Lithuanian, Polish and Ukrainian Brigade

The formation of the joint Lithuanian, Polish and Ukrainian brigade ("LITPOLUKRBRIG") was formalised on Nov 14th during a meeting of EU Defence Ministers. The brigade will be based in Lublin, Poland and is scheduled to be operational by 2011. This brigade marks an important moment in Polish-Russian relations as it aims at establishing a physical commitment to Ukrainian security.

Although the final outcome of the brigade’s future rests on the results of the Ukrainian Presidential elections in 2010, this move is significant in the fact that a brigade level unit will be the largest permanent military organisation created between Nato and non-Nato (former Soviet Republic) members. More importantly it will sent a sharp message to Moscow, who still consider the Ukraine to be firmly within it’s sphere of influence.
The working language of the brigade will be English and the brigade will be primarily available for peacekeeping duties within an EU, Nato or UN framework.

Poland is by far the dominant partner within the group and the housing of the brigade at Lublin advertises Poland's status as a military and security player on the global arena.

Poland: A Regional Power

2009 marks the latest of Poland’s many milestones on the road to re-establishing itself as a regional power akin to the status it enjoyed in the mid 17^th century. It has now been 20 years since the dramatic fall of communism and the re-birth of a free Poland. During that time many important steps have been taken in an ever strident effort to secure both political and military integrity. This year also marks the 10^th anniversary of Poland’s entry in to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). In this essay I will discuss the achievements that have been made and look at the direction in which Poland is heading in terms of security and foreign policy.

Establishing an international presence

Polish membership of both NATO and the European Union (EU) were from the offset primary policy goals during the 1990s. These were achieved in 1999 and 2004 respectively. As part of NATO Poland has taken part in the Afghanistan mission, and to secure it status as a dependable ally of the USA (NATO’s paramount power), also in the Iraq mission. The latter finished earlier this year; while the Polish force in Afghanistan successfully carried out its first offensive operation (Op Eagle’s Feather) also this year. The conduction of Op Eagle’s Feather has significance beyond its limited affect upon theatre operations. This was the first time since the end of communism that Polish soldiers deployed offensively.

Modernising the Military

During the Cold War the Polish military was a large conscript based organisation designed to conduct defensive operations of a conventional manner. In 1989 the new Polish state inherited a huge and somewhat overwhelming organisation that was technologically outdated and tactically inefficient for the role in which Poland was to find itself as a member of NATO. Since that time much has been done to re-equip and re-train the Polish military. An inevitable part of that has been the professionalisation of the armed forces with the last group of conscripts being sworn in to the military in Dec 2008. Poland has invested heavily in modern technology with the Leopard tank and Rosmark APC (Armoured Personnel Carrier) significantly improving the land forces capability and manoeuvrability. The most costly and high-profile purchase has been the F-16 Fighter from Lockheed-Martin which replaces Soviet era Mig-29s and Su-22s. These vehicles combined with the general re-structuring of the Polish military along NATO lines have been somewhat controversially paid for by the 22.6 billion Złoty defence budget (2008 figure: 7.4 $ billion). This budget makes Poland one of the biggest European defence spenders proportional to its size (1.95% GDP). Alas Poland still does not have a strategic lift capability nor logistical organisation capable of deploying the military overseas and therefore relies upon its NATO allies, primarily the USA, for missions such as Afghanistan.

Political assertiveness

From a policy perspective Poland has tried to place itself at the heart of both the EU and NATO. During 2009 Poland nominated three individuals to senior NATO/European positions: Radosław Sikorski for NATO Secretary General, Wlodzimersz Cimoszewicz for Council of Europe Secretary General and Jerzy Buzek for European Parliament President. Poland achieved a 1 out of 3 success rate with Jerzy Buzek being elected President in Jul 09. This drive to become a central player within these organisations has been matched by Polish foreign policy within central and Eastern Europe. The high-profile involvement of President Kaczynski during Russian/Georgian hostilities in 2008 and the support of Ukraine’s ‘Orange Revolution’ are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of Poland’s engagement in regional affairs.

Reasons behind Poland's actions

The motivation behind Poland’s assertion of its position has its roots in Poland’s turbulent past. Many Poles still feel a sense of betrayal at the way Poland was dealt with by its allies during and after the Second World War and this, coupled with the cultural memory of Poland’s partition at the end of the 18^th century and the more recent forced membership of the Soviet-bloc, leaves Poland insecure as to its territorial integrity. It is not surprising therefore that successive Polish governments have been so ever-forward in there bid to make Poland a central NATO and European actor.

Tightly connected with this sense of in-security and bid for security reassurances from its allies is the missile defence project first outlined by the US Bush administration. Poland was caught somewhat off-guard by the abrupt cancellation of the project by President Obamma and saw the project along with the stationing of US troops on Polish soil as a way of guaranteeing a US response to aggression by a third party upon Poland. Vice-President Joe Biden during his October visit to Warsaw was therefore doing his utmost to reassure Poland of US military support. This came shortly after the announcement of a new missile project by The Whitehouse. Were Poland to eventually host US troops it would confirm Poland as an important strategic ally for the US. However, it would do little to increase Poland’s own status as a regional power.

Poland's future

The two strung path Poland is trying to tread, one of both military and political dimensions, has both drawbacks and advantages. While expanding its military powers Poland does indeed gain notoriety within the international community. However, the amount of 'hard power' currency that can be gained is at best limited. Poland's economy can not at present maintain the sort of investments that are required of a global actor. Apart from the USA there are only two other NATO members who regularly deploy troops outside of a peacekeeping framework: France and the United Kingdom. These two countries are both members of the economic G8 group and have a GDP far in excess of Poland's. Even on a regional basis, Poland's military would be unable to operate outside of a NATO/coalition setting. This of course does not mean that Poland's efforts are wasted. The modernisation of the Polish military was well over due and the experience gained in foreign operations is invaluable for the men and women of the armed services. It should just be recognised that today's 'strategic partner' can be tomorrow's 'friendly nation'. Were an example of how situations can change easily, the Polish government should look no further than the 'special relationship' between the USA and UK. In 1982 the Falklands Crisis and War highlighted that there are limits to the amount of help that can be given and many in Britain were left aghast at the apparent cold treatment the UK received from its special ally.

Unanswered questions

Politically, a resurgent Poland is able to gain certain advantages such as the op-out clause in the Lisburn Treaty regarding the Human Rights Charter. The question is of course whether such a path can be maintained over the foreseeable future. At present the Polish economy is strong in relative terms and both the governing and opposition parties in the Polish parliament generally support such moves. Poland may not be able to regain the heights of 17^th Century Europe, but it can undoubtedly become a mainstay of both NATO and EU power politics. Poland recognises that to succeed in today's world it must be part of strong organisations. However, that does not mean that it can not put forward its own objectives once in a while.

Back to school!!!

Well, it's been a nice long and hot summer, but now it is the time for work - well sort of!! In the news in Poland there is the tragic death of two pilots ay Radom airshow over the weekend as well as PM Putin's visit to Poland for the aniverssary of the start of the Second World War. He has publicy supported his ministries's claim that the Soviet Union only attacked Poland in order to pre-empt a German/Polish plot against the USSR. Were this so, then why was Stalin so surprised two years later when Hitler attacked?

Guns, Guns, Guns

If you ever have that double-take moment when you stop and check whether you truly saw/understood something correctly; then this will undoubtedly be reminiscent of such an occasion. I logged on to BBC News today and read a headline entitled 'US pastor tells flock to bring handguns to church'. Ok, I thought, this looks like some kind of amnesty/social reach-out thing. I was a little bemused to read the title 'US pastor opens church to guns'. The pastor was not trying to combat street crime, but defending the rights of people to carry guns. He fears, along with some of his flock, that the Obama administration will clamp-down on gun laws and the pastor is trying to advertise the fact that not all gun owners are homicidal maniacs and that as Mr Pagano told the congregation, "... there are legal, civil, intelligent and law-abiding citizens who also own guns,"

Being an ex-soldier and having spend half my life playing with guns, I appreciate the old adage (/NRA slogan) that 'it's not guns that kill people; it's people' but I also think Eddie Izzard was right when he commented
” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that…”

I truly don't understand the US's fascination with guns in the modern 21st century world. I appreciate that back in the wild-west , having a gun was a real important issue. However, those days are long gone. The pastor claimed "If it were not for a deep-seated belief in the right to bear arms, this country would not be here today," errr how excatly???
Gun ownership was important in the revolutionary period, as it allowed for the raising of a well trained militia, however at this time the whole world was packing. The US was not anything special.

Also many Americans promote bearing weapons as their constitutional right. Granted the 2nd Amendment does claim that : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. However, the same is true of the UK: That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; Granted, the English law was a bit selective in terms of the religious credentials of those it granted the right to bear arms to. However, while the US law grants the people the right, the English law granted subjects said right. The term the people can of course be understood in two ways: 1) all individuals within a society or 2) the free members of the society as a whole. Given the reference to organised militias, it can be postulated that the meaning was in fact the later. Further to this, the punctuation suggests that the two are in fact connected as they are not separated by and but rather a comma. The English law, on the other hand, uses subject which does not have such a duality. It can only be understood in the individual sense. There is also no conditionality to the law such as in the US version (ok maybe the bit about protestants). Yet, modern Britons do not go around quoting 17th century laws. When the Hungerford or Dumblane massacres happened; gun control was tightened and the people rested peacefully in the knowledge that maniacs could not use the constitution to justify homicidal tenancies. Alas the same can not be said of the USA, where umpteen massacres have resulted in very little legislative action.

If anyone can give an answer to the quandary, then I'd be delighted to here it.


English 1689 Bill of Rights
(Incorporated in to and part of current UK law)

Equivalent to US 1st Amendment:
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

Equivalent to US 2nd Amendment:
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Source: http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm accessed 28/6/09

Patriots are coming!!!!

The deployment of a Patriot missile unit by the US is perhaps long overdue, but will undoubtly further enrage Russia. When I say well overdue I mean that Poland risk a lot in suporting the US in the 2003 Iraq War, and so far has had little to show for it. The initial expectation was for rich pickings in terms of oil and engineering contracts. Alas Cheney managed to scoop most of those. The other wish was for a no visa policy for Polish citizens in the US. This was also a no show.

The deployment of the Patriots will be the first concrete measure that the US has done towards its stead-fast ally. In terms of practicality the missiles are a god-send, as the Polish air-defence system currently consists of obsolete 1970s equipment. These missiles will take Polish security into the 21st Century. However, there is also the problem of Russian and the antagonistic nature of such a deployment. However, given last years Georgian debacle, well perhaps antagonism is a risk worth paying, as to ignore the very real risk or worse still appease it would be a disaster of Herculaneum propotions.

Constitutional Crisis?

I have been very lazy in my upkeep of this blog. Sorry!!! I looked at the date of my last entry and was shocked to see that it was November 08. A lot has undoubtedly happened since then and i am not going to even try and fill you in on the details. Surfice to say that spring is on its way and my mind is awakening from its slumber.

Politically speaking, Poland has had an interesting couple of weeks. The most notable thing being the squable over the Nato summit between the Prime Minister and President. The President apparently ignored the PM's official advice on Poland's stance in relation to the appointment of a new Secretary General for Nato. The ins and out are perhaps not important. More that the most recent episode is just another in a long line of debacles that the two are having. The main problem lies in the over lap of juristiction that the Polish constitution allows for. Strictly speaking the President has tyhe right to initiate and nogotiate foriegn policy. However, any sensible person could see that this must be done in close conjunction with domestic policy as the two are inseperable. The fact that the PM and President can;t work together is perhaps more indicative of them rather than the consitutution. However, that said the constitution allows for this situation to happen and so perhaps does need to be changed.

In my mind, i would serverly curtail the powers and responsibilities of the President as to have two oppposing heads of the country is just asking for trouble. I understand that the constitution was written in such a way as to create a system of checks and balances, however the PM is unswerable to Parliment, whereas at present the President is not answerable to anyone.