Attention Required! | Cloudflare
notesfrompoland.com

The head of President Andrzej Duda’s National Security Bureau (BBN), Dariusz Łukowski, has warned that Poland only has enough ammunition to defend itself “for a week or two” if it was attacked by Russia

But his remarks have been criticised as “outrageous” by a deputy defence minister, who says they are not true and will be exploited by Poland’s enemies.

  • poVoq@slrpnk.netMEnglish
    91·
    6 days ago

    Poland was part of the Warsaw Pact during the cold war… the overall calculus that tactical nukes would be used against an overwhelming invading land army might not have changed, but Paris absolutely would nuke Moscow these days if Warsaw was attacked with strategic nukes. They have little other choice than that if their strategic deterrance is supposed to be worth anything.

    As for Tallin… given the geographic location of it, it is highly unlikely that Russia would nuke it.

    • misk@sopuli.xyzOPEnglish
      21·
      6 days ago

      I wish I shared your optimism but reality calls for a cold shower.

      • France/UK along most of the Western Europe was never at a real risk of war unless they started it on their own. They don’t have their skin in the game, they won’t risk anything big. People there want to live their lives undisturbed and will vote Le Pen / Farage if they are pulled into conflict.
      • Russia won’t nuke Tallin obviously because of proximity to St Petersburg, but what would be the response to a quick land grab? Words of concern probably, unless Nordics step up on their own because they’re next.
      • Nobody nukes anybody for a long time realistically because nobody is going to use nukes first and they’re not going to use nukes as a response to a conventional attack. It also looks embarrassing to nuclear powers, which is why Russia didn’t use nukes against Ukraine even though they considered it according to US intel.

      Anybody glassing Poland means things got really bad but ethics didn’t stop those plans in the 80s and I think existential threat would be enough to go back to the basics.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.netMEnglish
        51·
        6 days ago

        Well, you are kinda supporting my argument. This isn’t about optimism, but military neccessity. If things get that bad that Russia nukes Warsaw, Paris best response is to nuke Moscow regardless who is in power at that time (and with near certainty Russia would try nuking Warsaw and Paris the same time if it ever came to that).

        Of course conventional attacks are a different story, where I share your pessimism that western Europe might decide to do too little too late.

        • misk@sopuli.xyzOPEnglish
          21·
          6 days ago

          In those old plans nuclear powers rarely nuke each other. In case of „7 days to Rhine” Russia spared France and UK for an obvious reason - they expected them to not retaliate unless attacked directly. It would be logical to assume nuclear powers prefer to use their arsenal proactively and far away rather than at their doorstep and as a last resort. Direct retaliation means further escalation which is more risky.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        21·
        5 days ago

        You are aware that french nuclear doctrine famously includes the nuclear warning shot? As in, nuke something and tell them “keep coming closer to France and the next one hits your capital”.

        • misk@sopuli.xyzOPEnglish
          2·
          5 days ago

          Nuclear doctrine is whatever you decide to show your enemies with whatever intention you might hold. Declassified plans from Cold War show that Russians assumed as much.