Lecture at the Land Force Military Academy, Wrocław, Poland
Articles,  Blog

Lecture at the Land Force Military Academy, Wrocław, Poland

Ladies and Gentlemen, I welcome you to Doctor
Bartosiak’s lecture, entitled: The Past is a Prologue. This is the second visit of Doctor Bartosiak
to our university, this year. He visits us today to lecture on the war and the threats of our times in our nearest neighbourhood
and also in the broader world. The last lecture gathered a huge
audience from the Lower Silesia, and stirred great interest on the internet, almost 250,000 views on YouTube. It makes me think that this is something not
only interesting, but also very important. Debate on changes in the contemporary world
is crucial. The topic of the lecture has intrigued me. The past is something that has ended. On the
other hand, a prologue is something that just begins. Past and future are two indissoluble
elements of our world. I hope that the lecture will be very
interesting and stimulating, and will stir great interest among all of you. Let me ask Dr. Bartosiak to begin his speech, I hope that this evening spent with
Doctor Bartosiak will provide informed consideration of strategic issues . Jacek Bartosiak PhD, renowned expert on
geopolitics and geostrategy, the modern art of war and naval warfare, As a result of his countless speaking
and writing engagements he has become a recognisable
proponent of geopolitics in Poland. His lectures, books and the programmes have contributed to the popularisation
of geopolitics in Poland and abroad. In his portfolio, Doctor Bartosiak has held
the following positions: Director of the Wargaming & Simulations Program
at the Casimir Pulaski Foundation, Senior Fellow at the Washington D.C.-based The Potomac
Foundation, co-founder of PlayofBattle, a Wargaming
and Simulation Games studio. Recent statements of Doctor Bartosiak
bespeak of the development of a new,
project – Strategy&Future which is aimed to facilitate the development of
geopolitical thought in Poland and abroad. Doctor Bartosiak, please begin the lecture. Good afternoon, I hope that you can
hear me well. Thank you very much for such a warm welcome,
and for the invitation As well as for such a plentiful presence. At the beginning I must admit that I am
quite well warmed up not only because of the hot summer weather here
in Wroclaw, but primarily because it is my second lecture
today. A few hours ago I gave one for the staff of this Military Academy The lecture was exclusively for the military audience. So, I am warmed-up and I hope that this
will move us forward also with help of your questions at the end of my lecture
we will get deeper into the topic, Today, a few slides will be
shown. I promised some time ago that we would
go a little deeper, and slowly, step by step, we will go into
the details of the topic. Today I will talk about the Polish War Theatre
and about Europe. Of course, I will refer a bit to the Western
Pacific War Theatre, too because it all matters so much on the global
chessboard. The focus will be on military aspects. I will talk less about systemic geostrategy,
but since we are at MULF, I will focus on war, the military, the armed forces
and force projection. It is necessary to begin with the following
statement: the title of the lecture: The Past is
a Prologue, it is, of course, also the title of my latest
book, but this title, even if it seems not so obvious,
directly contributes to the actual topic
of the lecture, which is: the NATO’s Eastern Flank. Or rather, I on purpose tend to say: The Eastern Front. I insist that this is rather the Eastern Front, We have lived to the times when Europe
has become a theatre of new generation war. No matter if one would call it the new generation
warfare, or hybrid warfare, or even kinetic warfare This will be discussed in detail during our lecture. One should not look at Europe as
different pieces and scraps on the map, something here, something there,
the Dnieper river here, the Baltic States there.
This is instead one single theatre for operational planning. I will try to explain, why it is the case,
with slides and my arguments. Especially from our perspective, of the country which is the flank,
the spikehead, the frontier of NATO in the east The front runs from the very north,
from the Arctic, from the Norwegian Sea,
from GIUK, through the Baltic Sea, then through
the Baltic-Black Seas Belt of multiple nations up to the eastern Mediterranean Sea. The front is a place of daily tensions, show of force, contest for perception of strength, strategic signalling
and analysis of correlations of forces. It is also contest over situational awareness systems. I will try to talk about all of the details. There are now four strategically the most
important places in Europe: The first is the approach from GIUK to the Russian
Bastion in the Arctic Ocean all around Norway into the Russian harbours of the Northern Fleet, together with the ports and strategic
infrastructure of northern Norway. This is where the Russians would be happy to eliminate
NATO’s situational awareness system And, as a consequence, put at risk the freedom of communication routes across the Northern Atlantic. They are, however, much less powerful
than the Soviets. Their bastion assets in the Barents Sea are also less formidable
than they were in the Soviet times. The bastion in the Barents Sea Generally, the Northern Atlantic and GIUK are the places where Russians
are relatively weaker than elsewhere in Europe. That is why NATO forces
exercise in Norway, And why U.S. forces show up there frequently sometimes we hear on radio, TV and the internet what happens there. There is (secondly) the central front, which during the
Cold War was running along the intra-border between West and East Germany, and between West Germany and Czechoslovakia It was in general the pivotal point of an eventual
land war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries. After the extension of NATO eastwards deeper into the Old Continent and upon the
moment when the Russians and the Chinese began
to challenge the post-Cold War order, For reasons that were explained in detail during my previous lectures
on systemic geostrategy, Poland and the nations situated between the Black and Baltic Sea became the pivotal point of confrontation. The central front is all about us, here in Poland
Running through Northern European Plain and through the �Polish Strait� � the crucial piece of land corridor east-west on the main European axis of communication squeezed between the Baltic Sea and the high ridges of the Carpathians Mountains as visible in the map,
expands right on our eastern border fanning out eastwards towards the landmass of Eurasia to embrace 1200 km of the belt of nations situated to our east between Poland and Russia and between the Black and Baltic Seas. It space fans out eastwards towards the Baltic States, Belarus, Ukraine and
further into Russia. Which makes Poland a plug in the bathtub,
a pivotal point, a pin, a cork, Whatever you call it in geopolitical
jargon. There is no consolidation of the central NATO front without Poland’s territory. All across the whole eastern front Poland is a critical element, a centre of gravity controlling all communications to the east and confronting the east constituting an operational base in terms of the military art. (Thirdly) there is the southern front. It consists of Romania, the Black Sea Basin area and
the Turkish Straits, The whole Black Sea Basin area comprises Ukraine,
the Donbas, Crimea. All along with everything what the Russians
are doing as the most active actor in this region. It will be discussed extensively during
the lecture. There is also (fourthly) the eastern Mediterranean Sea. This is a new development, especially since autumn 2015 when the Russians began to project power into Syria, After they had seized the Crimea and began to increase
the capabilities of their Black Sea Fleet, they are more and more daring venturing into the
eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea.
The Russian submarines now operate
In the eastern Mediterranean Sea. They complicate NATO’s fleets actions and planning. There is a famed Kilo-class submarine incident, The Krasnodar Kilo class submarine penetrated the US Navy battle group defence perimeter. The ship was difficult
to detect. Kilo-class ships really are renowned
among NATO forces for stealth characteristics in the littoral waters. By the way, it is a vessel which we operate in our navy, too –
ORP Orzel a former Soviet Kilo-class sub. Russians have modernised their Kilo class subs, and some were equipped with cruise missiles. Those vessels are known to be stealthy and very
effective in littoral waters. Even against more formidable navies. Simultaneously, the Russian submarine fleet
in the Mediterranean Sea more and more intensively operate close to the routes of undersea cables laid on the seabed which provide internet and fibre-optic
communication for business, trade and military Those are cables that connect Europe
with the rest of the world. With the Indian Ocean, with Africa. It is quite disconcerting that the Russians are mapping
those cables, In case of war they would apparently tend to cut communication. They have demonstrated a capability to create
an anti-access/area denial bubble. Lately, when you read about what has been happening in Libya, it is visible that the Russians may support
a certain fraction to have a foothold in the country extending their A2AD zone further west. That raises concerns that the Russians
want to have significant influence in Libya, Putting at risk the Sicilian Strait between
Sicily and Libya connecting two parts of the sea. That development would cut the Mediterranean Sea in half along this narrow body of water and potentially close the eastern Mediterranean Sea to
the NATO fleets. This, in conjunction with the increasing Chinese
presence in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, might change the balance of power
in Europe in favour of continental powers emanating from Eurasia Look closely, I talked about it once
during my lecture, if the Russians challenge the status of the Baltic Sea as
an integral part of the World Ocean and as a free highway of strategic flows, it will mean that they could deny British and American power projection capability into
the Baltic Sea and if they could do the same in the Black Sea and
the eastern Mediterranean Sea, that would mean the continental powers are capable of blocking access to
key Eurasian locations for the dominant sea power thus altering the distribution of power and influence For example – in the area where Europe and Asia
connect Turkey, Ukraine, Caucasus, Levant, Middle East. It changes the balance of power in Eurasia
between sea and continental powers. And given that Russians operate relatively unimpressive forces, their designs are even more impressive as they clearly aim to achieve the above defined objective. In other words, there are four pivotal points which
are the theatre of new generation warfare competition in Europe. Why is it regarded as one single European theatre, after all? Because, even if we only think about the particular places of concern like Suwalki Corridor, the Smolensk Gate,
the Brzesc Gate, about which we have been
talking during lectures a lot, the Russians see this all jointly and at the scale. For them it is
a single European front countering their access to European peninsula and their say in the European matters. It is sort of the same for the US, by the way The US also sees it as a whole front in Europe, next to the Western Pacific and Persian Gulf contingencies. Not only the question of Poland, Turkey, Romania
and others When one takes a look at the
map, it is clear why Poland and Romania
are geographically important in this game of power and perception of power in Europe and Eurasia. Why are they important for the US? Because without Poland and Romania,
the US forces could not be present deeper
in the Old Continent as it is far from the Atlantic coast where the US sea power has its residual strength. Especially if US (i.e. US power projection and political leverage) were to be pushed back behind the Turkish Straits, the Sicilian
Strait and the Danish Straits. Without Polish and Romanian territories there is
no access for the Americans deeper into the Old
Continent and closer to the Eurasian landlocked landmass. Note that Romania
is in an even more precarious situation, behind the Balkans which are politically
unstable, where the Russians have huge influence,
where Chinese influence is growing. Romania is somewhat hidden behind Turkey, behind
the Turkish Straits while the politics of Turkey
is also increasingly unpredictable. This makes Poland the best access route to Romania. through western Ukraine or through Slovakia and across the Carpathians, Within the format of the well-known geopolitical concept of Intermarium. Having the potential to completely change
the position and geostrategic
importance of Poland and Romania and, of course, Ukraine. From the same perspective we can see
that when both those seas (Baltic and Black) – marginal seas of the Atlantic Ocean, are being contested and become a no-go zone, the only access to the landlocked Poland for the Americans
is through the land bridge of Germany. And the German decision on what to do
in case of crisis might be critical for the outcome of any showdown in the east. That’s why we care so much about permanent US military presence in the country, And why we want the US troops to be on the ground in Poland when and if the war breaks out. Preferably, in larger numbers, permanently and with sufficient logistics and resources in order to wage high intensity modern war And being capable of doing so – to deter in this way from any Russian
demonstration of military power and from political intimidation. I want to add two more things, as to be seen on this map. First: Europe and its shape gives US the strategic depth in the rimlands of Western Europe In other words: even if Americans lose
Central and Eastern Europe, they are still going to have Western Europe to put their foothold on. It makes them feel that they have more strategic time that translates into more strategic depth in Europe than in the Western Pacific. Additionally, taking into account that the broad Indo-Pacific theatre
is nowadays much more important for the US, it’s clear that their priority is not
here. I have talked repeatedly over years about that fact during
my lectures, we must come to terms with this and prepare a grand strategy addressing this reality. On top of that, in Europe we have to deal
with the land warfare environment. which in the context of anti-access/area denial systems means that the US forces will have to project power over long distances, and enter into and manoeuvre within spaces that will be highly contested by skilled and peer (or near peer) adversary. This is why on the one hand the Americans have
been developing the Air-Sea Battle Concept for
the Western Pacific throughout last years and on the other hand, for Europe they have
been developing the Multi-Domain Battle Concept, which is a concept of war in multiple
domains but earmarked for traditionally land warfare environment of Central and Eastern Europe. The A2AD (Anti-access/area denial) systems are challenging the access in air, land,
maritime, electromagnetic, space and cyber
domains. And each of those domains has become a separate battlefield. And access to each must be gained
in battle after overcoming adversary’s capabilities. In the newest domain – the electromagnetic domain,
the enemy’s situational awareness system must
be rolled over or dumbed in order to succeed in other domains. In the cyber domain, in the space domain, too. And then kinetic manoeuvre on land, use air assets or naval assets. In other words, in the past, battles
took place on land, at sea, later there was a new domain of air battles. Now we also have electromagnetic
spectrum demain, cyber domain and outer space domain. meaning that warfare is becoming
more and more complex and increasingly combined in one reconnaissance-strike system. Simultaneously, the development and
digitalisation of communication systems, long range kinetic effectors
and automatic data collecting systems relaying data to C2, i.e. Command & Control not only accelerates the ongoing Revolution
in Military Affairs (RMA) but also changes the battlefield inasmuch as when
in the past a king commanding armies n the field spotted through pickets of his scouts that enemy forces were behind a nearby hill then he had sufficient time to deploy reserves, Even if it lasted longer than today Whilst in the modern situational
awareness competition struggle the side that gains the information advantage
on the battlefield, and knows how to collect, process and use data
quickly and efficiently, then recommend sound solutions to C2, for
commanding and then performing a kinetic strike, will win. It is clear cut who is in advantage in modern informational and situational awareness,
is on the way to achieve battle dominance. This new development in warfare is driving a change as to what is the true
centre of gravity at the modern
a battlefield. Napoleon used to say that he looks for
the centre of gravity of his enemy, And then strikes decisively aiming at the destruction of
enemy’s centre of gravity. In his times it was the military manpower The centre of gravity as a concept on which Clausewitz
wrote abundantly. During WWII, the Blitzkrieg operational concept was about
searching for where the centre of gravity was Penetration battles and long raids cutting off rear line logistics and massive envelopments actions were the late World War II hallmarks. With more and more sophisticated use of tank units and tactical close air and artillery support. Massive envelopment operation with tank units focused on outflanking and causing
chaos in the rear were being sought with increasing sophistication. Simply put, at the time – machines against machine, matter against matter, destroying
the enemy, his equipment, in attrition, in a kinetic clash � that was the goal In the modern warfare the key will be to paralyse and
destroy the systems of control and command, data collecting
and orders� issuing. This is the nervous system of the modern force. Paralysing the system immediately means
that there is no decision-making and no effectors. Kinetic hits, if any, will strike a void, becoming meaningless. Who controls and is able to hit the critical nucleus of data collection and decision-making process, is going to win. Everything that I’m saying and what I want
to say in this introduction, is being recently conceptualised in the Russian
modern art of war, We will get back to that shortly. Gerasimov, the Commander of
the Russian General Staff, has also talked about it
a lot. Russians, especially during the Syrian
operation and since the Georgian August
War of 2008 in general. Notably during the Syrian operation,
They have been practising the new way of war. the Syrian operations are being treated by the Russians as a training field, through
which more and more units and commanders have
to go and in the process gain combat experience, Full echelons of commands, units, HQs and staffs
of the Russian Armed Forces, 80% of the commanding staff have allegedly
rotated through Syria. Actually, allegedly all the regional commanders
have openly rotated through Syrian deployment. That is in stark contrast to the Donbass operation in Ukraine where Russians
performed maskirovka, that is basically lying that they
weren’t deployed there. They don’t write a lot about Donbass, they don’t debate
publicly on what happened there. We can only learn from how they reorganize
their forces after the Donbass campaign. Or from how their system of commanding
and reform focus is evolving, One can say that they focus on tank warfare, Tank engagements apparently is again of great importance
and on their western perimeter facing Ukraine and NATO the Russians
restore division structures. Let me get back to that in a moment As far as Syria is concerned, the Russians
decided to establish and implement the
long awaited reconnaissance-strike system. Something resembling what legendary Soviet Marshal Ogarkov had named
the reconnaissance-strike system. Andy Marshall, the also legendary director of the Pentagon based Office of Net Assessment, named
this step in the warfare development – the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). For over a decade the debate has been held
whether the Revolution in Military Affairs is really happening, or not. The Americans have applied some elements of the RMA in their expeditionary forces posture and warfighting in Eurasia. The Revolution in Military Affairs is based
on what I have talked about – on the information
advantage and smooth and swift decision-making loop. with the help of automatic data collection systems,
C2 makes a decision, then kinetic effectors do the rest of the job. The time of making a decision is substantially shorter. Historically armies had messengers, spies,
written orders and reports, and before this ineffective structure
was making any decision or manoeuvre,
different things could happen. On the modern networked battlefield where everything might be seen in real or almost real time,
and where one might have the information advantage over another, who strikes quicker is the one who kills. there is flexibility, there are
innovations in the military art. Everything I’ve said is just the introduction to
what I would actually like to say. While recently developing the Multi Domain Battle Concept the Americans have had to come to terms with the fact that, as I said, they come across the formidable challenge in the Western Pacific. Moreover, the communication lines in Europe
are far away from the operational base
of the US Navy in the Atlantic Ocean. The Baltic and Black seas may be cut off from the open Atlantic Ocean. In other words, the burden of land war on
the Eastern Front would largely rest on the shoulders of the Polish Armed Forces. Geography determines that reality. No matter how we label this stark assessment officially,
this is the truth. According to that, we must develop our strategy
As to how we want to use armed forces, and develop
operational concepts, our own operational concepts of how to achieve objectives in case of war, whatever they might be. The war can be waged for example with allies or alone. We have to think about it. The security environment is changing in a very fast way, new circumstances
are popping out. Our armed forces must prepare for that. After a dozen years of expeditionary warfare comprising of
convoying or searching for single groups
of terrorists. The commanding habits are concentrating on single
tactical encounters and engagements. This is how it actually has been when all the
senior officers at HQ staring at looking
at what was happening in a single clash, or how two men are planting mines or IEDs. Things will be different now, a squad of soldiers might not be able to call F-16 strikes anymore like it was during the asymmetric wars in the Greater Middle East,
because the advantage was so huge that F-16s were used
against any enemy. A lot can be said about it. In other words, we will be the spikehead.
Not only will our allies demand that we have to face the challenge,
and be prepared for it, but the space of the Eastern Front will
demand it from us. Poland is located on a strategic corridor of strategic flows and to the East it fans out into Belarus, Ukraine
and the Baltic States. Danger may come from any of those directions from East
should Russia subordinate those areas and make them its power projection bases. The Baltic Sea will be closed in any showdown due to Russian A2AD. There is Romania in the south. And along this huge axis we have the communality of interest In order to run independent policy or enforce our political will. We will need to think in terms of the broader area as this will be the place where threats emanate from, Not only closing our perspective within the Polish
political borders. Each of those eastern directions is different. One can say a lot about the Baltic States,
what does this operational direction look like? About Belarus, Ukraine, Romania, I will
try to talk about them briefly. This whole Eastern Front that is responsibly within our strategic interest constitutes the vast 1200 km long
territory of former Poland�s land empire over which many wars with Russia were being fought. These are: the Baltic States, Belarus, Ukraine and areas in the vicinity of the Danube river including Wallachia and Bessarabia We have to secure this perimeter from Russian domination, and secure the situational awareness � so that we know what is militarily happening there anytime. Everything that goes on in the above mentioned area between
the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea has a great importance for the security of Poland. This is the direct security interest area of Poland. Every change of relations in this area
directly affects our interests. In response to those changes we have to create an action plan,
not only a political but also a military plan. More precisely, what
the armed forces should do going forward into the future in the increasingly fragile international system. What does it mean, practically? It means that in peacetime, no kinetic exchange is taking place because of the balance of power. But as the Russian Commander in Chief Gerasimov argues – under the new generation warfare (hybrid warfare) stage The interstate conflict is already on. Meaning that across this vast 1200 km long area, a
constant show of force and capabilities is now taking place in multiple and diverse forms. Reflective control, propaganda, cyber domain, social media disinformation, information contamination, foreign influence, military demonstrations, armaments, troop deployments, exercises, or military posturing, Overflights and air interceptions, mock raids and bombardments, harassment of ships etc. Everything that takes place is to impose the will and shape perceptions. The confrontation is increasing. Anyway, this isn’t something new.
Before the WWII it was actually the same. The good example is the Soviet hybrid operation in the 20s of the XX century in the Polish town of Sto�pce, resembling actions of little green man of the contemporary times, which is why we formed the Border Protection Corps. In principle, the concept of the Baltic-Black Seas Belt, is nothing new. The last 25-30 years of world peace and American supremacy got us used to the idea that this state of non-confrontational relations is natural, but it is not. Belarus future is uncertain, the Donbas is like it is, Crimea is occupied. The Black Sea is becoming the Russian lake, the Russians are in Syria They set up an anti-access/area denial bubble in the Black Sea, Crimea and in part in the East Mediterranean Sea and to be honest they have halted
the Georgian westward political march. Step by step they are rebuilding their influence in pivotal places within the Baltic-Black Seas Belt Everything we do. Not only in politics But, for example, what equipment Poland buys, what capabilities Poland acquires, what strategic decision Poland makes, on the Nordstream, or on the Baltic Pipe, or on the Solidarity Transport Hub, or on other matters connected to strategic flows, infrastructure, supply chain, the Belt and Road Initiative and all the other things that matter strategically. It is the military sphere that interests Russians the most. Everything that the Polish military does. How we train and exercise, what kind of lectures
are given in MULF, what kind of officers we have, how we educate them. But for the most part how adjust to the new strategic reality. How we exercise speed of reaction,
where we exercise it, is it east of the Vistula river or is it to the
west of it, or is it in the Baltic States? How we do it. Is it with allies or on our own? All these factors are the evidence
of strategic intentions and capabilities. And this is because, if you have followed the actions of the Polish forces in the last two months you might have noticed that We deployed during exercise the costal anti-ship systems onto Saaremaa island in Estonia. And this in case of war would efficiently block the movement of Russian vessels from the Gulf of Finland, and would preclude from preventive capture of
the Saaremaa island by the Russians SOFs or marine infantry that deploys from the ship at sea We effectively deployed our own anti-access/area denial systems. It was a classic capabilities and intention demonstration in strategic communications with Russians. If wisely applied in diverse ways, in various places, It could impose costs, and thus help to avoid war with Poland, or make Russians think: Poles are conducting military exercises
and they know what they are doing in terms of capabilities and seeing Russian planning and thinking through or strategic signalling like the one involving deployment onto Saaremaaa make Russians invest in expensive
armament programs or wasteful exercises or expensively reorient their posture planning In other words in times of peace what is going on,
how the armed forces are conducting
exercises may help prevent miscalculation, strategic blunders lowering thus the
the risk of war You do it to show what we are capable of doing,
or that we know what we are doing in terms of military professionalism. Another example is what was happening a few months ago, and how the Polish forces were exercising east of the Vistula river. conducting long marches and rapid deployment movements outside the traditional training fields using civilian roads and visiting places they never went before, getting familiar with the terrain near Miedzyrzecz, Siedlce, Lublin, the eastern Polish frontier There are way more places to do so. In general, not only close to the Eastern frontier
but also elsewhere Where strategical signalling of our capabilities
is immediately analysed by Russians. Complicating Russian planning. And this is happening now as we speak. Furthermore, strategical signalling
also concerns our allies. It is not only used against adversary. It shows as well the independent thinking and independent capabilities shaping the perception of strength and resolve and shaping the way you could influence regional events. It is the test for qualifying as a middle power � to be able to stand up to the major power and have a say to reckon with. Small powers have no say. This is the primary reason for developing own operational concepts and developing capabilities. For example, showing our capabilities persuades our allies that we can influence events on the ground, and we have
to be taken into account in all schemes, grand or small. and they must plan things of our strategic interest together with us. That’s why we should pursue strategical signalisation capabilities, which primarily and foremost involves fielding our own system
of situational awareness that will allow to wage a modern scouting battle. It is especially necessary
now in times of transition when the international order is shaky Strategic signalling influencing the political weight is the best example why the armed forces
are badly needed if you want to be perceived as the middle power. Without them certain objectives are simply out of reach. Moving forward, this very map shows you pivotal countries of Poland and Romania between Eurasian landmass and maritime Western Europe In terms of the great power competition and systemic geostrategy. And from the perspective of potential Chinese presence in the future. In a few years
and this isn’t abstraction, it might be coming. Maps show the importance of the Danube river system in Romania and the Northern European Plain where Poland is situated. The Chinese navy vessels have already paid visit in the Baltic Sea. Chinese oceanographic vessels are operating in the Atlantic Ocean. Examining and mapping the seabed. It translates into strategic reality that any time soon there will be
Chinese submarines and surface vessels permanently operating and probably based somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. In fact, there already have been some submarine Chinese
patrols in the Atlantic Ocean. If they are in the Atlantic, they will also be in the western Mediterranean Sea more frequently. And who knows, maybe in the future they will operate from ports
in Syria or Turkey, Who knows, in Trabzon, or maybe (elsewhere) on the Black Sea coast, or in Piraeus, Greece or somewhere in Italy. We�ll see. I often mention the example
that no one in the 70s of the XX century would have thought that the US Army units would
be stationed in Orzysz in northern Poland. And for sure in the 19th century
no one would have thought that the US forces would be present in Europe,
and particularly in Poland. Everything flows, nothing endures forever and almost
everything is possible in this regard. In addition, the US is to struggle with:
formidable challenges in the Pacific Ocean, and the Persian Gulf,
while suffering from the lack of resources, funding and assets being globally stretched. They also have to project power
to those places across the vast oceans. They have problems with reaction
Time that has a bearing on reassuring and supporting allies as well as keeping pivotal corridors of strategic flows under control see the Persian Gulf That creates problems with political leverage in those pivotal places. This brings us to the much-debated problem of NATO
cohesion, you can see what France thinks about it and what Portugal and
the Germans think about the Russian problem. And in general there is a
problem with cohesion and identity of interest. Therefore, from the Polish point of
view there is an obvious need to consult and prepare
our operational concepts. In our regions along the north-south axis in
the context of whole Eastern front and other pivotal places in Europe and allies (not only within NATO) helping each
other on those fronts For example, some arrangements might be helpful with the Swedes on joint operations- let’s say, on the Gotland island or with Estonians on the Saaremaa island Maybe we should send assets there
before the war begins, so the Russians won’t capture islands. Or with the Danes about Bornholm in order to secure communication lines to the Atlantic. What about the Romanians? what about the Danube Delta? maybe they can’t
manage to do it themselves. Maybe we will provide help. Those are strategic questions to ask I mentioned the burdens and
liabilities the US is facing globally. This is the world map. This is what Eurasian map looks like. As we speak today in June 2019,
The US-China trade war is ongoing, and also the mainstream media picked up on mentioning possibility of escalating this rift into the hot kinetic war. So apart from the Western Pacific US has to handle the Persian Gulf and
Central/Eastern Europe For the US, the most important thing will
always be the World Ocean and the Indo-Pacific theatre in the current
configuration of economic world order where its centre of gravity is shifting to East Asia. Therefore, the Persian Gulf and
Baltic-Black Seas Belt will be secondary. And this gives us the answer as to why there is only a rotational presence,
not a permanent and robust one. In addition, a potential war
in the Western Pacific, apart from the fact that it will be against
powerful China, not against rebels in third world countries. It will be completely different, and against different capabilities and platforms, almost like ice and fire. Long range strike, long-range aviation
and naval warfare, the navy. Possibly the presence of marines and SOFs
within the first island chain. As well as the asymmetrical impact on
the Chinese fleet in the narrow passages of the first island chain. Europe on the other hand would be about land warfare, heavy focus of land units, short ranges, tactical aviation, Multi Domain Battle Short range is obvious. Europe is tiny compared to the
tyranny of distance in the Western Pacific Ocean. The US must have therefore over there a largely different set of capabilities. This drives the wedge between Poland and the US splitting the identity of risk in terms of security
guarantees. Geography is at guilt here, nothing else. It has made us fearful of the US pivot
to the Pacific and we have been afraid of it since
it was announced a few years ago. This situation is causing the uneasy tension and that will increase when US is to face problems dealing with all those issues in the Western Pacific.
And I think that US does have a strategic problem. To solve it US might be inclined to require assistance from their allies to project allied power into the Indo-Pacific. Now I will talk about it in historical context.
How all of this is variable in time. ”War Plan Orange and the AirSea Battle Concept” were both the concepts of how to defeat a rising power in the Pacific and further ensure US seapower supremacy in the Western Pacific Both concepts concerned similar aspects. War Plan Orange was a war plan
vs. Japan which was exercised and conceptualised in the US Naval War
College in the interwar period. The US-China AirSea Battle Concept
was elaborated when President Obama was in the White House. It has been about winning the war by the US In the Western Pacific. Far away from
US ports and harbours. Far away from Hawaii. War Plan Orange with small amendments won WWII for the US.
Almost everything had been predicted in prewar exercises. Except the kamikaze,
this is at least what victorious admiral Nimitz famously said after the war. War Plan Orange proposed the sea blockade in order to
cut off the communication line between Japan,
Asian mainland and South Pacific. Cutting them in that way off from Australia,
Mainland Southeast Asia. And sending the Japanese back to the medieval times without industry and raw materials It is little known that
War Plan Orange had two versions. It is very important, and this is
why I want to mention it. Because the War Plan Orange was created in
the 1920s, when there was no well elaborated concept of using the
aircraft carriers during conflict. It had been assumed that the Philippines,
which at the time was a US forward base and had US troops stationed there,
would be defended and defendable At that time despite Japan having a surprise
advantage over the US Navy, the US estimated that they would take control
over the maritime communication routes between Hawaii and the Philippines and that even the initial loss
of the Philippines wouldn’t be the option. The amended version of War Plan Orange
changed this calculation and posited that the Philippines should be left undefended or if defended that this wouldn’t or should not last long. In other words, the USA adjusted the war concept
to negatively changing conditions of the balance of naval power in the Western Pacific. Giving away supremacy
in the Western Pacific in the first phase of war. And being
completely aware of the fact. In the case of the XXI century AirSea Battle concept vs China,
The problem is whether US will protect Taiwan. Everything so far seems to indicate that Taiwan
will be undefendable during the war. The war game that was conducted two months ago
in Quantico by USMC proves that Taiwan initially is undefendable by the way Poland was also the
subject of this wargame And the USA gave up intentionally Taiwan, assuming that there would only be guerrilla clashes
in the eastern mountainous terrain of Taiwan. But in general, the US forces withdrew. The time had run out after one week for players so no final conclusion is to be drawn with respect to Taiwan but the island was not regained within the time of the wargame. The war itself turned out to be bloody, in particular
in Poland. 40,000 Polish casualties in the first week of the war. The vastness of the Pacific Ocean combined with technology changes and small numbers of US Navy ships led to US inventing new naval tactics and operational concepts.
Like a ‘Dispersed Lethality’. It means that they don’t
operate with a large force, which could be easily found and destroyed from range by China. Instead they will operate in dispersion. The US
doesn’t operate a large fleet anymore and in this case they will forced be to use effectors. It is kinetic
assaults from dispersed units using the modern technology. We will see what this brings, as well in contrast
to Western Europe US does not have the strategic depth in the Western Pacific, To keep allies alive and in alliance Americans are forced to defend key allies in the first island
Chain from Day 1. Otherwise allies my flip. Most of them are economically dependent on China.
Completely different from the case of Poland vs. Russia. And the allies don’t want wars. They want peace.
They want to develop and prosperity. This is what Singapore Prime Minister Lee
Hsien Long let everybody know in his last speech at Shangri-La in May 2019. If the US tries to contain the development of China
then US allies will be also suffering due to the global supply chain complexity. And more and more that contest reminds
us of the struggle over strategic flows and supply chains. It means-who can control flows of goods, capital, technology is bestowed with power. Increasingly both sides US and China
strive for more and more escalating instruments
of power and influence. This is what I mentioned.
Look at the tyranny of distance in the Pacific. Look at the crucial capabilities, at the
role of Australia, at the challenges that the US has to increasingly face.
Look how different it is from European problems When we talk to the US we have to ask those questions � how they want to handle those formidable strategic challenges all this in order to avoid deluding ourselves. I have mentioned Australia a few times. With US forces battling a long distance, and forced to run a long-range war from their
ships US traditionally needs sanctuaries in Eurasia and its littorals to project power. It was Great Britain before D-Day,
or Australia in the Pacific War during II World War. We can remember Guadalcanal,
South Pacific islands campaign, in general, every US action
between 1942 and 1943 and after II World War onwards. They have needed the sanctuary where they could
regroup, rest, consolidate, rearm Where their harbours and bases are out
of the range of their adversary. In the Western Pacific this task will be daunting
because the Chinese are extending their area of influence, and Australia is on
the perimeter edge. That’s why this country is becoming pivotal for US strategy. Pivotal in the Chinese game of Go – who will achieve
a geostrategic advantage in the region filling the void occupying the slots on the gameboard and cornering or outflanking decisively the adversary longer term. Given that Australia and
New Zealand are dependent on a dominant sea power for communication for trade and other strategic flows, Australia is somewhat balancing between
China and the US. Australia is economically dependent on China but at the same time
it needs the US to stay secure and have access to maritime strategic flows i.e. the communication maritime line between California, Hawaii
and Australia or to the Persian Gulf and Europe If the Chinese cut it off,
it would give Australia a major headache. They could even just threaten to be able to cut it off in strategic signalling through a system
of military basing across the region. So, I want you to keep an eye on the Chinese negotiating
with countries in the South Pacific and around Indonesian Straits. How their relations with Fiji, Samoa, Papua and others will develop, where their ships sail and moor at harbours, what is their policy regarding the Straits of Indonesia? What do the Australians and the New Zealanders
would say about that? And then we come to understand why the lifeline of maritime communication was
so essential in WWII through the Guadalcanal. From the Polish point of view,
Debate about the Western Pacific is equally important the tyranny of distance is imposing strategic burdens that tax also US posture in Central and Eastern Europe first of all, operational ranges are completely different. American aircraft carriers
aren’t capable to conduct effective strikes on mainland China without being shot at by the Chinese
A2AD systems. Which means that aircraft carriers are likely to be withdrawn prior to open hostilities to save them from destruction at the beginning. The American combat fleet will probably be divided between a manoeuvring/strike
force and smaller detachments of deterrence force whose task will be to take first blows in war in the littorals of Eurasia and try to survive, maintaining situational awareness in
the first and second chains of the Western Pacific, And keep surviving reassuring allies and providing battle awareness until the manoeuvring strike force comes out of the line of horizon with substantial punch � if that were to be a political and military decision They would come from behind at least the Hawaii with
aircraft carriers operating probably in couples. You can already see this being exercised. US aircraft carriers are operating
in couples during exercises. When you operate in couple you field better operational capabilities. Two carriers mean that you can land
and send your planes into the air quicker 24/7. With one aircraft carrier
it’s impossible. Rest and logistical measures are needed. You need to shift the crews,
systems, fuel, etc. This means more aircraft in the air and better timing and strike grouping
They can supplement each other better and take off faster and group in the air quicker saving fuel for better range characteristics of strike force It means that two aircraft carriers together
give much more strike capability than working separately. The US has not practised these tactics since long due to the lack of peer adversary. Now they are practising twin carrier actions in case of war with China. To address the problem of range US is developing unmanned aircraft platforms that will be able to take off from the carriers� decks, unmanned strike aircraft
and unmanned tankers – to be precise. It just seems the above developments are irrelevant
from the Polish war theatre point of view since in Europe the theatre is land-centric and of short range. But The Western Pacific bears on the US posture and future assets heavily In other words,
We must develop the grand strategy for the new times As everything that the US brings to the table must be analysed from the angle of Poland�s strategic interests That is the case for example with our indigenous situational awareness system Coming back to the Western Pacific � as this is the issue of US priorities The Chinese are operating
in their own backyard in the littorals of the Western Pacific that gives them an assymetrical advantage in providing situational awareness that is critical in modern warfare that we discussed here at length. . It would be practical to
make a simple exercise. This has been told to me by US
Navy commanding officers who visited Taiwan. And they knew
some Chinese from Taiwan who used to do business in China and they had WeChat communicator. The fishing fleet in the South China
Sea allegedly has balloons with hanging sensors which map all the area when transit,
and these are potentially tens of thousands of fishing boats each with sensors. It’s impossible to turn off this system of such �dispersed situational awareness� collection And allegedly you can observe through apps
on Chinese phones what is going on in South China Sea, In details – reefs, water, isles, maritime traffic, etc. All the situational awareness collection and processing domains are important.
Satellites, unmanned aircraft, crowds of people,
who map and collect and process data in real time. Their presence has a huge importance
and it creates a great issue as well. There is one more thing I haven’t mentioned.
And I want to say it now. The US is beginning to wonder what to do to prove it controls the world�s strategic flows. And if this wondering intensifies, the result will affect Poland. If the US decides to impose a sea blockade against China,
it would be a rather a distant blockade as opposed to the port blockades. The US would not directly block the Chinese
great rivers estuaries and ports, but they would instead execute the blockade along narrow passages and gaps of the
First and Second Island Chains and at the Malacca Strait The First Island Chain is so
densely spotted with isles that the widest passage on the South
China Sea is reportedly (just) 160 miles wide. This means that if those islands are
manned by SOFs or Marines with anti-ship missile systems and long-range artillery, they can
successfully engage the Chinese fleet which could be transiting through those chokepoints
further from the Asian mainland creating A2AD bubbles on their own SOFs will be needed, too there, manning surveillance and reconnaissance systems, awareness
systems, long range artillery direction fires. Because the US doesn’t have
many of those assets they could expect help
from European allies, soon, I guess We definitely must arrange a lecture
On what a war with China would look like, and we will since it deserves independent focus and more time. Let�s get back to Poland. This is a map
which I made during multiple simulations. It shows the nature of this confrontation and the challenge we face. The sheer geography and proximity to Russia makes it easy for Russians to roll down security system in Europe and undermine
NATO’s response. By exploiting diverse interests among allies resulting from geography. Poland is the pivotal country here. Our decisions as to how we deal with the crisis is very consequential. This is why I always say
that we are important for the US and its position in Europe and Eurasia. And that confirmation is not just egocentric.
That’s the way it is. Geography does not argue, it simply exists. And it stems from geography, Poland spans all Eastern theatre in terms of communication as a main operational base in the event of war A simple exercise indicates it.
If Russia seizes Latvia and Russian anti-access/area denial systems
block the passage through the Danish Straits and maritime communication across the Baltic Sea to the Baltic states, Then the US won’t be able to provide military assistance to the besieged Baltic States without access through Polish territory This itself changes everything in strategic calculation in Warsaw, Moscow and should influence thinking in Washington and Baltic states� capitals. This is Europe from the Polish strategic perspective. First of all, official state borders
don’t reflect strategic barriers and main axis of advance in case of the major war They do not reflect fronts, theatres of war and in general
strategic barriers. This takes us to the problem of Suwa�ki
Gap/Corridor and this is why Ukraine and Belarus are more important
to Poland than the Baltic States. Poland is located between
naval powers and land powers where the sea-oriented Europe is ceding to the flat landmasses of Eurasia. When the Germans had decided to pursue the continental orientation,
for instance during the Second World War Poland then found itself between two land
powers, which got along well at that time and were trying to undermine the order that had helped regain and consolidate Poland�s independence With both of them stronger than Poland, Poland�s fate when the international order was broken – was doomed. In that case the shape and volume and direction of strategic flows
which are always the essence of geopolitics and geostrategy,
were likely to be dictated by those two much stronger continental powers. Troops deployment on roads and on railway in occupied
Poland, both German and Soviet communication epitomised in popular memory by chains of train echelons all were moving parallel west-east and east west without Poland�s say. It was so during the war, but also after 1945when we lost control over what Soviets were doing to our territory in the communist Poland. It wasn’t Poles who were masters of our part
of the North European Plain, for sure. However, this part of land is so
valuable for the balance of power in Europe that for sure there will always be someone who will want to take control
of it for their own strategic flows and denying others use of it. For movement of troops along this main European axis connecting major powers, including transport of raw materials, trade and other flows. And provide for foundations and underpin development, growth, wealth and determine the distribution of power That’s exactly why Poland has always looked for an offshore
balancer, i.e. an external major power that would be balancing the power of our stronger neighbours, preferably with unhindered access to Poland, for example through the seaport in Gdynia, and the Danish Straits, up to World Ocean up to US or Great Britain. In 1939, we chose the allies, who were, roughly speaking,
defenders of the status quo established at the Versailles, Including Great Britain � the world’s dominant sea power of the time. Betting on the dominant sea power to win the war and securing Poland�s place in the victors� camp According to the statistics Western powers couldn’t have lost to Germany and Japan (and Italy). And they didn’t. But Poland did, because the geography imposed the disparity of risk on those who were fighting in this dreadful war. And this is the tragedy of Poland’s geography. Therefore, nowadays the German policy is so important for us in case of the war in the east. However, the situation is way
easier to handle for Poland than it was back in 1939. Due to the fact that Germany
isn’t a significant military power and is bound by EU constraints and its own interest within EU plus there is US power in Europe mitigating Germany. Germans were defeated by the US in the last world war,
they are in the EU and that constrains somewhat their capability to impose the will on others that would be far easier able to do if only pursuing national interest without the EU . Compared to 1939 situation, US troops are deployed to Europe and directly to Poland. But at the same time we need to realize that the contest for domination in Eurasia has begun. Russia and China combined in fact constitute a large part of the supercontinent while United States is behind the Atlantic Ocean. Poland is located at the very fringes of US power projections capabilities with access for US only overland through Germany. We are not sure what Germans will eventually do in case of the Russian contingency in the east. This slide shows what I
have been often repeating: the rise of China and development of Belt & Road. A few years ago it was
considered futile, when the concept of Belt
and Road was announced Now we see it is clear it had been all for the anticipated fear of imposing friction on strategic flows and the need to create new supply chains, The transition period has already set in and frictions on strategic flows – sanctions,
trade wars, threats of maritime blockade will be increasingly applied. This is why the Chinese were trying
to develop Eurasian Belt and Road, so that they would become more immune to maritime blockade.
And thus to make sure that the rise of China becomes unstoppable. And now what is going to happen if US decides to impose the sea blockade,
when Eurasian inner landmass is on the rise? Poland will be affected, again this cursed geography will make this happen. There are as well key questions,
which need responses. Those questions refer to the future of NATO and Polish
choices connected with allied defence plans. With whom and how should we do it,
and with whom should we exercise. Will NATO withstand structural change in distribution of power and conflict of interest among the members so as to remain an alliance of Western countries based on common values and confident in its power and message. Or NATO will evolve under pressure of the
USA and become a new Delian League with full US supremacy fulfilling the interests of
American supremacy and confronting China? Or maybe it will become a coalition
of the selected willing amongst which some
691 have military capabilities and others don’t. In the near future the decisions about those things will be made. It also pertains to the answer to the question – what will happen
at the Eastern European flank in case of war. Who will take part in that war.
Will it be the whole of NATO? Or only Poland or only some members? And what about the Baltic States? Or the US?
Maybe the UK? Or will Portugal take part in the war? More, shall we decide to defend
the status quo of the security system like we did in 1939, Then we would be defending the system that
objectively brought us growth and security after 1989. However, this time the challengers of
the international system are great powers of Russia and China. The last war was a catastrophe for Poland,
because we were on the wrong side of Europe in terms of geography, our allies weren’t strong enough to
impose their will in CEE on Stalin who won the land war in Europe. And we found ourself on the wrong side
of Europe. Yalta shows that location changes the distribution of
risk in time and energy disposition between allies. Coming back to current times – the US could pressure European allies. to provide help to US in the Indo-Pacific theatre At the moment the US is actually already pressuring other countries that possess navies
to give support in the US global commitments. From the strategic point of view of Polish
decision-makers in Warsaw, Eastern Front in Europe is one single battlefield with the pivotal points in Poland and Romania. With Russian A2AD contested areas in the Baltic
Sea, the Black Sea, plus hindered access through the Balkans, Turkey
and East Mediterranean. I want to show you that there is barely any access to
Romania in case of war. Either from Turkey, or Balkans,
from Diego Garcia. From the military bases in Italy, from Sicily.
From Bulgaria. And now pay attention.
This will be a little bit about the Russians. In August 2008, the Russians despite winning
the war with Georgia, received a lesson because they were operating its military poorly. Determination and old Soviet
equipment defeated the more modern, but badly-led western
style army. That is the Georgia’s army. It’s true that Russian bravery and
numbers broke the Georgians. However, this was a very painful
lesson because they had been doing poorly. Moreover, the US gave Russians a
demonstration of its naval strength in the Black Sea. US ships sailed and showed
capability to strike the second Russian capital.
This is Sochi. Where president Putin frequently enjoys staying
and ruling from there. Russians wouldn’t be able in such case to
counteract. The Black Sea Fleet, due to its location of Ukraine and
the general decline of Russia was utterly weak. The Russian fleet did not have
the capability to conduct full naval operations. No operational plans. Weak. Furthermore, the Russian fleet did not have
landing crafts. If the Russian navy had had landing crafts like Mistral-class French made ships, this would have largely changed the capabilities in the Black Sea. They would have overcome
Georgians much faster. Because they would have brought to bear
the Black Sea coast landing capabilities. They would have deployed quickly
Russian troops from the Crimea.
But they could not in adequate numbers. They learned that lesson. First, for the most part, no matter the costs they resolved to rebuild the capability of the Black Sea Fleet. And this fleet was funded handsomely since the annexation of Crimea. To this fleet the Russians send their latest and just commissioned
vessels. As a matter of fact, there are already allegedly 6 Kilo-class submarines operating in the Black Sea. As
a result, two of them are at battle stations at any given time. There, they put to sea their latest
ships, there they put to sea minelayers and minesweepers,
electronic warfare ships. Further in the Crimea itself they have
set up a robust anti-access/area denial zone with Bastion system coastal missiles,
and Bal system, S300, S400 air defence systems. They even have expanded the old bases
in Sevastopol and Feodosiya. Analysts even speculate that the Russians
have brought back nuclear weapons to the Crimea. Moreover, the Russian Spetsnaz drills new
tactics in the territorial waters of Ukraine. There is also a looming dispute over
offshore drilling with Ukraine. Furthermore, the Azov Sea
was ostensibly blocked by Russians from free strategic flows. Russia clearly indicated in the famous incident that the Azov Sea is no
longer accessible for Ukrainian vessels without Russian permission. Now, it is under Russian jurisdiction.
Remember [Kerch Strait] incident last year. In addition, in 2015,
Russians began operations in Syria. Once we draw conclusions
from Russian operations in Syria. we are able to admit that
their primary goal was to create an anti-access/area denial bubble in the
East Mediterranean Sea against NATO and US assets Through expanding the
airbase in Latakia as well as the naval base in Tartus.
And permanent military presence in East Mediterranean Sea. To conclude. The fight with rebels in Syria
was just a secondary goal. However, it let them
drill new capabilities and procedures With forces operating in new situational awareness systems
and reconnaissance-strike systems. Russians established communication lines
between bases in Novorossiysk and Tartus. They relocated aircraft,
extended their basing. The fact to be underlined is that they kept basing in the western part of Syria,
on the coast, behind the mountains,
without additional airbases being built in the vicinity of ground war action with the rebels that was taking place rather in the east of the war-torn country. This meant that the tactical bombers
and multi-role combat aircraft like Su-24 were operating from the coastal airbase at the
limits of tactical range. Furthermore, Russians didn’t deploy aerial refuelling to Syria. Only helicopters had additional stopover-helipads, closer to action,
for SOFs and Spetsnaz troops. But in general, Russians cared more about
showing that they can create an anti-access/area denial bubble, for that reason
placing their air defence on S-300 and later S-400 systems. It must be noted that Russian were quickly learning and adapting. They knew
about the impeded range of their air defence systems due to the mountain ridge so they relocated it higher into the mountains separating
the base in Lataki from the rest of Syria. During their presence in Syria they were
staying in contact with the Israelis and with the Americans exchanging de-conflict info about aircraft and other assets in order to avoid surprise encounters and miscalculations.
We might say Russians now grew more familiar with modern warfare. The Spetznatz units also learned a few lessons. The majority of commanders,
officers from the Military Academy of General Staff, and engineers gained experience there. The Russians trained such
things as the rapid deployment of engineering units and building a pontoon bridge crossing over the Euphrates. in order to outflank the ISIS rebels. etc. And at the same time, they were
demonstrating capabilities such as the Kuznetsov cruise, – the Russian old aircraft carrier, the one with the ski jump
, that sailed into the Mediterranean Sea. As it is well known the ship was leaving behind thick smoke clouds
due to malfunctioning engine room. It was sailing with pathetic speed of 10 knots. In fact
it was a more of failure than a showcase. Furthermore, it was able to send into the air only a limited number of aircraft because the Russians
couldn’t afford more. due to the limited number of trained
pilots, fit planes And too low a sailing speed meant that Russian aircraft
weren’t able to take off from the ski-jump ramp in numbers and loaded with munition, without a catapult it is more difficult
That meant that the ship literally couldn’t use its main armament – aviation. So it was only a transport, and Kuznetsov’s purpose turned out be the transfer Of the planes to base in Latakia. From there
The aircraft were conducting missions over Syria. It shows that the Russians are not or have never been a major naval power. Further, the guided missile cruiser –
Pyotr Veliky, which accompanied the aircraft carrier also faced huge mechanical or technical issues, plus it
had no ability to effectively strike land targets. In fact, it subsequently broke down
and it is now in repair. The Russians are having yet greater problems with their long decaying navy, most notably in the Far East. They have never had a great navy,
although not for lack of trying. And I want to bring this up.
Because the Russians aren’t 10 feet tall as the Americans saying goes.
. I would like to say a few things about the size and manpower of Russian forces. It is not the same as it used to be. And it takes me to the following idea.
Actually, Jozef Pilsudski proposed it as well. Pilsudski well understood Russian inner weaknesses. Russia is having a huge territory, but with
prohibitively long communication lines to build, maintain and a whole plethora of security threats. Even on the European i.e. their Western direction they have much to
do, they have the Baltic States aspect, Belarus, Ukraine,
the Black Sea, the Caucasus, Finland. They live in constant
fear that they won’t be strong enough when and where it is needed And look at this. This is where
Pilsudski’s idea comes from. The first time he said bluntly in 1931 and
then repeated vulgarly in 1934. He said that the power of Poland and policy opportunities at that time
were in the East – at the cost of Russia. And this is East where
real policy takes place for Poland. At the time of his vision there hadn’t been yet
the anti-access/area denial systems that would resemble any of modern ones, of course the missiles, mechanized systems or revolution in modern military affairs but
the rules are more or less still the same. There is the potential for alliance of middle powers in the Central and Eastern Europe
creating the pivot that blocks the Russian expansion towards European peninsula. Poland and Romania, with the involvement of Ukraine If we were to connect that
area with Poland using highways, digital highways, fast railway, then
we would develop two now distinct areas that would equalise, with time, their potential and
create synergy for trading and allowing other strategic flows. But first of all, we would need to develop
an internal communication line for the Military deployments across the Intermarium. That would put lots of pressure on the Russian planning and deployments to
as they will have to move around the long external line of communication losing time and resources as well as stretching their already insufficient (given the scale of the country) assets. They would have to react to our actions,
and at the same time we would do what we desire not only in those 1200
km of belt between the Black and Baltic Seas, but also in the Danube delta. And adding to that additional strategic signalling that will be imposing costs on Russians cutting through their general staff calculations setting them on defensive and reacting only And in the process rendering them strategically to calculate improperly, and who knows – maybe
choose the wrong solutions and commit expensive posture or procurement mistakes e.g. by creating by Russians additional empty skeleton units that will be theoretically covering the operational axes whilst their military is already suffering severely from the lack of manpower and resources. This is how you handle adversary that has
a huge territory, is undermanned and under-resourced and faces many strategic challenges or threats to address and repel. Like today’s Russia. This exactly creates a comparative net advantage.
The creation of such an internal communication line between Poland and Romania,
instantly means that we have the Intermarium at work. It solves also some American problems,
As they constantly complain about Europeans doing nothing. Whilst they are being spread thin over the World Ocean and Eurasian commitments.
And having problems with penetrating through
those anti-access/area denial bubbles. At the same time main communication line between
Poland and Romania would help in a sense that, thanks to its central position, according to Jomini”s military strategy principles,
(Jomini was at the Napoleon’s staff and later taught military strategy), we would be able to transfer troops
between Poland and Romania flexibly thus complicating actions for Russia operating along the external perimeter. This is why we had an alliance with Romania
before the Second World War aimed at the Soviets. Although then we shared border.
And today there is independent Ukraine. That is also why Ukraine is additionally important for the calculation. It shows accurately that the past
is only the prologue. It is the perfect thread to go back
to the topic of my lecture. However, why do the Russians struggle so much? But first I will discuss this slide.
This is what I have just mentioned
but is seen from space. Red crosses where the blockade of strategic flows (allied troop deployment and transport) might
take place, Romania is then virtually cut off. Up there are Carpathians and then Poland. And Northern European Plain. Eurasia here gets wider and space is fanning out towards Russia proper.
with Poland being like a cork in the narrower chokepoint. The US has the effective access to
Poland only through the land bridge of Germany. To Romania, access is even
worse in case of war. And it calls for the creation
of the Intermarium
And now about Russia. In order to help
understand some things about Russia. You have to imagine that they don’t have nuclear weapons.
It gets easier at once. Now it is pretty much like it would be in the street bar.
We could have a try. It is like they don’t have the gun or a knife.
We could have a try. This is what it comes down to. Ok, getting back to serious lecture Now try to imagine that they
don’t own those nukes. Not only because nuclear weapons
require a different deterrence level. This could be managed with allies that will provide extended nuclear deterrence to you
But to do so you need to control the so called �escalation ladder� which is not easy, either. Now it is all too clear in Central and Eastern Europe facing Russia. So let’s concentrate on conventional warfare. This is Russia, big time,
half of Eurasia, the longest borders in the world, land behemoth,
emptiness, lack of communication etc. In the Kremlin reigns constant fear.
So many threats and challenges to keep the empire intact and stable seems a task impossible. As if that was not enough.
Let’s forget about our old perception, which was at the back of
our heads through past generations. Every time we study the Great War or WWII.
Every time we study Russia we imagine massive population and great pool of military manpower. This perception was formed at a
time when Russia was a demographic monster In times when it was the
fastest growing population in Eurasia. In the late 19th century,
Russia was growing at such a pace. 01:07:10,000 –>01:07:15,959
Russia was growing at such pace that it
was predicted that the population would reach 600 million before the end of the XX century.
However now it is only about 140 million. That meant that Russia was considered to be winning future wars
thanks to vast human resources. True, they exploited this strategic strength in two world wars to the extreme. Milutin’s military reforms from
1860s and the 1870s turned demographic power of Russia into
a war-winning meat grinder and geopolitical tool. The concept of mass mobilization through skeleton units was introduced. Milutin’s reforms that entirely transformed
Russian armed forces. From the army that used to sleep
under the sky in tents, or in the quarters in cities, To the barracks and garrisons with skeleton units and
Military depots with plenty of officers guarding the equipment . And officers that were processing and organizing
more and more mobilization waves within skeleton units and sending them to front. Thanks to Milutin reforms, Soviet army survived and later won the Great Patriotic War (WWII). In 1941 they wore down Soviet standing army by throwing waves of soldiers to attrite the German war machine. In fact, the Operation Typhoon halted the German army advancing on Moscow right before the Kremlin. However, in 1942 Russia put to fight their new army
and afterwards apparently their third having used out the previous two. In both world wars the Russian Empire lost app. 1/3 of servicemen. In the Great War there were 15 million
men serving in the Russian Army and
app. 5 million perished. This is how you squander human lives
during the Great War and that triggered the two revolutions of 1917. Assumption was that the demographic
advantage was so crushing that Russians would beat the Germans and
Austria-Hungary through sheer attrition of manpower. This led to the revolution. That was compounded by how the officers treated ranks and file
soldiers, all this led to the revolution. First the February Revolution
then the October Revolution. During WWII this mechanism repeated,
although this time the state did not collapse. System survived thanks
to the strong and despotic Stalin”s leadership. You can just read the reports of German
chief of staff, Gen. Hadler, which are actually available to read Those reports refer to severe German
losses caused by Soviet seemingly suicidal counter-strikes Which in fact at
first glance were pointless. But Soviets were drawing Germans deeper and deeper and were bleeding them out.
This is exactly how Milutin’s reforms worked for the empire. Over 30 million
soldiers came through the ranks of the Red Army during WWII. Around 12 million
of them perished. And this was the system the
Soviet Union inherited. So in the 1950s Soviets had a huge
numerical advantage over NATO. The Soviet Union had been maintaining a 5 million
strong standing army. In addition to which 5 to 8 million
reservists were on quick standby. And these large numbers are at the back of our heads when we fear Russia. The Soviet Union had almost 290 million population.
Now Russia has only 140 million. Soviet Armed Forces in the late
1980s, when the Soviet Union was on the edge of collapse,
had almost 2,000 skeleton units, plenty of warehouses,
tens of thousands of battle tanks. Imagine that number of rifles, artillery, etc. Another important factor was that the Soviet economy
was managed by Gosplan, the State Planning Committee responsible for
central economic planning It planned to constantly produce spare parts and reserves in case of war.
This means every business had additional burdens that were not existing in the free market economies. They were forced to collect or
store fuel and other goods. This resulted in the additional crippling of
an already central planned, inefficient economy. This is why the Soviet
Union was probably the only state,
where spoons where made of aluminium. A waste of assets, bad
management, in general – a tragedy, mismanaged enterprises bearing the system’s
burden, corruption, etc. And all of it fell into ruin with time. The Soviet Union’s collapse meant
not only that it was torn apart into republics but meant primarily the disruption of its
economic supply lines, in addition, the Armed Forces as a result of the agreement in Tashkent,
were divided in a peculiar way. Whole units were revolting because
they were on the wrong side. One unit wanted to be in Russia. Another didn’t.
Total chaos. It’s hard to imagine what was at play at that time in the units. And there was also the economic downfall of Russia. Then came the Chechen
War and all of that mess
with various secessions from Russia. Russia lost the First Chechen War
because it was impossible to win it with such a poorly organised and led army. Putin once mentioned in the interview that when he was preparing for the Second Chechen war, he had a conversation with commanders, Right after he took over the power that they had been told that on paper
Russia had a 1.7 million-strong force. However, in reality they could put to
fight just 40-45 thousand soldiers at maximum. Putin recalled later that he had been shocked and since
then, started thinking of changes and a jettisoning old Milutin’s
concept. Russia doesn’t have anymore the demographic potential
to maintain The force at any rate similar to anything we remember from the old times.
They simply can’t field such force, and they can’t afford it financially, either. The biggest issue now for Russians
is to man units. Due to the overall dimensions of the country,
they face huge strategic issues and fear multiple threats. Loud reforms of Serdyukov, Shoygu,
Makarov and Gerasimov have introduced many changes, First of all, it was assumed
that the main enemy of a modernized
Russian Army was not be US or China but countries in Russia’s ‘limotrophe’, which means primarily Poland,
the biggest country of ‘limotrophe zone’. In other words, Russian Forces are preparing for a potential conflict with Poland as a pivotal NATO member. Our reforms and our handling of the
military are being closely monitored by Russians who try to seek advantage
in understanding our way of thinking. For example, our Special Operation
Forces have become a benchmark for Russians, for training
and exercises of their SOFs. Reforms of Gerasimov, Serdiukow, Makarov and Szoigu liquidated the skeleton units, and the forces were to become professional, but that was not entirely successful, the land forces were to become brigade modelled. This was not done in full. Structure is
now mixed, WDW is still division modelled. And Donbass experience convinced Russians that division structure must stay in some places due to geography and terrain. It is a very important topic, we hear a lot about the battalion tactical groups, we also employ such organizational model. More, that is how we exercise. In fairness.
in the information-based warfare and in control of situational awareness it
seems that you do not need large units. Because if you enjoy the upper hand in access to the information you do not need to be in permanent contact with enemy and create the
frontline since you do not fear to be flanked. Having the real time knowledge of the enemy
movements you will react in time, especially if you are flexible with the battalion structure
that does not have a heavy logistical tail. If, on top of that you have direct fires
and long- range fire maneuver capabilities you can strike enemy whenever you want
and defeat his weakest units one by one. If well commanded this may become a lethal instrument
of modern war. Information, tactical flexibility, Manouver, mobility, longer distance, direct fires
and longer distance situational awareness. The war has become now more spatial, more of manoeuvre in nature, with vast empty spaces,
And a key role of artillery to substitute manoeuvre with indirect fires, being at the same time more and more lethal. More brutal, more lethal… Seems to be more civilized, but in fact it isn’t, at all, it is a nasty business. Battalion tactical groups. It all seems now that a battalion can perform more manoeuvres at modern battlefield,
And may transport its own supplies so there is no burdensome logistical tail And it doesn’t have to use additional lorries, cisterns etc. and can change direction of advance more flexibly permitting battlefield flexibility On the other hand, the Donbas campaign proved that the tactical battalion did not have
sufficient strike and penetration strength once having penetrated the front it did not sufficient second echelons to exploit the breach and flow into the front�s rear. It turned out not able to conduct for example more robust flanking operations,
because it did not have enough tanks in units. Having learned that lesson in the Donbass Russians are getting back
to divisions in critical places of the Western Military District And why am I telling you about it? Because the US Army doesn’t have
any active organized, battle ready and integrated tank division and they will have to catch up with it. And Poland might be the first training field for them,
that’s why we need to have the newest operational concepts in Europe. And we have to observe what’s going on in the Donbas, just
to draw conclusions, because we are the Russian forces� main potential enemy
due to our location. Again, geography is cruel. How we train our officers, is how Russians will react… We are on the front line of thinking, planning
strategy and new operational concepts. Still, the reformed Russian Army,
Although significantly improved thanks to Syria and the Donbas training grounds, have problems with manning the army. In frontline brigades, two battalions are manned by contacted soldiers and the remaining one by draftees, at best, often forced into service. It is not so easy as Russians don’t want to stay in service. And the third battalion is manned by draftees. Generally, in 2017 or 2018 that’s what it looked like, according to
Putin’s decree the Russian Army was made up of 1,013 million soldiers. But actually this was impossible, because if we count up
the entire number of soldiers it won’t be more than 830 thousand. What’s more, the number of recruits in Russia every year counts about 100 thousand less than it should be in order to man the expected force structure. So they’ve got big problems with manning the army. During the Donbas operation or various later exercises they were also dispatching soldiers from the inside of Russia. In other words, I’d like to say that it’s not the same big army,
which could overwhelm or destroy an adversary by sheer numbers. If properly trained, funded and motivated and with
adequate combat readiness the Polish Armed Forces. might make a formidable adversary for new Russian Army. Furthermore, in the last 2 years the tendency has been negative for Russians. Frankly, the threat of global war,
tensions between the US and China, everything that happens on NATO’s Eastern Flank,
our exercises, Multi-Domain Battle Concept addressing the Russian way of war,
mean that Russians feel endangered from many directions. And even if Sierdiukov and Shoygu
have been cutting officer posts and liquidating
empty units, then in the bureaucratic and hierarchic system of the Russian Armed Forces,
the tendency to report to the supreme commander that units
covering important directions exist and are effective is reappearing. the skeleton units manned by officers who do
nothing more than looking after the equipment,
the units which have no combat readiness. Commanders calm policymakers, say that
there are units, that they are ready, that they
cover an important direction while they practically don’t. It’s visible, there are announcements in local
newspapers for recruitments, they shorten officer courses, It’s visible what they are doing, they create special
courses for clever privates and non-coms. On the other hand, the Russian Army has gone
through deep metamorphosis. About which its brain –
Valery Gerasimov, says a lot. I must admit that he has pretty good intellectual skills. Russia understands the need for a Revolution in Military Affairs.
The need to simplify the command chain, of limiting steps between collecting,
processing and analysing data, making a decision
by C2 and sending the decision to the effectors. They practise RMA in Syria, they implement automatic
decision-making processes in units. There is also a clash
between WDW and Land Forces. In addition, Gerasimov is clearly advantaging
officers of armoured units. Those officers are most often promoted
for higher ranks, they’ve all been rotating through Syria. Even in most speeches of Gerasimov, in military
documents, in ways of motivating the military staff, there is an acceptance and tolerance for mistakes to learn from them, for faults,
incentives for learning and improving, and for innovation. Gerasimov himself spares no effort to say
that it is how it should be. At a network-centred battlefield the decisions are often up to captains,
lieutenants, majors, and even if they’re not deciding themselves, they must pick
from huge amount of data and create solid description, and pass it
to their superiors to make decisions. Who doesn’t do it quick enough, is going to die. It means that the attitude of this kind is now favoured
which is also a huge doctrinal and mental change. In other words, Russians try to squeeze out
as much as they can of their stretched and depleted resources, and out of their poor economic base.
But they can’t handle it in the way their huge territory in Northern Eurasia demands. They’re not so powerful anymore. Now the question of Nuclear Weapons. That’s why Russia has changed its strategy
of Nuclear Weapons use. I’ve talked about de-escalating use of Nuclear Weapon
many times. And no more does Russia declare that it will not
use Nuclear Weapon first, as they used to. The US always had the doctrine of
a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Because they were afraid
that their allies in the rimlands of Eurasia would quit NATO if they didn’t feel
full American support. If the U.S. didn’t claim to use Nuclear Weapons first, they could quit. Because of this, the US said it unclearly; they suggested that they will use it if necessary. So their distant allies won’t leave them. The Soviets were in a different situation. They had conventional advantage, so
they declared no first use. What would it actually look like?
That’s another case. Now the Russians are unclear about it so the tables have turned This creates a threat of nuclear escalation. This is, let’s say, our concern about Nuclear Weapon and some their issues. Well, if you are in a team where leader is
a hegemon it’s the hegemon’s role to make sure that
everyone feels that they’re in the same boat. Good. In other quarters, one can demand from the US there are different ways, escalation ladders
of the requirement, to make them take the nuclear problem from us to safeguard their position in Eurasia and save the security system. So the extended nuclear deterrence is in the US strategic interest. The U.S. could provide extended nuclear deterrence through deployments of assets and units and demonstration of power as it did in the Cold War so that Russia would think that any strike on Poland
will be the strike on US. And this, this can take the nuclear problem from us,
but this requires the country’s politicians to pursue the issue with American allies. What is more, alliance are not about favours but about interests so US has to reassure key allies in Eurasia sufficiently like it has done to Japan. Otherwise a fragile system of alliances may break down. Maintaining it stably is in the premier US strategic interest. Japan doesn’t need much to have its own nuclear weapon.
They drive one screw and they have it. And U.S. has to ensure them that they will help them
so that nuclear proliferation wouldn’t start. Because if Japan starts, South Korea follows and
the rest of the Western Pacific, the same with Iran, Saudi Arabia,
Turkey, Ukraine, Germany and if they start, you can guess who else. In other words, it’s in American interest to
make sure that the system functions properly. In the conventional warfare
Russia isn’t strongest in that area, it’s not what the Soviet Union used to be. Regardless of war, that matters should be settled
by strategic signalling about which I have been talking so long. Fear, continental communication lines, limotrophes,
Gerasimov, modern technology etc. We need urgently to develop our own situational awareness system,
which reaches up to the D�wina and Dnieper Rivers and to the Black and Baltic Sea, from the Bay of Riga and Odessa Bay. We must know what is exactly happening there. It has to be in the electromagnetic and cyber spectrum,
we need to know who is moving, what is moving and
what is happening there and do not let the adversary trick us. And that’s the most important task for
the Polish Armed Forces, and having the strategy and operational
concept of using the Forces we can decide what should we do and buy or field. What’s more, having the situational awareness system
we have to take specific steps. Last time I took part in simulation in the Danube Delta,
in Romania and realised they have got a plenty of islets
between Ukraine and Romania. What if Russian Spetznaz would take one of these islets. I deal with geostrategy and I have never heard about those islets. I assume that in Paris everybody would ignore that development,
but in the hybrid warfare it could cause the next breakthrough in Russian favour. Russia could achieve the next point, without counterreaction,
without going through the impassable line. If not this islet, that’s the another one, nobody will see that, we can then regulate the Crimea issue and the Donbass is suddenly no longer in Ukraine. And so on and so forth – Ossetia, Abkhazia etc. From the Vistula valley up to the Vistula Lagoon and along the entire eastern border
There are places of this kind where somebody could think of how to penetrate and inflict some damage,
our Baltic allies have such places and they should adopt a strategy of dealing with that. Prepare our forces including SOFs to react to that hybrid warfare dimension. Preventively propose the solutions, moreover, observe daily, if something
occurs in the electromagnetic spectrum. We have to be well-prepared, because helplessness
can also lead to fast escalation,
so we have to show strength that nobody would try out readiness. It is happening right now, so I think that
we should consider it seriously. creating a brand-new connection with Romania, which connects through
Western Ukraine within the Intermarium concept. It would provide a completely enhanced speed of force deployment, The Intermarium not only creates a completely new economic potential. It yields geographical dividend from the Belt & Road and is securing
interior lines of communication against Russia military posture. And its strategic flows. It complicates things for Russians, who are going to be stretched on all directions,
So let them create another ten skeleton units and spend
a lot of money on this to no material warfighting capability increase. That’s what Pilsudski thought about in his time we know it
from the contents of meetings in 1931
and 1934 and many other public revelations. Mackinder understood this, too, but he didn’t manage to convince
Anglo-Saxons when he was sharing that idea of �Middle Tier� alliance at the time. However, in WWII the British and American turned out to be too weak
to have political leverage in this part of Europe and it was the continental Soviet empire that effectively seized control. And I would like to encourage you to Baron Jomini’s writings,
a great book about the art of war with his genius strategy of interior lines of communication and economy of force. At West Point they are reading it a lot And also in Europe, it’s worth reading, contains parts on the Polish Theatre of War during Napoleonic wars, and some patterns are still valid. Jomini describes the Strategic Triangle of Toru�,
Serock, Warsaw, the Warsaw Prague. And main parameters of the theatre have not changed much, so Polish officers should know them, as described by Jomini. Because the mechanisms function to this very day,
the river systems of the Bug and Narew Rivers canalising enemy�s troops movement.
01:29:16,000 –>01:29:26,000he
and the Vistula with her roundshape on the west of Warsaw,
to W�oc�awek with one bank higher. The Vistula valley creates a big potential of crossing through Russian operational lines
east of Warsaw. Jomini also described it and many other
incredible things with detailed explanation and understanding of the military geography of Europe. As a result of Napoleon’s wars, experienced Jomini described
extensively Europe with its military geography. Creating the Intermarium not only provides us with the
interior line between Poland, Ukraine and Romania but it also complicates Russian aspirations in the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean Sea. If Poland sets the base of operations at the Black Sea coast
with our anti-access/area denial coastal batteries. Then we could deny or at least contest Russian maritime deployments towards the Bosphorus. It immediately complicates matters for Russians. That’s classical strategic signalling,
we are influencing other side�s calculations only by showing potential capabilities. We should further develop that thought and I hope that this
what I am saying is only the beginning, and we will work on that together going forward into the future. At least to intellectually face this. It really looks like that there will be tensions
between China and USA for the next few decades, unless resolved soon. There won’t be another fast solution in that or any other way. our intellectual work
has to address that reality Now we are getting back to analysing the old school geostrategic Polish thought. I was in the Danube river delta. In XVII century Hetman Jab�onowski was there fighting Turks, at Fokszany and Ga�acz strategic line,
the Danube Delta and that’s the pivotal position blocking access to Ukraine and Poland from the south. Here Bessarabia ends. From the other side the Russians can’t get into the Balkans
and the Turkish can’t get into Ukraine�s Podolia. This line is a blocking gate. Of course, to the fans of former Polish empire, I hope this is clear,
As the lecture will be also with English subtitles, so it has to be
obvious that I am saying about the history of the region. And as I said at the beginning, the past is just a prologue. If Intermarium works and we have deployed assets to Romania this would significantly complicate Russian actions in the Black Sea, due to the fact that this time our A2AD capabilities would work against Russians. We could block Russian maritime communication
to Syria, and to the other bases, and hinder their deployment in the region. It changes the balance of power. And here we’ve got a well-known map of the Baltic-Black Sea Belt. The demands of this space in terms of geostrategy compels us to proactive and preventive actions as opposed to just reaction to adversary�s moves proactivity, thinking in advance, prevention. Well, also compel us to strategical signalling in order to complicate adversary�s actions and planning. For instance, on the eastern side of the Vistula river valley our forces should exercise how to use the favourable terrain channelling the movement of the enemy, and analyse how to use or deny bridges. Engineers should work more in the field to demonstrate to the
Russians that we have a knowledge in detail about the patterns of crossings of
the Bug and the Narew rivers to complicate adversary�s planning. As so it concerns equally our Territorial Defence Forces reconnaissance of the enemy’s avenues of approach are to be undertaken. patterns of movements, too. If the adversary takes notice that we exercise in that manner and are well prepared it will lower the probability of escalation of any tensions into the war. If we make it known that we
understand how to militarily use the Wieprz river line,
town of D�blin, or the Pilica river. When we are able to compete in the modern scouting battle over situational awareness system in the entire region. Note that transmissions and signals don’t mind borders Speed of reaction, mobility will be the key. Suwa�ki Gap, Romania, or the Mi�sk or Brze�� Gate. 1128 Or the Danish Straits, what should we do together with Danes with their Bornholm if there is a tension in the Baltic Sea that might be soon escalating into the war. Because if Russian Spetsnaz lands on Bornholm with anti-ship batteries, the Danish Straits will be effectively blocked. We will need to think if we let the Russians
mine the Danish Straits or do something more dangerous. or on the same token what will we do with Gotland, or what should the Swedish do
about it? How about the Swedish position since without its airspace the US can’t conduct air operations
over the Baltic States from their aircraft carriers sailing in the Atlantic. What about Hiumaa and Saaremaa, the Gulf of Finland,
should we mine it preventively or not? We can’t resolve it during the crisis or war, now it’s the time
to make a decision and be ready in order to show our capabilities and cut through Russian planning. The same goes for the Suwa�ki Gap and actions in the Baltic States And what are the precise rules of engagement for our troops stationed in the Baltic States? Our actions will all be analysed by the adversary. It can’t be reactive, it must be proactive, like the decision to deploy forces in order to secure the Baltic islands prior to hostilities. In the recent past we have been talking about the Russian 1st Guards Tank Army
in the Smolensk Gate, now two elements: Let us imagine, that Ukraine has a large number of fielded tactical battalions, And that it would immediately start the general mobilisation
if something happens in the Baltic States and they would deploy their battalions near the Russian border, towards Kursk, Rostov, the Don River. In this situation the 1st Guards Tank Army wouldn’t move
from the Smolensk Gate to Poland, because it would have to rotate to address the threat from Ukraine. That’s the best proof of how important the existence of Ukraine is for Poland,
And that in terms of correlation of forces it is the single Eastern Front as opposed to just the NATO Eastern flank. That is the reality. In a way it resembles Operation Desert Storm. By the way, US Marines still can’t forgive (Gen.) Schwarzkopf
that he didn’t involve them in the main action. Because you know, the US Marines always like to be in the front pages. They were used by Schwarzkopf to enter into Kuwait. Luring the enemy using USMC as a bait and creating �a pinning (fixing) effect�,
but the war was ended by huge outflanking move when the Army Corps from the west moved into Iraq cutting off the communication lines to Kuwait. The fixing effect was used to distract the Iraqis by
the US Marines soldiers. As soon as the Iraqis saw the flanking move and the threat
of being cut off,
they started to pull back in disorder. That’s how the strategy worked and that’s what I’m afraid of
for us from the Smole�sk Gate. This is having a similar pinning effect on us if we just wanted to deploy through the Suwa�ki Gap in order to help the Balts It confirms Pilsudski’s words, that our position is correlated with threats emanating from the East and the opportunities that the countries between Poland and Russia offer in the confrontation with Russia. That’s the brute truth and we have to look into those vast spaces fanning out from our eastern border. By the way, here is the map of Churchill’s war room,
there are various simulations of how to overcome anti-access/area denial capabilities. Before I take the questions from you, I would like to say that at ”Strategy&Future, we will be dealing with strategy at large. There will be analyses, reports, op-eds, short texts, long treatises, films, podcasts etc. on many issues and regional theatres not only in Europe but also the Indo-Pacific or the Persian Gulf Of course, at Strategy&Future we’ll try to get the Baltic-Black Sea Belt narrative and mental maps back
into the global debate as we think that they had been neglected too long. We can say that the lecture at the Land Forces Academy is the good introduction to this matter. Thank you and I look forward to your questions. I would like to ask from a historical point of view. Nazi Germany in 1932 was a weak country, hyperinflation and so on. And this, what was happening there for the next 6/7 years changed all that unleashing WWII. And we are talking all the time about the threat
from the Russian side, and about NATO’s eastern flank. And the question is, where is the certainty that
we should work the strategy out to the potential attack from the Eastern side? So why are we focusing only on the Eastern Flank? Thanks for your question, but the answer is simple,
the revisionist power is Russia,
and we are the Eastern Flank Defender defending the international system and security architecture. We are not as afraid as the Baltic States are,
which we know from our own experiences. Besides, Russia is reassessing the world order. Maybe Putin is the first leader since Bismarck’s times, who is changing
the borders of Europe by force so efficiently. We don’t see it in our everyday life running after daily duties, but this is a brute fact. The Russians are rebuilding their influence
in the Baltic-Black Sea Belt and their former empire region. And we are on their way. If the US withdrew, it would intensify the threat to our independence. And we don’t want to take part in the Russian civilization project, for Poles it was always obvious. [APPLAUSE] I’ve got a question referring to Turkey.
Do you think Turkey will be expelled from NATO? We can do nothing, but it’s a good question,
from the perspective of Freudian theories. What does “we” mean? What does “NATO” mean? And what
does “world interest” mean and what’s our role in that? J�zef Mackiewicz perfectly distinguishes between a national strategic interest and a world interest. They sometimes are not identical. Mostly, it is, especially in times when the distant sea power has the world supremacy, for Poland that means the time of development and independence. Look at the events after the Great War. In the East we had to fight and secure our statehood on our own, while Anglo-Saxons defeated Germans and that gave legitimacy for western borders. Turkey probably assumed that the USA is in decline and Istanbul is between the sea powers and continental powers while Eurasia grows offering future profits. Turkey apparently thinks that her interests are better served in this new strategic landscape by moving away from US. Romania in the past tended to do likewise. Changing constantly alliances from the 19th century to WWII. Even Ceausescu – dictator of Romania, didn’t trust
the Soviet comrades at all As at Mo�dova Gate connecting Romania with Soviet Union There was no bridge in the Danube Delta, which
could connect former Ukrainian Soviet Union Republic with Romania. The result was that should the need arise the Soviets would have had problems
invading Romania by land from the Danube Delta direction. Now with independent Ukraine Russians can only execute maritime assault on Romania in vicinity of Konstanca port in order to achieve their military goals. History is driven by geopolitics although we tend to forget this. Romania was Germany’s ally, then they changed sides,
Turkey didn’t take part in WWII, but after this they became NATO member,
because they were afraid of the Soviets and their claims to the Turkish Straits so they sought American protection. And now in connection with the rise of China
and seeing that Eurasia is growing. Turkish and Turkic-speaking nations living from
Western China through the whole of Central Asia, they see what’s happening. That’s why Turkey�s role is questioned if there were to be any war on the NATO Eastern Flank. Turkey will rather contribute if her strategic interest were to be at risk. And what can we do? Nothing, but if we had
a strategical Intermarium line and presence on the Black Sea coast that would be different as Turks would have to reckon with our power projection close to Turkey. For example, Turkey would notice that we manage to
pin down the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the Black Sea. By strategic signalling preventing Russian ships from venturing freely through the Turkish Straits. That would be in Turkey�s interest. This way we become useful for Turkey At the moment we have no such impact, though. Hello, I have a question, In order to defeat China will US have to
make a deal with Russia? I said, that if they don’t defeat China soon, they will have to
make a deal. But let’s say, that they make a deal with the Russians and
generally that the alliances are at the cost of Poland or other countries of the region, like was done in Yalta or Tehran. Second question, is it possible to defeat the Russians with their own weapon,
it means by little green men in the Caucasus, or in Siberia? That’s the essence of our prewar promethean movement and generally prometheanism in the East. It was meant to slice Russia, to cut the empire along the nationality stitches. That’s how our prewar Intelligence Service operated,
most of them were geopoliticians by mindset. I think that this promethean spirit was a subconscious reason of our positive attitude
towards the Chechens during the First Chechen War. Due to our subconscious understanding of geostrategy. I remember how positively they were received,
when I was watching it on TV in the 1990s. Referring to the first question, it is impossible to play both ends and that’s the simplest answer. American attitudes to Germany would be the best test. Because in the context of current non-military competition,
but about strategic flows that are a more important issue,
as they secure chains of supplies of the economic system. Germany doesn’t want to subordinate to the US policy of amending the global system. They have lived well do not want to change. That irritates Americans. I think that U.S. can escalate
the instruments of influence on Germany. But Germany is trying to show that they have alternatives,
they have made a deal with Russians and with China recently. It gives opportunities in the situation. We are traditionally afraid of this what I said at the beginning,
– continental powers� alliance, where we are squeezed between them. That’s why we are looking for the “offshore balancer”,
which will ban Nordstream so that Germans and Russians stop building this thing. I’m sorry for colloquialism, but that’s about it… and many other things, next question. we have seen here two whole scenarios
of Air-Sea Battle Concept but in your other book you describe one week
of war in Europe in 2027. Could you give us some more details of simulations and wargames that were the basis of that? Good. I think that in April, in some decade
of April, in Quantico, the wargame was held. It wasn’t top secret, just a wargame of
the global war. It was even described in American
professional press, so it isn’t something
top secret. Although, it may not be broadly known. In this wargame there was a scenario in which
Russians and Chinese were fighting US and its allies There were 3 main fronts: Taiwan,
South Korea and Poland. In the Pacific it was really hot, the Chinese
captured Taiwan The Americans tried to cut off the maritime communication
connecting China and Taiwan. And this went on, the war lasted a week In Poland, during the game, the Polish
refused to pull back behind the Vistula
river. Those Americans playing the Polish Army refused, I mean. Everyone wants to win in such games so they are useful instruments of strategy. And Americans playing the Polish Army refused
to pull back to the west, behind the Vistula river. The US Army was coming through Silesia,
they weren’t present from the beginning. Because of that we were alone at start, losses were
similar to those in the battles of Verdun,
the Somme and Paschendaelle. Like during the Great War, such was the attrition. Scary.
Loses of both sides, over 40,000 Polish Soldiers
during the first week of fighting. The Russians actually almost took Warsaw. Later there was a huge battle, on the northern
Vistula, similar to the Battle of
Tannenberg. Or the battle near the great Mazurian lakes during
the Great War. The US had to send back and forth the airborne
troops between Poland and Korea to consolidate faltering fronts. They had huge problems with strategic
lift between Poland and Korea. 82nd, 101st were transferred because
in Korea they was yet another near-collapse of the front. The Chinese had almost captured Seoul and South
Korea. And the U.S. had to prioritize. That’s how it generally looks. Finally, on the Vistula line, Russians were
defeated. They began to lose so much that the Polish-American Army was pushing them
into the Vistula lagoon. Like Soviets pushing Germans
during WWII. Then the game time ended but there were
huge loses. The U.S. didn’t enter the war at the
beginning, which is very realistic
on our front. Well, we have to answer the questions. What about the Vistula line? What generally
happens, how to enter the operation areas,
etc. There were many other things but maybe
that’s enough of this story. Some other question. It’s frequently repeated that the U.S.
is a guarantor of our independence, But the other guarantee, I think, is
access to the nuclear weapon. And here is some kind of contradiction,
because it’s well known that the U.S. doesn’t
want more countries to possess nuclear weapons. Such weapons would be, on the other hand, our guarantee
of independence, who would guard our security 1317 Such a question… Unfortunately, it’s very complex issue
for us. I promise to think about it and in the
next lecture I will answer your question. Good afternoon, Doctor, what you think
about the current flashpoint, Iran-USA, where the US tries to threaten,
where Israel encourages the US to push How do you see it, how do you assess
the development of this situation? I see it in the bigger scale, I said that
the second most important crossroad, I don’t know whether I’ve said it during
this or a previous lecture, for the US there are nowadays three main geopolitical crossroads: The Western Pacific, the Northern European Plain,
the Persian Gulf. Not the Middle East but the Persian Gulf. This is a huge difference. The Persian Gulf is a hub of the strategic flows Oil, gas, you name it , it is the highway of strategic flows that feed global economy. I find what happens in the Persian Gulf
to be of great significance. Alright, I must say a little about strategic flows. To become the world hegemon, it is not
something virtual like having
the biggest army, some mechanisms of power exist and are
related to this. It’s similar in our lives. The US controls the strategic flows. Globalisation is based on freedom of strategic
flows. Freedom of people movement, cargo, goods, merchandise
flows, flows of technology, flows of knowledge,
resources, all these things That make a global market where
everyone trades, because there is one set
of norms underpinned by US power The US guarantees it, it’s a splendid phenomenon
in world history that it has worked so well for nearly 30 years. The market is global and rules are set only because the U.S. Navy
protects the World Ocean to sustain it. That mechanism created internet, banking system, status of US dollar. The US Navy controls a main highway of world�s strategic flows. The ability to stop or enable strategic
flows is the ultimate power. The Persian Gulf, for US this show of force against weak Iran is easier than one against powerful China To show that Trump can do what he wants
because US is the rules of the World Ocean. By the way that’s why China has been building
gas pipes and trade routes to Iran to bypass the maritime lines of communication controlled by US Navy. The Iranian minister said recently in public, That Iran guards the Hormuz Strait. If the U.S. Navy wants to come here,
to the Hormuz Strait, they have to talk to Iran, or otherwise it will be proved to them
who is the guard of Hormuz Strait. This is the essence of geopolitics. As we are the hosts of Gdansk, I hope,
and of the Vistula estuary. It would be also nice to be a host of
the Danish Strait, but we are not. And of other important places where strategic flows travers, like Singapur. That’s what it’s about. If the U.S. wants
Mexico to accept American trade rules, China to subordinate to trade warfare
and the EU to understand. it’s actually a signal to Germans
and Europeans, Ladies and Gentlemen, subordinate to the changing
rules of world order. We will make Iran an example that
we want to control strategic flows. We can block your strategic flows delivery and
you can’t do anything about it. Because it depends on us. It was an abstraction
some time ago. Because we have already got used to
a wonderful time of globalisation and freedom
of strategic flows. But in the communist Poland they strategic flows were not free at all – we couldn’t
travel or trade wherever we wanted. We couldn’t import or export technologies. The US created a world of free strategic flows
and now they want to modify it. It hurts others. US does it because if this freedom continues China will be the winner of the game And the US now wants to show that it still rules the highway of strategic flows – the World Ocean � even close to Eurasian littorals. However, in the context of recent Iran-U.S.
tensions it’s obvious that the U.S. wants
to show everyone that they are setting the rules of game,
of globalisation. So all of you have to accept new rules,
because the U.S. Navy stands behind me. That’s why your question is very important,
because it’s at the heart of controlling
the flows. The Chinese want to prove that they will withstand a
trade war. They might be thinking that the Asian
supply chain already exists and has a bigger pull than US one.
And is beyond US control. And this will be tested, right now, in front
of our eyes, we will see how it plays out. That’s why they’ve been building Belt and Road,
so the U.S. won’t block the sea route,
like it does to Iran. That’s why there are gas pipes to Persia,
to Pakistan and to other places. That’s why
they’ve bypassed Malacca. All things about which I’ve been talking
for a few years and it is now clear what it was for. Things which a few years earlier seemed to be pure theory. in the peaceful and globalised
World. That’s it, that’s the essence. China and the US were competing
about who controls strategic flows. With small participation of Europe which
was spectating. There will be more such
places, The first question is what we should remember
as future officers? The second question is what decisions you
would make to noticeably rise the abilities
of the Polish Armed Forces. I think that when you are cadets and young
officers, it’s a great time to learn,
gain self-discipline, to gain knowledge about the Revolution in Military Affairs
which is happening right now, about the art of war, it’s hard to find a better
place, Polish Armed Forces should be the first to
absorb novelties of modern land warfare, they have the enemy at hand, they can learn from
what it does. Great exercise of intellect, discipline,
spirit, it’s the time of operational concepts
development. Poland could finally stop shining with
a reflected light. We need to start creating
our own concepts. Because Poland is in the first line of tensions. From this perspective I think that this
time is great for officers. Time for self-learning, self-discipline,
self-development. I also notice changes
in the Polish Armed Forces over the last couple of years. As for procurement:
I repeat it constantly: situational awareness system. Polish AWACS some satellites. trained special forces to operate across
the Baltic-Black Seas Belt. I would use territorial defence forces to learn to
mine bridges and deny to adversary pivotal access places I would prepare operational
concepts for the Armed Forces. What war will
they fight, etc. Logistics first, effectors at the end. First, how would the potential purchase of F-35s
influence a Polish situational awareness system? Second, do you have any personal opinion
on information revealed recently by
Institute of National Remembrance? Information about historical intelligence data
of eastern Poland. Does it affect present operations of Polish intelligence? I don’t know this story, I’ve heard something
but I don’t know any details. Excuse me, I couldn’t hear the first
question. Can you repeat it? How would the potential purchase of F-35s
influence a Polish situational awareness system
and strategic communication? Now during every lecture everyone asks about
F-35s. It’s good, though. I will try to answer. Because actually nobody knows in detail what
F-35 will change at the battlefield. Even the pilots who fly them now. The US Air-force seems astonished by the change
which the F-35 makes. There are of course
some positives and negatives. This aircraft has so many sensors,
electronic devices, dispersed lethality that it totally changes the way of using
aircraft. That’s what they reportedly say. According to this, there is no operational
concept of using them, yet, it is being designed. It’s not known how to use them effectively, and yet to use all their capabilities. Therefore,
I can’t say what it changes. Apart from the fact that it’s one huge sensor
and it’s a part of the US global force
projection. It’s obvious that the choice of the F-35 is
geopolitical, after all. Especially that it’s not really known
what possibilities it brings, apart from
the fact that they’re completely new. The purchase, of course, raises
many questions. First of all, besides of the obvious features: cost,
operational concepts because it’s a strike aircraft which
destroys the enemy’s AA defence, it penetrates and infiltrates
in depth, it controls drones, swarms of drones, do we possess such abilities, to control how we use the aircraft or will we be only a component of
allied warfare. It brings us to the question about what war
the Polish Air-force is preparing for? Maybe we will be on our own at war on the Eastern flank,
no-one knows if the US will leave Europe, say,
in 20 years. What about servicing, maintenance? There should be more questions. I can’t
answer them, I can only ask them. What about the cost, maintenance, servicing
and other things. It is interesting that – for example – Germany
doesn’t want the F-35, at least for now. They indicate that they don’t want it. This is also a very important factor,
connected to existing competition between armour
and the cannon. The same rivalry can be seen between
detecting and hiding, I’m camouflaged with leaves and I’m
not visible but I’m visible through
infrared scopes, or I’ve painted my face or I’ve hidden
behind smoke, or underwater and only when sonar was
invented I was to be found. Between hiding and detecting. First aircraft flew, the higher they
flew, the harder they were to be shot
using rifles. It was easy to miss. Then radar systems were introduced. SAM systems hadn’t been invented
at the time. There were AA guns. The US Air-force used aluminium foils
to make aircraft invisible from radars. And it went on. During the Vietnam war SAM systems were employed, And the US noticed that they were easy
to shoot at, there were tremendous loses
among US aircraft. So, they began coming up with different
concepts of aircraft use, to break through
AA defence. Dipoles were used and electromagnetic
interference, etc. US felt that
they must create a new technological
breakthrough. Because this missile would finally get the
aircraft. It’s much easier to develop and produce
AA systems than new aircraft. It turned out not to make sense to fly faster and higher. So they came out with stealth technology,
they brought the competition to the next level. The problem is that stealth technology
will also be overcome sooner or later. It would be nice if it hadn’t been
overcome immediately after delivery of our
brand new F-35s. That’s the logic of our story. Maybe it will not happen, but the Chinese and
the Russians are surely working on it. We won’t solve those problems now. However,
I think that this is largely a geopolitical choice,
and this raises further questions. Ladies and Gentlemen, the last two questions. Doctor, I want to ask about reconnaissance
warfare. You have mentioned that
the decision chain is getting shorter. This makes me think that the time will come
when this chain will be so short that a man would not be able to make
the decision to pull the trigger fast enough. According to this, I think that the decision
to make it will be confided to AI. In what time will this eventually happen,
if it does? Isn’t it a threat that a man will lose
control over escalation of conflicts? That’s true, we border on development of
automatic decisions of such a kind.
Even the Russians, developing their system, the HQ hidden somewhere under Moscow,
they have simplified their command structure. And there is a big centre of command,
of the Syrian Operation, of the whole Russian
Armed Forces. So there are 3, or 4 at maximum, levels of
decision making outside the centre, in the
field. In order to reach such an abridgement
of decision-making there must be an automatic
system of data gathering and processing. Some AI must choose the algorithms
of decision-making. And pass it to a man who will make the decision. We will reach the moment when minor decisions
will be left for AI, even preliminary selection
is a decision. Actually, we already are in this phase. When AI and 5G system are improved, more sensors will be used and therefore
automatic analysis will get faster. I’m afraid that the ethical codes will
have to be developed for wartime to
indicate who will make the decision. It’s already almost happening.
Very good question by the way. I have a question: what do you think about
a joint European army? Is it even possible to create in Europe
an army of this kind? 1517 1518 It’s impossible with recent geopolitical
developments in Europe. No-one will approve of it. The Portuguese
won’t fight Russia, The Polish will not fight in
the Mediterranean Sea. Certainly, for some
time. They will be afraid of Russia. There is no shared decision-making centre. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, thinkers
in Europe have been dreaming of European
unity. There were many approaches how to do it,
sometimes voluntary, more often with a sword.
Never succeeded. Therefore, Poles are sceptical. It’s
just a conflict of interest. Besides, who would command such an army? The Germans? Would Germany let Poland command? Who will command the army? Who will decide where to produce the equipment?
Where to service it? It’s hard enough in NATO which is held
together by the US world supremacy. To whom no-one was equal throughout the last
30 years and still we have doubts whether NATO will
work in time of war.
Imagine this with Europe, European nations have no meaningful land forces after all. I guess you know it. I think it’s an excellent conclusion. May I briefly ask the last question? We had the excellent conclusion. I hope that I won’t ruin it. Anyway, my question concerns a subject about
which the Gentleman before me asked. Namely: Russian use of unconventional tactics,
such as Maskirovka, little green men, etc. Aren’t we in the trap of our development? Since we are in the western orbit,
in the orbit of regard for international law? Here raises a problem. Namely: use of those
methods will make us pointed either by our own society, or by other nations. As an example I want to mention that during
my studies in the US at one of the military universities I had
asked about a method of slicing Russia, cutting its nationality stitches. I asked
the Professor whose specialisation were
geopolitical aspects of Russia and he replied that this question is humiliating
for him. Because how could the US
use nationality aspects? He said that it reminds him of Nazism or something similar. According to this my question is how much
can Poland do to keep its international reputation? We know that Russians build their reputation
on not respecting the international laws. I wouldn’t bother, at all. I will overthrow
your image of our innocence. Maybe inefficiently, but we’ve been doing
nothing different since 1991. We support the states which gained independence after the Soviet Union fell. Moreover, to say euphemistically,
we supported what happened in the Caucasus
and other places. The Eastern Partnership, other initiatives.
We are pleased that Soviet Union disintegrated Therefore, I figure that we should push even
harder and I don’t feel any pressure that
I might be criticised for this. Why is it breaking international law? It is in our strategic interest to have a zone of
free countries between Poland and Russia. The rest is relative to this. Thank you very much. Thank you Doctor for a very interesting
and intriguing lecture. Interesting remarks, intriguing conclusions. I have also a great hope that in the future
We will continue with our lectures. I am already inviting you to further meetings within the open lectures program at
Military University of Land Forces. I also thank the public for such a wide presence
despite hard atmospheric conditions. It’s really hot, terrible heat, and still you endured.
You listened in focus this interesting reasoning. I thank Doctor again on the Rector’s and my behalf. Thank you for covering the question of Polish
Defence Capability in such an interesting way. Thank you very much. Doctor, on the behalf of leadership section
and the whole academic society I want to
thank you for today’s lecture. Thank you very much.


  • Mirosław Migaj

    Ha ha ha, wyjdźcie chłopcy z piaskownicy! Żadnej wojny nie będzie. Agenda NWO dla świata tego nie przewiduje. Nikt w tak dopracowanym projekcie nie będzie wojował i wam płacił. Wszystkie "ruchy" to podpuchy dla niewolników neomarksizmu światowego.

  • Albert Berg

    Największe brednie Bartosia w tym wykładzie zaczynają się o 1h15m ,, Rosja uznała że głównym przeciwnikiem jej zmodernizowanej armii nie są USA i nie Chiny a Polska ,,, a stwierdzeniem że polska armia jest wzorem dla modernizacji rosyjskiej armii oraz to że cala reforma rosyjskiej armii jest przygotowywana pod siły zbrojne RP chyba już bardziej ośmieszyć się nie mógł  
    nie da się słuchać tych bredni

  • Wojciech Wachtelberg

    a jak zmieni sie polityka i Rosja stanie się nam nie wroga?? USA nas napuszcza na Rosję a zapominamy że państwo za naszą zachodnią granicą też nie jest do nas przyjazne…

  • Przemysław Rudź

    W razie "W" ciekawe kto bedzie pierwszy w kolejce do ewakuacji? Zeby znow nie bylo tak, ze spece od wojny pierwsi sa w samolocie do Rumunii.

  • Heniu Szczęśliwy

    LEPIEJ niech " PANOWIE profesorowie " zajmą się ustaleniem SERYJNEGO " SAMOBÓJCY " !
    P. S. Bo to, że NATO i Rosja ma w Nas wycelowane rakiety wie każdy, nawet średnio rozgarnięty szympans ! I nic tu nie da bajdurzenie o tym, że Polska jest sojusznikiem. Jakoś w razie " W " trzeba przejść, a Polska jest w tym celu najlepsza !

  • Heniu Szczęśliwy

    Z materiału ( daty ) wynika, że materiał ma NAJDALEJ jeden DZIEŃ, a KOMENTARZE ( niektóre ) mają MIESIĄC !

  • Paweł Zieliński

    Pan bardzo dobrze mówisz. To wszystko jest poukładane. Ale jest jedno ale już wszyscy są dogadania. Niemcy z Rosjanami, teraz Putin pojechał do tego durnia Macrona zobaczyć co on ma do powiedzenia. USA stwierdziło że będzie nas chronić ale mamy oddać im kraj. Reszta została razem z nami z palcem w piździe. Nie przewidzieliśmy tego że sytuacja się powtórzy. Było to wszystko do przewidzenia. Teraz już musimy gwiazdać jak USA powie. Tragedia. Najgorsze przed nami. I w sumie wszystkimi. Jeszcze kryzys tylko odpalą gospodarczy i młyn taki że zdrowy by w wariatkowie wylądował. Ale dobrze Pan oceniasz sytuację.

  • Paweł Zieliński

    NATO nie działa i działać nie będzie. To pic na wodę fotomontaż. Już była wojna w Jugosławii i ile trwała i co NATO na to. I obok wojna natowskie były. To jest kpina z normalno myślących ludzi że tam w NATO. Są mądrzy ludzie. Ci ludzie nie mają pojęcia o wojnie i taktyce. O niczym. No taki rozpiździaj jest na świecie że jakby się znali to był by porządek widocznie się nie znają bo jest jak jest. Ja widziałem film dokumentalny jak dowództwo NATO planuje atak na Rosję albo obronę wyrazie ataku przez Rosję. Na kraje Bałtyckie. Chroń nas panie Boże od takich kretynów. Jakby jedna babka nie odwlokła wystrzelenia jądrówek to reszta ręce w górze miała. Putin ma rację my nawet nic do powiedzenia nie będziemy mieli. Ale wam zwykłym ludziom to makaron na uszy mogą nawijać mi nie.

  • Pra vv nick cy

    TYLKO napisze tak ZADNEJ wojny NIE bedzie bo maja za duzo do stracenia, to nie czasy 2 wojny swiatowej zeby byly wazne czolgi , lotniskowce itd itp PRZYKLAD; TR3B patent jest oficjalny na yt a to mala niezbyt zaawansowan namiastka tego co maja. Lokalne tarcia moga zlatwiac aeroplanikami :)- samolotami itp ale nie duzo "tarcia" , PENTAGON pokazuje "Tik TAK-a", Media naglasniaja "zdobycie Area 51", warto nie tkwic w czasach 2 wojny swiatowej, prosimy oddac Nam Krolewiec :). A Szczecin, Wroclaw jest i bedzie PoLechicki :). Luzyce chce byc z Nami i wschodnie landy tez :). Po co Rosja miala by robic jakies koncpcje z 2 wojny swiatowej- propaganda strachu? Nie logiczne. Lepiej mowic o zagrozeniach 5G lub tzw Smugach Chemicznych na niebie.Ps Seria pt Czarnoglowi Lalak Skwarek na yt i Pan Bieszk.

  • dongizmo gizmo

    Ogladam i slucham Pana wykladow od ładnych paru lat. I mam wkoncu satysfakcję. Bo otacza mnie krąg znajomych , synow powaznych biznesmenów , śmiali sie ze mnie 2 lata temu gdy mowilem o Chinach i Panu. Mowili , tak tak, sluchasz tego swojego Pana w sweterku. Broniłem tego rozumowania a teraz patrze i smieje sie im w twarz 😉 Zawod syn zamyka oczy 😉

  • pro bono

    Kolejny doskonaly wyklad Pana Dr Jacka Bartosiaka.
    Mam nadzieje, ze nauczanie Pana Dr Bartosiaka zainspiruje naszych wspanialych zolnierzy.

  • Harmoniusz Mącik

    Panie i Panowie tu macie sedno problemu i cele systemu:
    Z listu carycy Katarzyny II do Nikity Panina ministra spraw zagranicznych Rosji w latach

    „Istnieją różne narody, a raczej różne narody mają różnego ducha. Jedne można podbić i

    przesiedlić w celu zagarnięcia ich ziem, a świat nie podniesie wrzasku – to małe narody,
    plemiona. Z innych można uczynić małym wysiłkiem niewolników i będą chętnie lizali rękę Pana –
    to narody o podłej duszy, od kolebki niegodne samostanowienia, w wielkich obszarach Azji
    roztopią się bez śladu. Z trzecimi wreszcie nie można zrobić ani tego, ani tego, przynajmniej
    nie od razu – to Polacy.

    Nie można zaanektować ich państwa, bo trzeba byłoby się dzielić z Prusami, Austrią, Turcją i
    Bóg wie jeszcze z kim; narzuca to europejska równowaga sił. Po drugie nie można tego zrobić od
    ręki, gdyż są to znakomici żołnierze, a cały naród gdy otwarcie zagrożony, przypomina
    wściekłego wilka w nagonce. Zbyt dużo by to kosztowało, należy więc zdemoralizować ich do
    szpiku kości. Trzeba … rozłożyć ten naród od wewnątrz, zabić jego moralność… Jeśli nie da
    się uczynić zeń trupa, należy przynajmniej sprawić, żeby był jako chory ropiejący i gnijący
    w łożu… Trzeba mu wszczepić zarazę, wywołać dziedziczny trąd, wieczną anarchię i niezgodę…
    Trzeba nauczyć brata donoszenia na brata, a syna skakania do gardła ojcu.

    Trzeba ich skłócić tak, aby się podzielili i szarpali, zawsze gdzieś szukając arbitra.
    Trzeba ogłupić i zdeprawować, zniszczyć ducha, doprowadzić do tego, by przestali wierzyć w
    cokolwiek oprócz mamony i pajdy chleba. Będą Oni walczyć długo, bardzo długo, nasze prochy
    przepadną, ale przyjdzie czas gdy sami sprzedadzą swój kraj, sprzedadzą go jak najgorszą
    dziwkę. My rozpoczniemy ten proces Panin! Korupcją „milczących psów”, którzy będą nimi rządzić.
    Bogactwem i głodem, które biednych podjudzą przeciw możnym, tych drugich zaś napełnią takim
    strachem i podłością, że uczynią wszystko dla zachowania swego bogactwa.

    Zepsujemy ich kultem prywaty, złodziejstwa, rozpusty, wszelaką demoralizacją i wiodącym ku
    niej alkoholem. Stworzymy tam nową oligarchię, która będzie okradać własny naród nie tylko
    z godności i siły, lecz po prostu ze wszystkiego, głosząc przy tym, że wszystko co czyni,
    czyni dla dobra ojczyzny i obywateli. Niższe szczeble tych krwiopijców będą uzależnione od
    wyższych w nierozerwalnej strukturze formalnej i nieformalnej piramidy.

    Trzeba będzie starać się, by w piramidę wpasowany był każdy zdolny i inteligentny człowiek,
    by zechciwiał w niej i spodlał. Niedopasowywalnych szaleńców, nieuleczalnych fanatyków,
    nałogowych wichrzycieli i każdą inną wartościową jednostkę wyeliminujemy operacyjnie. Zadanie
    to jest wielkie Panin, lecz i efekty będą wielkie. Polska zniknie w samych Polakach! Wtedy
    właśnie, gdy będzie wydawało się im, że mają wolność. Ale ja tego nie doczekam Panin,
    zaczniemy jednak ten proces”

    reszta to tylko czcze dumanie….a my potrzebujemy konkretnych i skutecznych metod na zaoranie systemu.
    Proszę przesyłać dalej… i skopiować ku pamięci.

  • Ulisses19877

    Ojej, a ja też chciałem bardzo wiedzieć czy jest szansa na atomówki dla polski… mając atomówki Ruscy musieliby się zastanowić nie dwa, a trzy lub więcej razy nad ruszeniem polski.

  • Marian Zulus

    1. Nie mogę się zgodzić, że gdy panuje mocarstwo morskie to my mamy spokój. Przecież amerykanie napompowali niemiecką gospodarkę III Rzeszy oraz japońską przed II WŚ po to, żeby zmienić ostatecznie rozkład sił na świecie. Podobnie z Chinami, które są wyhodowanym przez USA sparingowym partnerem, który w odpowiednim czasie ma być użyty do potwierdzenia status quo hegemona i po tym odejdzie w niebyt. Przecież to dzięki amerykańskim koncernom, które chciały produkować w chinach ci ostatni mają dostęp do technologii, które kopiują lub kradną. Chiny mają raptem 2 lotniskowce, przy czym obydwa to technologie z lat 60-ych, nie mówiąc o braku zaprawionych w bojach admirałów. Do tej pory nie udało im się w pełni skopiować silnika od Su-27 co mówi wiele o ich kulturze technicznej (tzn o jej braku).
    2. Nie ma żadnej realnej imperialskości w działaniach Rosji, a jedynie jej symulacja na potrzeby obywateli Rosji. Kraj, którego 40% budżetu pochodzi z eksportu węglowodorów i kopalin i który eksportuje mniej produktów elektromaszynowych niż Polska nie może być prawdziwym imperium.

  • Michal Andrzejczak

    Efekt niwelacji strachu przed Rosjanami nie osiągnięty. 40 tysięcy ofiar po stronie Polski zamroził krew w żyłach słuchających. Wulgaryzmy jako żarty też nie zadziałały.

  • Lares

    Czysto zimnowojenna perspektywa. Rosja nie ma zamiaru napadać na państwa NATO, a już z całą pewnością na Polskę. To jest temat zamknięty po IIWŚ.

  • John C

    a moze by tak go na reedukacje do kabaretu moralnego niepokoju
    lubie go sluchac i nareszcie mamykogos w kraju kto rozszerza nam horyzonty, sluchajac politykow wybrancow narodu to slysze pozim kabaretu o czy wyzej


    Świetny wykład i dźwięk dobry. Znalezione w net:"Zwalczanie broni pancernej trzeba zapewnić systemowo. I my takie możliwości mamy. Po pierwsze wykrycie – za pomocą dronów np. systemu Topaz. Atakować mogą Warmate2! Drony te są opracowane, ale MON ich nie kupuje. Po drugie utrudnić przemieszczanie się wrogich sił: mamy prototypy systemów minowania Kroton (gąsienicowe) i Baobab (kołowe), ale MON ich nie kupuje, żądając za to przez 3 lata kolejnych zmian w projektach. Po trzecie mamy Langusty (z systemem Topaz) i opracowane do nich kasetowe pociski ppanc Hesyt. MON ich nie kupuje. Możemy po prostu kupić kilkaset 155mm samonsprowadzających się pocisków ppanc klasy Smart, Sadarm, Bonus dla posiadanych Krabow (tych z systemem Topaz). MON ich nie kupuje. Możemy kupić kilkaset ppanc pocisków samonaprowadzających się typu Strix do posiadanych już Raków. MON ich nie kupuje. Możemy kupić choćby z Ukrainy (mają takie gotowe i będzie tanio) ppk dla Mi24. MON ich nie kupuje. Możemy uzbroić w ppk posiadane już śmigłowce Sokół/W3 (są gotowe rozwiązania integracyjne z ppk Spike). MON ich nie kupuje. Możemy dokupić choćby tylko dla Leonów i PT91 jakieś nowoczesne i skuteczne pociski (od Niemców 120mm dla Leonow, z Izraela/Ukrainy/Serbii 125mm dla PT91). MON ich nie kupuje. Można dokupić Spike/MMP/Javeliny i zamontować je choćby na Toyotach, kupujemy wszak np. Spike, jaki więc problem dokupić seryjne pick-upy i sklecić lekki niszczyciel czołgów z doskonałymi ppk klasy "odpal i zapomnij"? Ale MON ich nie kupuje. Można wobec braku w zmechach skutecznych granatnikow – dokupić Alcotany czy cokolwiek innego, byle współczesnego więc skutecznego. Ale MON nic takiego nie kupuje. Wszystko to jest dostępne, albo na rynku a inne wprost z polskich fabryk. NIC wobec powyższego nie przedarło by się gdyby MON chciał zapewnić zatrzymanie i zniszczenie wrogich sił pancernych. Ale – ŻADNA z w/w pozycji nie została uwzględniona w PMT aż do 2026 roku. Pytanie: jak i czym Sztab Generalny, MON, min Błaszczak, BBN planują zatrzymać wrogie, bardzo przy tym liczne, zagony pancerne doskonałych T72bm3 wspartych hordami BMP3/BMD, z których KAŻDY ma jakieś integralne ppk, podczas gdy ŻADEN nasz nośnik NIE posiada ppk??" Dodam do tego pytania: czy widzimy poza horyzont? czy mamy awacsy? czy możemy wysyłać pociski dalej niż na 40 km? czy zakup F-35 nie jest dla RP zbyt kosztowne?

  • 8navarra

    Po tym wykładzie widać że Bartosiak to podżegacz wojenny z nadania amerykańskiego. Coś takiego jak wojna powinno być "the last resort", ostatnim wyborem, po różnego rodzaju działaniach czy chociażby negocjacjach. Czego chce od nas Rosja? Czy ma jakieś pretensje terytorialne? Pretensje terytorialne dobiegają do nas z Niemiec (kwestionowanie 1/3 terytorium Polski!), z Ukrainy (Przemyśl, Lublin), Litwy (Suwalszczyzna), Czechy (Ziemia Kłodzka). Rosja? Zero. Nie mogą nawet liczyć na zdobycze materialne, bo co wartościowe to w Polsce należy już do zachodnich firm lub do Żydów. Przed każdą wojną potencjalny agresor artykułuje wobec swej ofiary różnego rodzaju zarzuty, pretensje i deprecjonuje i dehumanizuje obcy naród aby dać swym żołnierzom motywację do zabijania. Jak wygląda artykułowanie antypolskiej narracji w Rosji? Co się tam nam zarzuca w rosyjskich mediach? Z tego co wiem, to różni nas tylko podejście do przeszłości (oczywiście kłamliwe ze strony Rosji) i polskie likwidowanie sowieckich pomników na terenie naszego kraju. A jakie my mamy pretensje wobec Rosji oprócz rozpamiętywania starych ran i reprezentowania amerykańskich interesów w tej części świata? Rosyjska agresja na Ukrainę czy Gruzję spowodowana była obroną rosyjskojęzycznych mieszkańców tych krajów. A w dużym stopniu zadawnione pretensje nie możemy mieć tylko do Rosjan – przez lata caratu rządzili Rosją niemieccy książęta i sztabowcy, a potem komunistyczni watażkowie z różnych republik i zbrodniarze żydowscy. Bartosiak twierdzi, że w broni konwencjonalnej możemy mieć przewagę nad Rosją. Akurat. Czy mamy coś lepszego i więcej niż np czołg Armata, pociski S-400, myśliwce Su-56? Wyobraźmy sobie, panie Bartosiak, warmongerze, taką sytuację: Jest zima w Warszawie, temp. -20stC, Rosja odpala jedną baterię pocisków S-400: jedna rakieta trafia w warszawską elektrociepłownię, jedna lub dwie w pompownie wodociągów, jedna lub dwie w elektrownie zapewniające prąd Warszawie. W ciągu paru minut, 1,5 – milionowe miasto pozbawione jest prądu, wody i ciepła. Milion mieszkańców opuszcza swe bloki mieszkalne i wędruje w poszukiwaniu ochrony przed zimnem i głodem. Taką przyszłość widzi pan dla Polski? W jakiej sprawie?

  • 8navarra

    Z jednej strony Bartosiak opowiada, że Rosja jest bardzo słaba, ma tylko 140 mln mieszkańców, armii nie ma itp. a potem twierdzi że Rosja chce odbudować swe imperium! A przecież każdy widzi że Rosja cofnęła się ze swoimi granicami do tych sprzed 300 lat. Nie było korekty granic po rozpadzie sztucznie formowanego Związku Sowieckiego, więc czymś naturalnym musiała być ich korekta o ludność rosyjską w jakiś czas potem. W obronie Krymu Ukraińcy nie oddali ani jednego strzału. Albo długo mówi o potrzebie sojuszu Polski z Rumunią, a potem opowiada jak to Rumunia zawsze zmienia sojusze. I tak stale, ciągle jakieś niekonsekwencje w tych rozważaniach. Bartosiak ma dostęp do jakichś amerykańskich opracowań geopolitycznych ale niewiele z tego rozumie, tylko powtarza co zapamiętał. Taki sposób na życie.

  • 8navarra

    Dlaczego Bartosiak nie mówi nic o stratach ludności cywilnej w tych bitwach i wojnie na terenie Polski? Samymi żołnierzykami przyjemnie się gra "poziom strat wojska polskiego jak w I wś pod Verun i Sommą – 40 tys żołnierzy w tygodniu" . Fuck

  • Bogusław Kuciński

    Fantazmagorie pana dr Jacka Bartosiaka . Rosja nigdy nie zajmie Polski ….może ją tylko zniszczyć jak zacznie jej zagrażać . To tyle …wykład skończony bezpłatnie )

  • 8navarra

    Z wykładu się dowiadujemy że Polska, z woli USA, jest w jednym z trzech potencjalnie najbardziej grożących konfliktem zbrojnym rejonach, którymi są: Zachodni Pacyfik, Zatoka Perska i Nizina Środkowoeuropejska. Miłych snów!

  • Michał Patriota

    Daj mu Boże zdrowia, wytrwałości w uświadamianiu Narodu Polskiego. A w szczególności tych "paparuchów" z ul. Wiejskiej.
    Może właśnie dzięki takim ludziom jak Pan Doktor zostanie przelane mniej Polskiej Krwi w przyszłości….

  • ert nosst

    a kiedy kolejny wyklad dr Sykulskiego na Akademi Wojsk Lądowych bo on ma troche inny punkt widzenia na niektore sprawy w stosunkach Polska -Rosja i trzeci z tej trojki dr Szewko

  • Gerwazy Gagucki

    Porażająca jest skala bezmyślnych klakierów, którym marzy się wojenka na polskiej ziemi. Wtłaczana do ich wypranych mózgów Bartosiakowa wydzielina sparaliżowała im nawet instynkt życia. I ta pogarda dla Rosji, która – choć słaba – łupu cupu na Polskę napadnie, co jest głównym motywem antypolskiej propagandy. Bo przecież Rosja ma się poddać i ulec likwidacji, podobnie jak Polska.
    25 sierpnia 1944 roku, w czasie Powstania Warszawskiego, major "Gozdawa" meldował: "Wśród rabinów operacyjnych dalszy wybuch pewności siebie i nonszalancji". Tak i teraz Polska wpychana jest w otchłań. Pająki zaś usypiają tubylców, by z katolickim miłosierdziem uczynić im śmierć łatwiejszą.

  • Jan Kowalski

    super sie slucha, szkoda ze geopolitykla nir uwzglednia dzialan jednostek, jak najzwyklejsze znajomosci, rotschild-puin itd

  • romka791

    Straszne, że poniżej kmentatorzy mają tak niską wiedzę i świadomość interesów głównych wrogów Polski, ostatnio nazywanych "sojusznikami". Wszystkim podoba się naganianie nas przez doktora jurgieltnika na wojnę z Rosją, choć nie jest w naszym interesie, lecz wyłącznie w interesie USrAela. Polska nie ma żadnych spraw konfliktowych z Rosją. Doktor pieprzy celowo głupoty, fałsze wymieszane z faktami małoistotnymi wojskowymi. On już w imaginacji rozgrywa nami wojnę z Rosją, jako oczywistość; zaraża słuchacza tą oczywistością konieczności wojny potrzebnej USA. Imputuje słuchaczowi wyobrażone modele okraszone faktmi z innej beczki manipulując słuchaczami. Skacze z rzymu do krymu, mieszankę nieprzystających faktów podaje tak elokwentnie,że komentatorzy tu szczają po nogach z zachwytu. Trochę wiedzy, orientacji w polityce i interesach państw "sojuszniczych" , by ośmiać tego agenta wpływu USA i Izraela oraz Partii Interesu Syjonistyczngo (pis).

  • romka791

    Pan Elokwentny, dr Bartosiak jest agentem wpływu USrAela. Współpracuje z USA w Potomac Fundation opracowując strategie operacyjne dla amerykańskich sił zbrojnych na tzw. flance wschodniej On nas przekonuje od paru lat, że ta wojna z Rosją musi być i jednocześnie steruje nas mentalnie na tę wojnę zgodnie z interesem i celem USA określonym przez Zbiga Brzezińskiego ponad 20 lat temu. Naszą krwią, terytorium, kosztami chcą zrobić sobie poligon rozgrywki z naszym potężnym sąsiadem, z którym Polska nie ma żadnych konfliktów i zapalnych ognisk, sporów granicznych ! Dla dla synagogi szatana, dla banksterów i korporacji zbrojeniowych rotszylda, który musi opróżnić magazyny na nowsze rodzaje narzędzi zabijania i o złoża podbiegunowe, których od Rosji chce Kanada, Albion, USA, Szwecja, Norwegia.Chcą Polską załatwić swe interesy. Polska jest bogatym państwem w pierwiastki ziem rzadkich, które chce eksploatować usrael, ale po wybiciu gospodarzy tej ziemi na wojnie z Rosją. Bartosiak jest złym emisariuszem złej sprawy. Chiny tez są częścią bajki Bartosiaka i realnym graczem , ale nie ważne są fakty lecz ich interpretacja wg zapotrzebowania sponsora pana doktora. Na razie ten jurgieltnik został nagrodzony za usługi prezesostwem ( zrezygnował) lotniczego portu przeładunkowegoCPK na potrzeby wojny i dla ewakuacji armii i wszystkich obywateli Izraela do Polski wg umowy podpisanej przez Kwasniewskiego. Pan doktor namaszczony przez obłąkanego Friedmana ze STRATFORTA, który z Polski chce zrobić "Kordon Sanitarny". To nie jest w interesie Polski.

  • romka791

    Profesor Jacek Bartyzel zdefiniował obecną politykę Polski słowami; ''Nie znajduję w historii drugiego takiego rządu, który by wciągał swój naród do wojny z "sojusznikiem" odległym o kilka tysięcy kilometrów, przeciw państwu niemąjącemu do nas żadnych pretensji terytorialnych ani sprzecznych interesów. Robi to w interesie odległego, jawnie rasistowskiego państwa plemiennego, którego klasa polityczna i zdecydowana większość ludności żywi do nas nieskrywaną nienawiść, systematycznie uprawia wobec nas przemysł pogardy, używa wszelkich możliwych środków nacisku, żeby ograbić nas pod pozorem urojonych należności, i od którego jedyną rzeczą, jaką możemy spodziewać w "podzięce" za to, że staniemy po jego stronie będzie zepchnięcie nas w oczach świata w metafizyczne inferno ludobójców współwinnych (jeśli nie wręcz głównych sprawców) mordowania ludzi. To jest postępowanie tak bezrozumne, tak irracjonalne, że nie sposób tego nawet określić w kategoriach zwykłego zdrowego rozsądku''.

  • romka791

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEhJmhaZcYM dr Sykulski o oszustwie i zagrożeniu Polski ze strony USA. Dr Sykulski argumentuje przeciwnie do jurgieltnika Bartosiaka.



  • amryta sekator

    Inteligentny ,wykształcony w Waszyngtonie "spadochroniarz na gumce" wymachując polską flagą aplikuje młodym ,zapatrzonym w gry komputerowe Polakom środek znieczulający ,energy power ,obiecuje kilka żyć i klepiąc po pleckach uspokaja jak to czynili onegdaj "uspokajacze" francuscy i niemieccy : Rosja to słabeusz ,sam teraz widzisz po moim wykładzie ,więc śmiało ..idzieeesz ,nie bój żaby .Chyba nie chcesz znowu tej straszliwej ,nieludzkiej sowieckiej powojennej okupacji ,warto oddać życie ,napiszę o was kiedyś z Hawajów "Kampania Polska 2020 na tle amerykańskich interesów narodowych"..hehe..I te darwinistyczne teorie : Jesteśmy zwierzętami , takie jest życie ..jak ty nie jego, to on ciebie wykończy .Najlepiej zaatakuj go prewencyjnie póki jest słaby ,bo jak będzie silny to to on ciebie załatwi .Odetnij mu drogę do do wody ,żywności ,handlu i będzie musiał cię pierwszy napaść,co wykorzystasz w podręcznikach szkolnych ..bo ,taka jest geopolityka ,takie jest niestety życie ,nie ma miejsca na człowieczeństwo ,niestety moi drodzy słuchacze. Gdy jednak mówi o Polsce..ni z tego ,ni z owego włącza hehe…kryteria moralne : My niewinni cierpiętnicy ,Mesjasz Narodów ,takie dobre pokojowe ludzie prześladowani przez okrutnych moskali. "W pierwszym tygodniu zginie 40 tys .polskich żołnierzy (oczywiście nie będziecie to wy hehe) ..,a w drugim ? I to w opcji optymistycznej, gdy na końcu wygrają Polacy. A gdy przegrają to jaki mnożnik amerykańscy planiści zastosowali dla swojego "Zderzaka" ,co z miastami ,cywilami ? Znowu Czesi będą się z naszej rozpaczy śmiali? Za stary jestem ,by dać się nabrać na te inteligentne pierdoły.,ale nie dziwię się młodym. Kiedyś sam bym łyknął te Gdanie ,tak atrakcyjnie i z takim rozmachem podane.

  • Dawid Es

    13:50 Pan w 1 rzędzie, ciema polówka, został własnie kandydatem na czołgistę. Będzie czołgał by się na poligonie w błocie w pełnym oporządzeniu i płakał.

  • razem567

    Jak zwykle fantastyczny wykład. Może jednak Panie doktorze warto zastanowić sie nad planem "B" dla Polski. http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/7,114881,25135882,trump-odwoluje-wizyte-w-warszawie-winny-huragan-dorian.html#s=BoxOpMT

  • Michał Pogorzelski

    Mówi sie, że po II wojnie światowej anglosasi byli za slabi i dlatego pozostawili nas pod butem komunizmu. Dlaczego można było spuścić dwie atomowki na Japonie, a żadna nie poleciała na USSR by ich zmusic do kapitulacji lub cofniecia sie do swoich granic?

  • Robert Masi

    PITU PITU, Jestem w 42 minucie wykładu. Jak dojdzie do W z Chinami i będą przegrywać, to po prostu jebną bombę na Pekin. I nie wierzę, że nie mają systemów antyrakietowych. Takie statusquo było modne w latach 80" oglądam dalej 🙂

  • kubar

    Świetny wykład jak powinniśmy bronić interesów USA i wschodniej flanki NATO ale żadnego ineresu dla Polski w wojnie z Ruskimi nie widzę.

  • Marek Dabrowski

    Gra o której mówił dr. Bartosiak https://warontherocks.com/2019/04/how-does-the-next-great-power-conflict-play-out-lessons-from-a-wargame/

  • Dariusz Gąsior

    Po wysłuchaniu kolejnego wykładu Pana dr Bartosiaka, oglądnięciu sprzętu polskiego i rosyjskiego na pokazach/defiladach, po wysłuchaniu na youtubie stanu o naszej armii wg. fundacji Ad Arma w sejmie odnoszę wrażenie, iż cały ten wykład to 'zabieg intelektualny' (cyt. z wykładu), który jak przed 1939 r. ma nam pokazać że jesteśmy 'SILNI, ZWARCI, GOTOWI' i brakuje jedynie 'WODZU PROWADŹ!' Ludzie ocknijcie się!

  • VotanLoad

    Czysta propaganda dla militarno wojskowego kompleksu. Jeszcze 5 lat temu nie uzywano wojennej terminologii jak jakies przesmyki suwalakie, wschodnia flanka, kraj frontowy itd. Chodzi o narzucenie polskiemu spoleczenstwu poczucia zagrozenia i ze nie ma innej alternatywy jak wojna z Rosja. Mozna wywnioskowac z wykladu ze obecnosc wojsk amerykanskich w Polsce jest elementem amerykanskiej geopolityki aby jesli dojdzie do wojny to prowadzic ja jak najdalej od granic USA…czy to ma sie jakos do bezpieczenstwa Polski? Takze zachwyt nad amerykanska potega morska jest nieuzasadniony. Lotniskowce juz dawno sie przezyly i istnieja bardzo sprawe srodki ich zwalczania i Chiny je bardzo szybko rozwijaja. Lotniskowce byly i sa dobre jako policyjne narzedzie kiedy trzeba bylo dobrowadzic do porzadku jakies male panstewko a nie do prowadzenia wojny z technologicznie rozwinietym przeciwnikiem. Chcialbym aby bylo mniej bezkrytycznych zachwytow a wiecej krytycznego spojzenia na to co tutaj sie slyszy.

  • Marek Kozlowski

    Banały i bełkot. Co on sobie ten bałwan myśli? Co robią w sztabach NATO? I to jest wykład w AWL? Przecież to wykład dla przedszkolaków.

  • wojtek wol

    Ha ha ha , ciekawy jestem kto płaci za pranie mózgów i to jeszcze w jednostkach wojskowych . Jak ruskie wychodzą na przedpola wali lotnictwo , wtedy chowają się w miastach . W Dombasie strzelali z gradów ale ćwiczebnych ! Dlaczego ? Nie chcieli pokazać obrazu po bombardowani miasta a szczególnie słabej zabudowy jaka u nich występuje . Jak dostają w dupę na przedpolu , miasto zamienia się w ruiny to jeden jaki pomysł przychodzi ruskim , to spierdalamy . Przeważnie za jakąś rzekę i najlepiej jakiegoś miasta . Wygrywając wojnę lotniczą z ruskimi wygrywa się wszystko . Na dzień dzisiejszy tylko Ameryka będąc w Iraku pokazała różnicę jak wali w budynek żelbetonowy rakieta ćwiczebna i jak w ten sam obiekt trafia rakieta uzbrojona . Widok jest dopiero wtedy jak opadnie kurz . Po co zdobywać lotnisko jak w Dombasie jak można pierdolnąć parę rakiet a się poskłada jak domek z kart . Nawet jak się okopią dookoła parę rakiet zrobi takie ciśnienie że zniknie tam w ogóle jakieś życie . Opowiastki jak dla dzieci w przedszkolu . Mamy procę może ustrzelimy jakiegoś wróbla . A wojna w 21 wieku w ogóle inne ma możliwości .

  • Andy Matalar

    Mądre wykłady dr Bartosiaka utrudniają dodatkowo sprawy dot. Polski, które nie są w wykładzie poruszane: https://youtu.be/e3M_0NSBz6o. Oprócz źelaznej logiki potrzeba jeszcze ludzi i otoczenia do możliwości jej realizacji a to wygląda nienajlepiej.

  • Luk

    Polska powinna pozostać jak najdłużej neutralna, a do ewentualnej wojny włączyć się jako ostatnia. Coś poszło nie tak…

  • 8navarra

    Po tym wykładzie widać że Bartosiak to hochsztapler i podżegacz wojenny z nadania amerykańskiego. Coś takiego jak wojna powinno być "the last resort", ostatnim wyborem, po różnego rodzaju działaniach czy chociażby negocjacjach. Czego chce od nas Rosja? Czy ma jakieś pretensje terytorialne? Pretensje terytorialne dobiegają do nas z Niemiec (kwestionowanie 1/3 terytorium Polski!), z Ukrainy (Przemyśl, Lublin), Litwy (Suwalszczyzna), Czechy (Ziemia Kłodzka). Rosja? Zero. Nie mogą nawet liczyć na zdobycze materialne, bo co wartościowe to w Polsce należy już do zachodnich firm lub do Żydów. Przed każdą wojną potencjalny agresor artykułuje wobec swej ofiary różnego rodzaju zarzuty, pretensje i deprecjonuje i dehumanizuje obcy naród aby dać swym żołnierzom motywację do zabijania. Jak wygląda artykułowanie antypolskiej narracji w Rosji? Co się tam nam zarzuca w rosyjskich mediach? Z tego co wiem, to różni nas tylko podejście do przeszłości (oczywiście kłamliwe ze strony Rosji) i polskie likwidowanie sowieckich pomników na terenie naszego kraju. A jakie my mamy pretensje wobec Rosji oprócz rozpamiętywania starych ran i reprezentowania amerykańskich interesów w tej części świata? Rosyjska agresja na Ukrainę czy Gruzję spowodowana była obroną rosyjskojęzycznych mieszkańców tych krajów. A w dużym stopniu zadawnione pretensje nie możemy mieć tylko do Rosjan – przez lata caratu rządzili Rosją niemieccy książęta i sztabowcy, a potem komunistyczni watażkowie z różnych republik i zbrodniarze żydowscy. Bartosiak twierdzi, że w broni konwencjonalnej możemy mieć przewagę nad Rosją. Akurat. Czy mamy coś lepszego i więcej niż np czołg Armata, pociski S-400, myśliwce Su-56? Wyobraźmy sobie, panie Bartosiak, warmongerze, taką sytuację: Jest zima w Warszawie, temp. -20stC, Rosja odpala jedną baterię pocisków S-400: jedna rakieta trafia w warszawską elektrociepłownię, jedna lub dwie w pompownie wodociągów, jedna lub dwie w elektrownie zapewniające prąd Warszawie. W ciągu paru minut, 1,5 – milionowe miasto pozbawione jest prądu, wody i ciepła. Milion mieszkańców opuszcza swe bloki mieszkalne i wędruje w poszukiwaniu ochrony przed zimnem i głodem. Taką przyszłość widzi pan dla Polski? W jakiej sprawie?

  • 8navarra

    Z jednej strony Bartosiak opowiada, że Rosja jest bardzo słaba, ma tylko 140 mln mieszkańców, armii nie ma itp. a potem twierdzi że Rosja chce odbudować swe imperium! A przecież każdy widzi że Rosja cofnęła się ze swoimi granicami do tych sprzed 300 lat. Nie było korekty granic po rozpadzie sztucznie formowanego Związku Sowieckiego, więc czymś naturalnym musiała być ich korekta o ludność rosyjską w jakiś czas potem. W obronie Krymu Ukraińcy nie oddali ani jednego strzału. Albo długo mówi o potrzebie sojuszu Polski z Rumunią, a potem opowiada jak to Rumunia zawsze zmienia sojusze. I tak stale, ciągle jakieś niekonsekwencje w tych rozważaniach. Bartosiak ma dostęp do jakichś amerykańskich opracowań geopolitycznych ale niewiele z tego rozumie, tylko powtarza co zapamiętał. Taki sposób na życie.

  • Arkadiusz Nowak

    Polacy, prawdziwi Polacy powinni rozwijać własną armię ,nie liczyć na usraelitów , którzy mają nas głęboko w anusie.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *