The following interview is simply a fragment of the publication of the Institute of fresh Europe – A year of fear and hope. What awaits Europe in 2023? [Report]
The Russian attack on Ukraine caused the NATO Renaissance. Sweden and Finland are about to join the Alliance, and current members are declaring that they will begin to fulfil the allied declarations regarding the transfer of money to defence. Is expanding backing adequate to warrant Europe's security? Should the European Union seriously address the common army? These questions are answered by General Guns directed by Dr. Mirosław Rozański, erstwhile Commander General of the Types of Armed Forces.
Michał Banasiak:
For years, Europeans may have believed that war did not straight affect them. Yes, it is inactive going on: in the mediate East, Africa, the Caucasus. But Europe? She seemed free from war, that everything could be done with diplomacy. Meanwhile, the war knocked on our door, destroying peace and peace. In defence response, European countries have so gone on arms shopping. Is that the right direction?
Gen. Mirosław Rozański:
The declared purchases of European countries are impressive. It can be heard that defence will now be spent on a greater part of GDP, that NATO countries will no longer shrink from 2%, and in Poland it may even be 5%. But spending more money is not all. National safety should be considered forward-looking. It's chess, not Chinese. erstwhile I took command of the General Command of the Armed Forces, I said that I would want to prepare troops for activities that may happen in the future, not those that have already existed. And I think we inactive gotta think that way. I don't agree that we don't have time and that we gotta bet on crazy shopping. I know it sounds controversial, but the war that's going on gives us time.
How, then, should it be used?
We should not just close to shopping, due to the fact that this conflict has respective views. It threatens our energy security, Russia scares us with famine. There are besides cyber threats that in the Baltic countries have made themselves known even before the invasion of Ukraine. These are non-military threats, utilized synchronously with military resources.
It has come to our attention that the threat of war has not passed. Therefore, governments choose to spend more money and have a social approval.
These non-military ones arrive, but – as Ukraine shows – military ones do not lose importance.
Until recently, we talked about the war, reasoning about its kinetic dimension, which is airplanes, rockets, tanks, artillery. Now another dimensions appear in U.S., Russia and China's strategical papers, i.e. the biggest players: cyberspace, space, the North Pole. This is accompanied by an information war, which reached e.g. elections in the United States. Today, we besides wonder how much Russia has influenced brexit. The threat pallet is huge, and the state must respond to these military and non-military forces and resources at its disposal. That's what national safety is all about.
One of these measures is modernization and expansion of the army.
This includes the ability to defend against possible further events akin to Russian aggression. Russia is said to support terrorist activities. I believe, following the words of president Zelenski, that Russia is simply a terrorist state. The way she conducts war is not in any conventions or laws adopted by the global community. The consequence of its action is the saturation of the military capabilities of European countries. Today, there is no uncertainty that the threat to Europe is coming from Russia, and war abroad is affecting the imagination of all: politicians and citizens. Thanks to the universality of mass media, we see these images, we observe reports of horror with a dimension of genocide. It has come to our attention that the threat of war has not passed. Therefore, governments choose to spend more money and have a social approval. A safety strategy is being built in Europe to make Russia not so bold. Many countries, including Poland, go in quantity. We hear present that we have a renaissance of tanks, artillery. I do not agree, due to the fact that the artillery duel of Russia and Ukraine shows that the conventional view of artillery needs to be reviewed. I believe that the war in Ukraine has shown that present the focus must be on high-tech weapons systems.
Is there a fresh arms race?
Military technology is highly developed today. Excalibur ammunition utilized in cannons goes with precision to 2 meters. Unmanned people can stay in the air for respective days and collect information. The AWACS strategy tracks all movement on the battlefield, within and out of the horizon. The Americans are considering Boeing's offer, which with Swedish Saab and partners produced a rocket bomb, precisely gross over 150 kilometres. We request to invest in this so that our opponent can't build an advantage over us.
Poland invests a lot.
Our purchases and declarations are spectacular. A lot and a lot. Abrams is simply a large tank. Korean K2 too. But the arming of our army takes place without the engagement of our arms sector. We do not co-produced this equipment at our home, nor do we have service capabilities. And this is very crucial from a military point of view. Look at Ukraine. The equipment is damaged there, there are failures. And now we're expected to send him to a service in the States or Korea? Workable, but logistically – especially during the war – very difficult. Besides, strong manufacture and solid financial resources are besides the foundations and guarantees of our safety...
...because keeping this purchased equipment will cost us a lot.
I feel like we're looking for any kind of autonomy. Yet, we are incapable to be independent of NATO by military means, due to the fact that countries have different potentials and opportunities.
And ammunition. highly sophisticated technologically and highly expensive. We are talking about 316 American foreheads, almost 1,000 Koreans, but we are not talking about the cost of ammunition during the operation of this equipment for 30-40 years. We order 96 sensational Apache helicopters, but without the buy-in of Hellfires, they will not fulfil their combat function. HIMARS. We want to buy 200, possibly 500 launchers. Only long-range missiles to arm them cost PLN 1.4 million per piece. Let's multiply this by the number of launchers. A one-time acquisition of equipment is not adequate if we can't afford to usage it.
Diversification of suppliers is simply a good idea?
I don't think it's a diversion, it's a deficiency of consistency. As if decisions about subsequent purchases were made in isolation from military needs. First we take the equipment off, then we come up with his homework. It's a reversal of military logic. We buy large tanks, but Abrams are incompatible with K2. On the battlefield, all of this has to work together. In addition, under each device you request separate training of staff and logistics facilities.
Many countries effort to build safety forces on their own. Do you request to take care of your own and not look at others, or would it be more effective to share tasks within an alliance, specified as NATO?
Countries that wanted to be independent in safety matters, namely Sweden and Finland, have decided to join NATO.In individual countries, including Poland, we have a communicative that we should build our own capabilities. This is in accordance with Article 3 of the Washington Treaty and full understood. I just get the feeling we're looking for any kind of autonomy. Yet, we are incapable to be independent of NATO by military means, due to the fact that countries have different potentials and opportunities. For example, a associate of NATO is Montenegro, which has an army smaller than we have developed brigades. She was accepted due to the fact that she is crucial to the Alliance due to her geopolitical position, but she would not be able to defend herself militarily. We do not have a transport aviation with strategical capabilities. We besides do not have aircraft to refuel in the air and we cannot afford to buy them. That is why we have NATO and the European Union. Our large benefit in the field of safety and economical issues is membership of these 2 elite clubs.
In your opinion, should we seriously discuss the common European Union armed forces?
I believe that creating common structures – whether brigade or battalions – is not a good direction. This is what my experience in the process of forming the European Union's Combat Groups tells me. We have created these groups for a year, we have borne tremendous costs, and they have never been activated anyway.
I guess it's a good thing you didn't have to.
Good thing there was no need, but there were besides doubts about their usefulness. The individual armies are besides different, not standardized to make it work. From battalions down everything should be the work of individual countries – this is an component of safety guarantee. On the another hand, the joint command authorities, specified as Eurocorpus in Strasbourg, can be dealt with. In addition to this, 3-4 global division office could be created. Something like that Natovian we have in Elbląg.
So the common army didn't, but the joint troops and close cooperation did?
The European Union has launched the European Defence Fund, which has been affected by the pandemic period. In addition, permanent structural cooperation, namely PESCO, based on the adoption of joint safety programmes. Tons are broadcast by France and Germany, but on this basis, EU capabilities can be built. The list of these projects is awesome – respective twelve common positions.
This cannot be done immediately, but if there were the will of the full Union, we would yet be able to make common procedures and build well-cooperative individuals. Just like NATO.
In NATO, we are inactive facing any obstacles to smooth cooperation. If anyone thinks, for example, that there is simply a common NATO command system, I will disappoint: there is no one. The structures of the command organs of the American, British, German or Polish army differ. The procedures related to combat activities are besides different. erstwhile during the Anakonda exercise in 2016, we wanted to carry out a joint drop of bombs by American and Polish aircraft, while working on Bulgarian, Hungarian and Polish artillery, it was essential to compose the protocols a fewer months earlier. And then train the soldiers from these protocols to realize each other. And we're only talking about 1 operation, 1 exercise, and an organization that already has its experience.
The most crucial thing is that soldiers from different countries realize each other, have 1 procedure and combat systems. Then you could usage logistics from different countries, which would reduce transportation times, for example.
So what should we bet that these obstacles to supra-national military cooperation should be as low as possible?
First of all, joint operational bodies, so that in the event of a threat, a division from a circumstantial country is designated liable for a given mission, which is subject to respective or respective military units. And standardization. The most crucial thing is that soldiers from different countries realize each other, have 1 procedure and combat systems. Then you could usage logistics from different countries, which would reduce transportation times, for example. We have, for example, a common NATO caliber, utilized in artillery, so that ammunition from different countries can be utilized interchangeably.
Military alliances last the Renaissance. We have the announcement of NATO's expansion; the United States, Britain and Australia form AUKUS. Co-operation skeptics say, "You can number on yourself, number on yourself." But trends are different.
AUKUS is proof that partners are needed. Even if they're geographically distant. Let me give another example. The line of volunteers is set for F 35 aircraft. seemingly American, due to the fact that 9 countries participated in the work, including Canada, Norway, large Britain, Turkey and Italy. Even the largest countries eat the competences and abilities of others. A common thought can be achieved more, and a permanent foundation of global safety can besides be built.
