Kalinigrad and Central Poland are separated by maze of lakes, forrest and marshes 100 km in-depth...Not exactly a tank country - Masuria had always been considered a major strategic obstacle..
Same goes for Polish-Byelorussia border - large forrests, rolling hills...
Each Russian staff officer worth his salt knows details of this terrain from studying history - 1793, 1809, 1831, 1914, 1920, 1941, 1944... And impassable has different definition in XXI century then in 1812... But still...it is a terrain well suited for defense...
Situation is somewhat similar here in Lithuania. Unfortunately what I learned studying our post-WW2 resistance, it's not as obstacle as it was back then. Melioration is probably #1. Marshes are anti-tank canals, with bridges supporting tractors and trucks. Then greatly improved road network. Especially access roads for farms, forest service and so on. Impenetrable marshes and forests of 1940s where some cells held out for a decade are now zig-zagged with roads that support trucks overloaded with timber. Farms have fascinating access roads too. And Polish farms seem to have even better access roads, at least what I saw while cycling down there.
Sure, it's not flatland where you can roll by tanks anywhere. But so was Ukraine in february when fields were sinkholes. And it's nowhere close to proper mountains. Or marshes of 100 years ago.
I have read in Northern Crusades [1] that in XII/XIII century forrests separating Prussia from Lithuania/Mazovia had been truly impassable (except for raiding parties - raizes) and the only campaining had been possible along large rivers. Lituanians had it easier because they had been bringing siedge equipment and canons downstream. So there is some change although meassured in centuries :)
Yes. But the huuuuge forests of XII century were converted into arable land in Commonwealth times. Export timber, then grow grain in place of the old forest and export it... And then unexpected partition happens and you can't hide in the forest anymore :/
Putin clearly stated he has no such intentions and even if he had the poor performance of his armed forces will make him think twice before attacking NATO countries.
After the Cold War the U.S. searched the Soviet archives for evidence of plans to attack NATO, but all these turned up nothing. The Soviet Union never had the intention to attack Western Europe and all their posturing was merely to make us believe they were stronger than they actually were.
Yes, they'd won the Second World War, but only at enormous human cost. For every German soldier killed at least 5 Soviet soldiers lost their lives.
If Putin told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside and check. To describe Putin's relationship with the truth as "tenuous" would be far more generous than he deserves.
For all his faults and crimes I do believe he's sincere on this. He merely wants us to keep out of "his" backyard. Read: former Soviet states are off-limits for NATO and EU membership.
We've been provoking him by offering (and sometimes even bribing and prodding) former Soviet states to become NATO members.
I'm no Putin fan, but I do believe he has a point here.
> For all his faults and crimes I do believe he's sincere on this. He merely wants us to keep out of "his" backyard.
Putin gave a three hour speech detailing precisely why he invaded, which is an old Russian claim that can be summed up with, the Ukrainians aren't a real people. The way he has fought this war (e.g. filtration camps) supports those the contents that speech.
If Putin's goal was to prevent Ukraine from joinig NATO, he got that done in 2014 after annexing Crimea. It would have been impossible for Ukraine to join NATO due to it's ongoing border dispute with the Russians. Territorial disputes are a virtual non-stater according to NATO application policies. Zelensky even offered to never join NATO, yet Putin attacked all the same. When speaking about the conquests of Peter the Great, Putin said, "It seems it has fallen to us, too, to reclaim and strengthen,", where he was clearly referring to Ukraine.
Can I ask you to read the actual treaty [0] and point where exactly "Territorial disputes are a virtual non-stater according to NATO application policies"?
Demonstrated a commitment to and respect for OSCE norms and principles, including the resolution of ethnic disputes, external territorial disputes including irredentist claims or internal jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means"
I first heard, the argument put forth General Patreaus. He has mentioned it several times on various television programs when asked what he thought about claims that Russia invaded to keep Ukraine out of NATO. That motivated me to look up the passage.
I'm not certaint what you mean about Cypress? It has not applied for NATO membership.
Edit: the ideas behind the above quote seems likely to be based on the langjage in Article 1 of the NATO Charter.
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
There isn't any debate that this is NATO's policy. It is frequently discussed during the application process for many nations. However, the application process itself is even more explicit, since you still seem skeptical (despite what numerous foreign policy, military, political scientists indicate).
"Aspirants would also be expected:
...
to settle ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes including irredentist claims or internal jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles and to pursue good neighbourly relations;"
But accepting that would just mean that e.g. Poland couldn't join the EU and would have to remain, even forced by the West to not make Putin sad, a Russian vassal state.
Who can accept such a world order, where a tier 2 power holds everyone hostage and demands to be treated as an empire? Imagine if the British expected to still control all of the empire they once had and demanded the US, Russia and China stop India from going its own way.
If Russia is willing to fight a war over Ukraine, then you've got to ask yourself how important is Ukraine to us? Keeping in mind that this war could easily spiral out of control and into a nuclear Holocaust, killing approximately 5 billion (!!) people (this estimate was only recently computed, I think I even read about it on HN).
For me the answer is "Not very." I hope the Ukrainians win, but if they don't I won't lose any sleep over it. All this talk that this war being an existential threat to the West wold and that we must win it at all cost is simply preposterous.
Sure, I understand that response. Tomorrow the question will be "how important is Poland to us, really?", and the day after that it will be asked about Germany and France. And it's quite reasonable to always answer "well, I don't really care about country X so much that I'm willing to kill 5bn people over its independence".
But you will either end up with the whole world living as Russia's slaves, or you'll end up with a war when someone says "no, I'm not okay with that". Only that you'll have given Russia a lot of infrastructure to steal and re-use when that day finally comes.
> Watching Russian convoys sport the Soviet flag pretty much signals their intention:
It was this flag [1], not any Soviet flag. Which, in this context, makes a lot of sense, as the current government in Ukraine tries to extricate itself as much as possible from them actually having been on the good side during WW2 (with the well-known exceptions), i.e. on Russia's side . I used to know a person closed to me who had fought on the wrong side, around the same parts where this war now takes place (Odessa, Crimea, all the way to the Don river), so I'm not commenting about this from half a world away. And no, it was not "obvious" that that was Russia's intention.
> the good side during WW2, i.e. on Russia's side (with the well-known exceptions)
There are some pretty fucking big exceptions there, my friend. The USSR was perfectly content to cooperate with Nazi Germany for their own benefit until they got backstabbed.
You don't know history [0][1]. Stalin was absolutely not content to cooperate with Nazi Germany as Stalin offered 1M soldiers to be sent to border with Germany if France and Britain agreed on anti-Nazi alliance. They didn't even respond. Unfortunately this only came out in 2000' when classified documents came out and Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact is the only thing people remember. Time to update your knowledge.
Of course British and French were wary of communist Soviet Union but Stalin did offer it to Allies first. That's a historical fact. Once they didn't respond he tried to prevent and postpone the war with Germany with a well known Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact because documents also show that Stalin was perfectly aware that Germans will attack no matter what.
The above doesn't negate Stalin's imperialistic ambitions towards Poland.
Poland has absolutely 0 natural geographical barriers.