The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 390

Why is Poland weaker than Russia?


Bratwurst Boy 5 | 10,013
9 Jan 2019  #181
I love you both and that ping-pong is fun to watch.

We love you more! :)

In the meantime, the white race is really getting f***ed, here and in Europe.

The high point of the western superiority is definitely coming to an end. The planet shrinks.

What to do about it?

Accepting and make the most of it?

or

Not accepting and....what?
Rich Mazur 5 | 3,274
10 Jan 2019  #182
Well...
I got it. Get a sixpack, get into my convertible and go to Utopia, Texas 78884. With the population of 227, in the middle of nowhere, I am sure it's a lovely place to do nothing.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 10,013
10 Jan 2019  #183
I think most are like you and me..looking for a nice and quiet place out...there is nothing to be done. It's in the hand of the young people, it's their future after all...and there doesn't seem to be much concern...so...*shrugs*
Rich Mazur 5 | 3,274
10 Jan 2019  #184
That was my experience during my first visit in Poland last year. First, it was Warsaw. Then, Radom and Gdansk, both decent size cities. But my best memories are from a tiny village called Jedlnia-Letnisko. It was just as you described it. Plus a cute little hotel "Under Roses" and a lake with me as the only person at the beach. I would like to visit it again one day.
OP Bobko 9 | 170
22 Feb 2019  #185
In 1920 Poland was the one stronger

So the OP premise is rather silly. what is now can be something else in the future.

I said that the framing of the question might seem silly, because I was concerned that people would treat this as a no-brainer (i.e. Russia is just so much bigger). However, here you are Ironside :)))

Economically the distance is still huge. Poland has a nominal GDP of around $520 billion, or approximately the size of Sweden. Russia has a nominal GDP of around $1.5 trillion, or about the size of Italy. Before the enormous currency devaluation that followed the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and imposition of sanctions, Russia had a GDP of around $2.3 trillion. So it's not just oil and nukes.

Also not mentioned, is the Security Council veto, G8 membership, and unilateral operations in Ukraine and Syria. Do you, for example, realistically envision Poland acting independently in any military conflict (one measure of Great Power status)?

Finally, how can you be serious saying that only 100 years ago Poland was stronger? In that decade Poland had just gotten its independence from Russia, miraculously, and only after Russia was wracked by a World War, then a revolution, which was immediately followed up by a civil war in which at least 9 million perished.
Miloslaw 6 | 1,714
22 Feb 2019  #186
Russia has a nominal GDP of around $1.5 trillion, or about the size of Italy

About the size of Italy?
For a country as large as and with a population as large as Russia that is truly pathetic......no,nobody is overly scared or worried by Russia...

The defences are already in place anyway.....
Dirk diggler 9 | 4,188
23 Feb 2019  #187
no,nobody is overly scared or worried by Russia...

Bwahaha man the EU and USA are shittin themselves over Russia. They spend tens of billions on defense because of Russia. The Brits even kept whining about Russian influence in brexit and some dudes getting poisoned. You think UK would have the balls to do that to Russia? No way lol.

Russia may have economy worth as much as Texas or italy yet it has the 2nd most powerful military in the world. 1st in terms of nukes. Not only that they're a power broker all around the world from middle East to Europe to s America.
Ironside 47 | 9,571
23 Feb 2019  #188
how can you be serious saying that only 100 years ago Poland was stronger?

The proof is in the pudding. Poland won the war of 1920 with flying colors and Soviet Russia lost it. What you put out there as extenuating circumstances are just excuses.

Economically the distance is still huge.

If you consider differences in number of people, a side of landmass and least but not least a former status as world's superpower that distance is not that great.

Saying that it is obvious that at the moment Russia is a regional power, with a nuclear weapon and Poland is not. Poland on the other hand is a part of the NATO which nullifies any military advantage Russia might have over Poland.

2nd most powerful military in the world.

hmm.. 3rd.
Rich Mazur 5 | 3,274
23 Feb 2019  #189
Russia may have economy worth as much as Texas or italy yet it has the 2nd most powerful military in the world. 1st in terms of nukes.

They also know who is on the other side: pussified, spineless, gutless, sensitive, whiny, girlie men who can't win a war because it would offend the "enemy". I used quotes because we are not allowed to call anybody "enemy". They are "opponents" - like when playing checkers. Hearts and minds is what it is all about today.

Today, WW2 would take 50 years to win - sorry - to bring to a draw.
The biggest irony of it all is that the Western Europe would be better off if the Soviets had taken it all in 1945. There would be no darkies raping nobody because there would be no darkies in Europe.
cms neuf - | 815
23 Feb 2019  #190
The second military power in te world yet unable to defeat medieval tribesmen in Afghanistan or drunk guerillas in Chechnya.

As for rape the Soviets did plenty in 1945
Rich Mazur 5 | 3,274
23 Feb 2019  #191
...for the same reason why the American police cannot defeat the American murderers.
cms neuf - | 815
23 Feb 2019  #192
We are not talking about America - a place you never set foot in. We are talking about dictatorship Russia
Rich Mazur 5 | 3,274
23 Feb 2019  #193
Let me guess. You are a teacher.
Dirk diggler 9 | 4,188
23 Feb 2019  #194
I'd agree but would've preferred Germany and her allies to win. Their system was far superior to the Soviet Union.

hmm.. 3rd.

Who's second? China? No way Russia is way stronger. Most military analysts place Russia ahead of China. For one they have the most nukes in the world and far more hardware than the Chinese.

Either way 2nd or 3rd no European country comes close to Russia. Not even the EU combined and even generals admit Russia would steamroll NATO and occupy the baltics completely within a day or two using conventional weapons and NATO wouldn't have an effective response.
Rich Mazur 5 | 3,274
23 Feb 2019  #195
The girlie EU men have the US DoD on speed dial so everything is oh la la fine.
Dirk diggler 9 | 4,188
23 Feb 2019  #196
They can't even defend against low iq unarmed turd worlders invading their country and landing on their shores and they think they'll stop Russians lol. The hools and neo Nazis would take over let alone actual Russian soldiers with cutting edge weapons. Its be a totally one sided fight even if Russia didn't use nukes.

Yeah that's why Poland trusts America to come to it's defense than any other EU or nato country. Personally I don't think the Americans would be much help though when **** hits the fan unless us troops actually died in an initial attack. Otherwise I bet they'd just pack up and leave. That's why Poland must learn to defend itself and never rely on someone else since that's always ended tragically. We've come to other defense but they don't want to return the favor. Especially britian who totally abandoned Poland in WW2 despite a mutual defense treatt
Rich Mazur 5 | 3,274
23 Feb 2019  #197
That's why Poland must learn to defend itself and never rely on someone else since that's always ended tragically.

That's what I keep repeating here. There is no way the US would risk a nuclear exchange to protect a little and insignificant country like Poland. In fact, by now, I am not even sure if the US would use nukes if it, the US, were attacked by the China's overwhelming conventional forces outnumbering us like 10 to 1. They could do it easily through Mexico.
Vlad1234 14 | 544
23 Feb 2019  #198
Most military analysts place Russia ahead of China. For one they have the most nukes in the world and far more hardware than the Chinese.

Do you think amount of nukes China poses is exactly known? Also, nukes and a lot of conventional weapons could be produced fast if a country poses sufficient industrial and human power. Probably for now Chinese do not think it is necessary to have more nukes and larger navy than Russia. But if they would really want to it could change quickly. Chinese economy and population is 10 times that of Russia.
Miloslaw 6 | 1,714
23 Feb 2019  #199
1st in terms of nukes

The number is irrelevant,you can only do so much damage.
The UK could still take out every major city in Russia on it's own.....and then there is France and The USA....good old MAD!
Dirk diggler 9 | 4,188
23 Feb 2019  #200
UK wouldn't be able to destroy all the bases in Russia. Russia would wipe out UK in its entirety without even putting a dent in its arsenal.

Actually Russia won't even need nukes to destroy UK. The Brits are already eliminating themselves by allowing turd worlders to outbreed them in their own land. London has already fallen.
johnny reb 16 | 3,369
23 Feb 2019  #201
UK wouldn't be able to destroy all the bases in Russia. Russia would wipe out UK in its entirety without even putting a dent in its arsenal.

This true Dirk however the bases in Russia would be the second line of defense.
Their stealth nuclear subs are the ones that could take out any country in the world including the United States.
Of course you could say the same about the U.S.A.'s nuclear subs.
The nukes in Russia or the U.S. would be the second line of defense if there was anything left to blow up.
Why are we even talking about these "What if's" anyways ?
If the day ever comes that this happened you wouldn't want to be alive to see the horror that would follow.
Dirk diggler 9 | 4,188
23 Feb 2019  #202
No probably not. Russia says it's never be the first to introduce nukes in a conflict. Quite frankly I believe them.

One thing is for certain NATO and USA is constantly poking the bear. EU less than USA though. Now that the USA is giving up on Syria, as it should and should've never been involved as we were only there to protect Israel and it doesn't serve us interests at all, now the campaign is Venezuela
Vlad1234 14 | 544
23 Feb 2019  #203
No probably not. Russia says it's never be the first to introduce nukes in a conflict. Quite frankly I believe them. One thing is for certain NATO and USA is constantly poking the bear.

Russians survived Mongols, Tatars, Teuton knights, Polish invasion, Swedes, Napoleon, Kaiser the conqueror, Hitler, Stalin, Gorbachev, Perestroika, Yeltsin... Who is the next on the list of History?
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 10,013
23 Feb 2019  #204
Surviving is one thing Vlad, respected and flourishing something else altogether..
Dirk diggler 9 | 4,188
23 Feb 2019  #205
Who is the next on the list of History?

Will it survive the globo homo run by Shlomo agenda that's being pushed on every country by the zionists is the question. So far Putin's done an amazing job keeping it out, but he most likely won't be around after 2024. Personally I think he should rule till he dies. He's imo the strongest leader in the world. The Russian people are lucky to have a leader with some balls that actually cares about the countrys interests. If only the West had such leaders like Putin and xi
Rich Mazur 5 | 3,274
23 Feb 2019  #206
but he most likely won't be around after 2024.

Then, Russia will be bribed into submission. Just as Poland is slowly bribed today.
Slow always works. That is how we accumulated 20 million of illegal Latino garbage nobody needs, with more of this s*** coming every day. Just slowly enough for the rest of us not to throw up.
Miloslaw 6 | 1,714
23 Feb 2019  #207
Russia says it's never be the first to introduce nukes in a conflict

Yes and nobody else would either,that's why MAD works.
And The UK wouldn't need to take out all Russian missile instalations,just destroy all the main cities and Russia is finished.
Anyway,it's all academic,because as you say,nobody will fire first unless they are invaded.
OP Bobko 9 | 170
23 Feb 2019  #208
For a country as large as and with a population as large as Russia that is truly pathetic......no,nobody is overly scared or worried by Russia...

Italy has a population of 60 million people, while Russia has 142 million. Given how Russia was plunged into absolute poverty during the transition to a market economy in the '90s, I see nothing pathetic in Russians achieving a standard of living just 2.3 times worse than the Italian one (without 100s of billions of EU infusions, a là Poland). Italy is a export powerhouse second only to Germany, with world-leading competencies in many crucial sectors.

Furthermore, as I explained in my post, these are nominal figures. When the ruble/usd exchange rate plunged from 30 rubles to the dollar to 68, following the annexation of Crimea, it wiped out nearly 50% of Russia's nominal GDP as expressed in US dollars. However, it would be economically illiterate to argue that because of this the Russian economy was halved. Yes, Russia relies on imports for many important types of industrial machinery, and these need to be paid for in USD or EUR. Now it's 50% more expensive to pay for these imports. However, Russia also sells its oil and metals for USD (Russia sells a lot more than it imports, about $200 billion more), and then changes it back to rubles inside the country. This is why despite sanctions and a recession Russian state finances remain robust (lowest debt to GDP ratio in the developed world, and fourth largest fx reserves, with a healthy budget proficit this year).

If a purchasing power parity metric is used instead of nominal USD, then Russia has a GDP of around 4 trillion USD, which puts it above Great Britain and France, and on par with Germany. By comparison, Poland has a PPP GDP of 1.2 trillion.

The swings in the exchange rate have meant that Russia has lost a share of GDP in the last 5 years that is larger than the entire Polish GDP (to those arguing that modern Poland is comparable to russia). If oil and metal prices rally tomorrow, and the ruble consequently strengthens to the 40s-50s, then Russia will add at least half a trillion to its GDP. This is why nominal GDP figures are not very useful.
Rich Mazur 5 | 3,274
23 Feb 2019  #209
I love Russia, Putin, and RT. Here is a video to inspire:

rt.com/news/427036-crimean-bridge-time-lapse/

Watch it and quit all that s***talk about nukes.
OP Bobko 9 | 170
23 Feb 2019  #210
Cool video!

Home / History / Why is Poland weaker than Russia?
Discussion is closed.