capabilities that they largely would rely on the US for? They’ve been talking alot since 2022 but they have made too much progress imo
UK's depths of financial difficulty will prohibit any spending increases. The population does not see it as a priority over pensions and healthcare. Germany will spend a lot and obtain very little. France may well do better, if only by default.
Trump to tylko kolejna pacynka kahały.
I think you underestimate the role of the EU in this. Ursula von der Leyen and her administration have been amongst the staunchest supporters of Ukraine. They could be pivotal in filling any leadership vacuum left by Trump/US.
One of the main reasons for Poland's investment in equipment and varied equipment is that in a war situation allied troops would be expected to arrive quicker than their equipment. Having excess hardware on hand is a big difference. And having a variety means it's more likely to be familiar to those allied troops.
Hardware is wasted withouth coherent doctrine, trained soldiers AND commanders. Ukraine is painfully learning this lesson, Russians are digesting the problem.
@@piotrd.4850doktryny maja to do siebie że bywają zmieniane. . Zauważ że mamy swietne zagluszarki i pracujemy nad dronami antydronowymi czy efektorami kinetycznymi ,ale nie wprowadzono ich na większą skalę. Nadal się projektuje lepsze wersje . Wyprodukowanie dronow jest szybsze i tańsze niż czołgów, bwp czy dział..
According to the official data, the numbers you provided are wrong. The official data: land forces (54,000), air force (17,200), navy (7000), special forces (3200) and territorial defence (36,000). Additionaly there are about 2200 soldiers in service for the cyberwarfare forces and about 3300 in the military police. Also the finance numbers are wrong, as Poland spent (2024) 159 billion zloty (40 bln usd) on military, and will spend 187 bln zloty next year (2025) which equals 47 bln dollars.
Also, at the moment there's absolutely no reason to say that European defence is or is going to move away from Germany. At least not from where I'm sitting. Germany is still the main hub and until we hear the PEntagon declaring major infrastructure investments in Poland, there is no reason to think it is going to change. Not to mention Germany has its own rearnament plan, even more ambitious than the Polish one, although they do not seem to be moving ahead with it at all at the moment.
Thank you.
I'll post this info.
I haven't seen much evidence that the Germans are moving beyond talk.
@@michaelshurkin613 I mean, the orders have been made for A LOT. Frigates, subs, planes, ifvs, APCs, and much more. It's just they do it the German way, so it's going to take 3x the time. But fair enough. I on the other hand haven't seen any evidence that European defence is moving away from them. Like, what would you even mean by that? Tens of billions would need to allocated into building new bases in PL, and there's really no need as Germany is so close. I'm betting things are going to remain the same, at least in the short run.
The Germans are out to lunch... Ein Leberknödelsuppe bitte!
“Supine position vis à vis Russia” 😂😂😂
Absolutely spot-on analysis of the military situation on NATO's eastern flank. And thank you for so eloquently describing the impressive investment that Poland is making in its military and overall self-defence capabilities. Every military and intelligence officer in NATO needs to understand this. From company-grade on up.
In reality, the abysmal performance of the Russian military in Ukraine makes a serious Russian attempt to invade or otherwise militarily destabilise Poland increasingly less plausible. But that doesn't mean it might not be attempted. That's the way degenerate gamblers like Putin operate.
The goal of the other European NATO partners, from the UK to Norway, France to Italy, ought to be to ask themselves the question: How might our country, with whatever strengths and capabilities we have at our disposal, best augment and support Poland? Because the frontiers of Britain and France aren't now the Channel or the Rhine. They run now from the Baltic to the Sea of Azov. Don't let anyone tell you different.
Good, effective defence is the cheapest, and least costly in terms of human life and suffering, way of preventing war. Boże, coś Polskę
Thank you for watching! I'm hoping the video draws more Americans to pay attention to Poland.
Thanks for Your analysis. It is perhaps too optymistic in regards to Warsaw weight in Europe. On the other hand it is important to emphasize Poland holds the only land route to support defense of Baltic states and nearly so in case of Ukraine.
Big players will abandon Baltics, and Poland. France, Germany, Spain or UK won't fight for them. Germans will give stalled promises and France empty promises.
I would like to see an analysis of the Polish capability in supporting systems. What do they use to target their artillery and missiles? What systems are they buying to keep their tanks viable in the face of both ISR drones and killer drones? Without those systems, the items they are purchasing are not going to perform well.
Last year poland bought French satellites. Poland also has its own satellites eagle eye in space. Leased Reaper drones form USA , medium drones from turkey Baraktar, polish small drones Flyeye for SPH targeting currently used in Ukraine with Polish SPH Krab. All Polish rocket artillery, self propelled howitzers and drones are linked with Polish fire control system Topaz certified last year to work with other nato certified fire control systems.
Husarii dobrze napisał ale pragniemy utwory możliwość by samemu instalować polskie małe satelity radarowe i optyczne na orbicie. To w razie wyczyszczenia przez rosje z satelit atomowka.. dalekonośne drony wyposażamy w AI by mogły pracować bez operatora. Łączność jest dość dobra ,mamy technologie pracy dronow gdy bedzie trzeba zainstalować, że będą pracować na różnych satelitach w tym samym czasie z różnymi konstelacjami satelit i można równocześnie przekazywać łączność dron do drona. A i tak w razie przerwania drony sa z AI. To ma zapewnić skuteczna ich pracę.
Not a military member myself but as someone who has followed the Ukraine war closely since day one i can tell you that your observation about attack helicopters being useless on the modern battlefield is wrong for a number of reasons.
Western attack helicopters have the ability to employ stand off weapons which keeps the actual aircraft outside the range of enemy SHOR-A-D. It wasn't talked about in the media space but one of the reasons Ukraine's 2023 southern offensive failed was because Russia was able to use it's Ka-52 helicopters with stand off weapons to attack advancing Ukrainian armor. Ukraine is limited by the fact that they have less advanced, and less numerous aircraft to use, that's why the majority of Ukrainian copters perform low level pitch up rocket attacks.
As an example of how Russia cannot effectively employ combined arms tactics. during the Kursk incursion a Russian Ka-52 actually shot up a Russian military convoy. The coordination between Russian ground and air units is poor to almost none existent.
besides, the kind of static warfare we're seeing in Ukraine is not the kind of fight a NATO army would ever fight, NATO would never play Russia's little game of Attritional warfare.
Tak, u nas dawny dowódca wojska ,powiedział że atakował by tam gdzie rosjanie atakują. Sparaliżować udezeniami logistykę, zniszczyc w ciagu dwóch, trzech dni pancerz rosyjski i przebić się na zaplecze wrogiej armi. Przypomne ze nadal mamy duze zapasy broni kasetowej oraz nieokreślona liczbę termobarycznej. oraz kupujemy dosc znaczna ilosc artylerii rakietowej i lufowej. Jedna z dywizji bedzie miec . Sześć batalionów czolgow a 1 batalion to 58 czolgow w polskiej wersji.. Czyli jedna z polskich dywizji będzie mieć więcej czolgow niż niemiecka armia..
10:50 The funny thing that makes me wonder whether we are doing overkill in the context of Himars purchases is that the quantity we buy after the entire order is done is not only higher than western countries such as Germany, France, UK combine, but it is twice as much as the US currently has XD. You know, it doesn't seem realistic to me. After all, we are not the only buyers and the US will also buy for itself. I have doubts about how many years we will wait for all these Himars to be delivered.
Granted the US already had around 1000 M270 or derivatives in inventory by the time the lighter/cheaper M142 (aka HIMARS) started production. They fire the same rockets, and use the same loading pod system, but the M270 has twice the capacity of rockets.
Or racing to build their own thing, which is what the French are doing. Oui, mais bien sur, c'est evident. (It is, of course).
Why was 2016 the turning Point for Poland towards symetric Warfare? Wasnt it 2014 annex of Crimea?
Crimea might have been the genesis, but 2016 is the date of Polish policy documents that articulate the shift.
@@michaelshurkin613 2014 was the turning point. 2 years... it took 2 years in Poland to finaly build a plan...
@@RoozyyKfakt,uznano że rosja nie jest pokojową. Dodatkowo też do rozważań dodano propozycje rosji by rozebrać ukraine. Uznano że mogą rosjanie też dawać propozycje rozbioru polski.. A nie wszyscy jak polska mogą chcieć powiedzieć nie ,putinowi.
What do you think Poland’s buying spree of so many different systems from so many different vendors (tanks with 3 different sources + Israeli protection integrated) how will Poland maintain all the off the shelf purchases in the long run and can operate them in a successful manner? What does it mean for the financial capacity of not one of the richest countries of Eastern Europe?
It's not a thing anybody wants, but it must be noted that Ukraine has managed to do this when they had to.
An existential threat is something one cannot afford.
It's definitely a headache. Ukraine has no choice; Poland probably would be wise to try to reduce diversity. Why three types of tanks from three manufacturers? Still, if an army has good logistical capabilities, they can manage it. The African armies I watch fail miserably. They can't support the equipment they have and keep buying stuff from multiple vendors.
@@michaelshurkin613 Leos are to be moved to the reserve when K2 contract is completed. So i'ts only 2 MBTs -as it was before recent purchases.
@@BenyNukem I challenge you to produce a single credible source regarding retiring the Leo fleet. Or I can save your time, and tell you right now that what you wrote is not true and Poland will, in fact, continue to use three different types of MBTs in the next decade or two, which is a global phenomenon I believe, and obviously a bad decision. Leos will not retire anytime soon, many of them have just finished being upgraded to the PL version, and they will be kept in the west, whilst K2s and M1A2s will stay close to the eastern borders.
Very good video. Thanks. As I read one of the comment, why they bought material from the US or RoK. May be they trust the US more than UK or France (WWII), but also may be because the US and the RoK can deliver large volume of material relative quickly. But the question can be asked, the EU have invested large amount of money in Poland (as others older Eastern block countries), may be buy (some) european material and not only US, will be a good EU integration.
It's a paradox: European industry can't provide what's required unless it's given the necessary investment. But if you want stuff soon, one has to invest elsewhere. Poles I guess figure they can't wait, and if the British, French, Germans, and Italians aren't willing to put their own money into expanding industrial capacity, that's just too bad.
@@michaelshurkin613 That is exactly it. Before going to Seul and Washington we contacted the Germans about the tanks, and were told to wait a decade for them. And that was something noone in Poland was willing to do after Feb 24.
150+ Abraams, 250+ K2s, 260+ Leopard 2... three very different MBTs, i.e. the certain logistical nightmare even in peace times. and so on.
Yes
How about Leopard 2 A4 A5 and PL
@@michaelshurkin613 and above this, the korean armor might be good for korea: hard soil, mountain terrain, not much space for the enemy to use their tanks, therefore mostly frontal assaults to expect. just as it was the case back in 1950. nothing alike in the case of eastern poland.
@@supreme3376 They're all still the same tank, and besides: all Leos in Polands hands are to be upgraded to PL.
close air support gets shot down a lot but it's irreplecable, the atgm didn't help sure but thats why you buy lots and lots of helos.
This sounds about right: Attrition is just something one has to expect.
Ow, Abrams, K2s _and_ Leopards. Logistical nightmare?
Leopards will be phased out, being replaced by K2PLs.
Yes
@@michaelmazowiecki9195 You are the second person to say that. Maybe you can be the first to produce a source for that?
@@michaelmazowiecki9195 This is not at all confirmed, just speculation
If theyre relegated to their own brigades, or actually divisions now, it really doesnt matter that much
Can we really take all of the Polish procurement figures at face value?
Im looking specifically at the aim of acquiring 500 Himars. That seems like an excessive number of launchers for the ammunition available. Even the few dozen Ukrainian Himars are burning through significant numbers of rockets.
Im thinking that at lot of the Polish procurement numbers act more as a ceiling and will very likely be steadily scaled down to workable numbers. In particular the MBT, SPG and rocket artillery numbers ( which are around 1000 for each category).
A good question. Poland is working on making its own HIMARs rockets, and it has the industrial capability. Ukraine unfortunately does not, and is dependent on Western handouts.
500 himars was never official, and it came from the previous government. Not to mention since then Poland ordered over 200 chunmoo (Korean himars), so that almost certainly cancels the previous inquiry. Unfortunately, we seem to be stickicng to the Apache order (96 helicopters), which is absolutely insane (they're going to replace Mi-24s, of which we have 31. It's either our governments panic, or simply corruption, as an order of this magnitude makes no sense whatsoever.
@@michaelshurkin613 "Poland is working on making its own HIMARs rockets, and it has the industrial capability. Ukraine unfortunately does not," -- sadly it used to have. Historically USSR missile production and development was largely in Ukraine.
@@JohnHughesChampigny Theyre bringing it back to life as we speak. As for Poland, he probably meant Hanwha Aerospace's planned investment in PL, as as we speak, there is virtually no rocket production capability in PL unfortunatelly.
@@sgebert didn't know that, Wikipedia still lists the 500 Himars. + several hundred Korean MLRs. The numbers just sounded fishy to me.
The almost 100 apaches is also a pretty insane number considering the costs. I still think they will be useful though, Russian KA-52s did poor on the offense but were a big problem for Ukraines own offensives.
I admire Poland and her history,but I dont like her being the "meat in the sandwich"
When you say that Poland is to be Europe’s greatest land power, are you including or excluding Ukraine and Russia? My understanding is that they had been numbers 1 and 2, at least in terms of tank fleet size.
Yeah, I was thinking NATO. I should have been more precise with my language.
@@michaelshurkin613 After Turkey of course. This I think is doable, despite both France and Germany investing heavily into their own armed forces, because in their cases most of the money go into the navy and airforce, whilst with the exception of F35s and Apaches, all the big bucks in Poland go to land forces.
Well, the Russian tank fleet got quite reduced recently...
@@dawidlijewski5105 Certainly in quality, but not in numbers. It's that instead of T-90s and T-80s they're using T-72s again now.
Can you do a video on why the Obama administration reset of Russian relations failed?
If you were working with the CIA at that time, I am curious for your insight.
Is it perhaps a bit shortsighted the current efforts to revive european defense industries? With poland now wanting to expand its defense industry you have most major defense powers in Europe pursuing their own industrial policies. This seems like could be very inefficient in the long run as France, Germany, Poland and whoever else end up developing their own equipment, industry and expertise but none alone can substitute the might of the US if that ever needed. Integrating all the different European defense industries and coordinating policies meant to help revive it and expand it seems like would be the most efficient as expertise could be shared, costs cut and redundancies avoided. But for the moment it seems like everyone is just doing their own policies with no much thinking of actually coordinating. If for example, Poland, France and Germany end all developing their own next generation tank by themselves it would seem to be the most inefficient outcome. You miss on the economies of scale of joint procurement, the benefits of technology sharing and create more logistical issues if they were to ever operate together.
Would be better to decouple from US foreign policy and avoid their endless antagonism of other countries?
Russian antagonism towards Poland is far older than USA exists..
@@OchotaJack Europe has been fighting each other since before the Roman Empire, so most European neighbours have a history of war. Time to put serious effort into peace for the future is it not?
Another very good analysis. I would not put it past the Poles to build a nuclear capability if Trump were to win and turn his back on NATO. That could be the logical step given how Poland was left stranded by its allies in WWII. It's interesting to compare the similarities between the situation now of Poland and the German Bundesrepublik in the Cold War: front-line state, potential major battlefield, interest in stationing allied troops on its soil, large land army, major military investments. Germany is no longer a front-line state and the governments under Merkel and Scholz have preferred to pay their way out of conflicts, real or potential. The RU influence on the SPD in the East of Germany and also on more recent parties leaves food for thought and speculation.
A total waste of money. Western Europe already has two nuclear weapons states. A real nuclear deterrent is, to use a technical term, fucking expensive. If Trump quits NATO neither France nor Britain will, and the both have the means to totally destroy Russia.
I'm sure I'm not the first to wonder whether this will actually happen. Announcing that you will spend X billions some time in the next parliament is different from spending it. I especially wonder how they're going to recruit the extra people when their demographics are really not that good.
That said, even if they do half of it they'll still be doing a lot, and given that the Russian military has been looking overhyped lately...
It looks like the Poles are in fact spending the money. Unlike Germany, which has been all talk.
@@michaelshurkin613 First F-35s arrived already, same for FA-50s, Abrahms, British air defence systems, same for Poland's first awacs planes, KRAB mobile howitzers and RAK mobile mortars and many, many more. Investment into shared cruise missile r&d projects with Germany is on the way, an order for 1400 new homemade IFVs is in place. Narew&Wisla programs for air defence funded and running. Himars and apache deals are uncertain I would say, same for the Korean deal for K2s and K9s. I do expect however that Poland will get more fighter jets; whether its going to be f16s, f35s, f15s, or eurofighters is anybodys guess. As for recruiting 300 thousand soldiers: this was always fake news, unfortunately straight from Polands (previous) government. It simply cannot happen in these demographics.
Its happening, a huge portion of planned expenses are already being carried out. Further purchases are planned.
The plan to increase the army size is gradual, over the course of 15 years. There's good likelihood it wont reach that, but that is the nominally permitted strength of the armed forces now according to the law nonetheless.
Could you do a video imagining a eu army? What equipment, tactics… It was an interesting video, but I find shameful that the poles didn’t bought French or Italian equipment, like rafales or Caesar howitzers. I think that buying a variety of foreign equipment (non eu) is weakening the ideal of an eu army.
you can flip it around and ask why did European arms manufactures didn't want to go on any concessions and were not able to offer even remotely comparable to one from a country on other other side of the globe
That's a fantastic idea. Will work on it.
The answer to that is long and complicated. But it's a very good question.
Poland produces KRAB howitzers which perform much better than P2000 or ceasar
Also it's worth mentioning here that years before the war Poland wanted to join the Leo group, and was turned down. It's not so much that Poland doesn't want to do business in Europe (we have made a number of deals [about 2 bln usd worth] for British AA weapons, and bough navy helicopters from Italy), as France and Germany don't seem to be willing to sell.
attack helicopters have been one of the biggest tank killers in Ukraine. They are definitely useful. What is not useful is Poland buying every helicopter design possible
The poles are really lucky that the elected Tusk, who has European kudos.
Tusk is fully subordinated to German leaders unfortunately. It was a big mistake of Poles to vote for him.
I don’t think you know a lot of his past, trying to be civil he is imbecile and liar!
I look back to history and see what difficulties existed between Britain and the commonwealth and the United States. NATO is made up of 32 nations. The good old USA may attempt to exert leadership, but the difficulties may be exacerbated. Poland may be constructing the Maginot line of the 21st century. We know what happened there in1940. Also, doesn't Nato bear some of the responsibility for the Russian return to military significance?
yep it bears - demilitarization convinces Russia that it's safe to attack and send threats to others
Since you have interesting takes on these kinds of issues, how about taking the opposite view (the Russian perspective on this matter) of increased militarization as provocation. We shouldn't always view the Russians being up to no good - they have a long history of invasion and lost 15 million people in WWII - in comparison, in WWII the US lost 500,000, the British 250,000 and the Germans 4,000,000. Of course the USSR (the Soviets) were not innocent players in WWII (by any stretch) but that's how they see it - a moral equivalence if you would. Georgia armed itself, Russia took it as provocation and Georgia was invaded. The other thing is that Russians, like the Chinese, play the long game, they'll grind out a win if necessary and the win is all that matters (and they're right, and they now have victory in their sights in Ukraine) - they don't see it the way we do in the West. I say this because too often analysts fail to get into the heads of the Russian hierarchy and if you've played chess competitively you know anticipating the next move is key.
Don't forget that the USSR started WW2 by aligning with Hitler and invading Poland. I see Russia as being full of resentment and having a centuries-long inferiority complex that sits poorly with their self identity as being superior to the West (I think it's an Orthodox Church vs Western Church thing, but I'm just speculating). It's also true that Russia has been ruled by one cruel authoritarian government after another. It's always been a horrible place.
@@michaelshurkin613 I think we’re better off with both sides, Russia and NATO/Ukraine finding a mutual off ramp in the war in Ukraine and somehow, someway finding a way to turn Russia into an ally - we could use their help. I think most Russians intuitively know there’s no future with BRICs as allies and that Includes India - China and India have Russia over a table at this time wrt Ukraine. We need allies to deal with a bigger problem in China. I’m certain China is enjoying the spectacle of Europeans at war with each other, weakening themselves, bankrupting themselves. In the 4th and 5th centuries the Roman Empire was too busy at war with itself (civil war) to take notice of a bigger problem forming to East of them. After they bankrupted themselves, German tribes eg Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths etc ran rampant throughout the empire with relatively few numbers I might add, but who were easily dealt with in the previous centuries, but the Romans were now helpless. The British bankrupted themselves in WWII. This situation today looks similar.
It means little because Poland is not a fully sovereign country unfortunately. Certain political decisions only make sense if you consider them as realising foreign political demands. Consecutive elections only change whether the orientation is more towards Washington or Berlin. For both we are only playing an instrumental role. Hence all the purchases are done outside of our military industrial complex and all attempts at changing this situation are met with happy little coincidences ending up with key local defence companies being ultimately sold or bankrupted.
If that's true, Poland is in good company. But better the Pax Americana than the Romanovs and their heirs.
@@michaelshurkin613 while it would be naive to disagree, being part of the american world also commes at a steep price. You have to observe your own culture, your values get completely substituted by something foreign and detached from your spiritual heritage.
In short - being part of Pax Americana means many more people will have a chance to drive much nicer cars while being under influence of much stronger antidepressants.
I think this is a philosphical question and therefore mostly not worth discussing. But you are quite wrong in your assessments, you view it from a simple prism of client and patron, but youre not quite aware of the complexities.
For example, regarding Polish industry, which by no means is being abandoned or bankrupted.
I hope Poland does not fall in to the trap flacid NATO is building for it and accepts some "peace talks" with Russia. I hope Poland will step out if necessary and wont allow for a new cold war.
Please play more military marching polka!
how exactly is czech music relevant here?
I knew he'd reveal his Trump Derangement Syndrome sooner or later.
I am worried about monopolisation - no pun intended - of military power in Europe, especially if Poland elects a far right government again. PiS embers openly called for annexing all lands to the Elbe river because of obscure history 1.000 years ago. We would get another and more severe crisis after putins russia, if polish leaders let their intrusive thoughts guide their actions.
No theoretical future threat is more severe than a real, current-day threat.
As much as I hate PiS, what you wrote is not true. Noone talked about reclaiming old lands, that is something everyone in this part of Europe is very sensitive about and we do not want to reopen this box. Not even the actual far right, which would be Konfederacja, does that. This is not a risk at all in my view.
nothing remotely close has been voiced even by biggest tinfoil nutheads
When was such statement made and who specifically made it?