7 ms·

As a Pole my biggest anxiety for the country is without doubt the threat from Russia. This will unfortunately reverberate as fewer compatriots will want to trus

As a Pole my biggest anxiety for the country is without doubt the threat from Russia. This will unfortunately reverberate as fewer compatriots will want to trust their fortunes to a country that is at risk of unending violent assault and I imagine that fewer foreign enterpreneurs will want to tie up their enterprises in a place with significant geopolitical risk.

alephnerd 2y ago
> I imagine that fewer foreign enterpreneurs will want to tie up their enterprises in a place with significant geopolitical risk. It's an unrealistic anxiety that doesn't come up when deciding FDI destinations within the EU. A bigger issue for me would be around the administrative capacity within Poland. What's to prevent PiS or a PiS-style populist party from returning to power, and redeveloping acrimonious relations with Brussels? (Btw, this is a common concern across the CEE - Babis and Duda's losses were too close for comfort, and if it weren't for generous tax holidays, some serious AoP planning would have happened) The difference between Hungary and Poland's GDP per Capita and development indicators is marginal, but Hungary's acrimonious relations with the EU has caused companies to shift greenfield investments to Poland, Czechia, and Romania. Also, the larger economic boom across the CEE is largely a result of investment outflows from Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus in the 2015-2016 when the Ukraine war started, and the sanction regimes began. This is reflected in GDP per Capita across the entire CEE
auggierose 2y ago
If Russia attacks Poland, there will be a nuclear war. So I wouldn't worry about that too much, as it will be risky then everywhere.
- golergka 2y ago
  > If Russia attacks Poland, there will be a nuclear war. How do you figure? Even if NATO actually invokes article 5, nuclear doctrines of involved countries do not suppose immediate nuclear escalation from a conventional war. Of course, risk of nuclear war goes up if Russia invades, but it doesn't automatically go all the way to 100%.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    This has been wargamed repeatedly and the conflicts literally always end in nuclear annihilation. I think it's easy to understand why as well. Whatever side is losing will naturally convince themselves that the cost of the risk of nuclear escalation is less than the cost of accepting outright defeat. Yet vice versa, the winning forces will not accept being bullied by nukes, because what's to stop it from happening again in the future, and so also won't back down. Next thing you know everybody's dead, and everybody loses, but at least nobody ever had to admit defeat.
    - golergka 2y ago
      > Whatever side is losing will naturally convince themselves that the cost of the risk of nuclear escalation is less than the cost of accepting outright defeat Then just don't put them on death ground. If they have a way out, with loss of prestige and resources, but still staying in power, they will take it. India and Pakistan have had border clashes when both countries already had nukes. It was close and very dangerous, but it is still a counter-example to claim that every war between nuclear nations is just automatically bound to become a nuclear war.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        In particular, destroy everything Russia puts over the border, and maybe even everything it's staging in an offensive posture near the border, but don't invade Russia.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        [redacted]
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        I deny you the right to put words in my mouth. I also note that the discussion was about Russia vs. Poland (a NATO member), which is rather a different situation than Russia vs. Ukraine. Your reply is therefore a non sequitur as well as a rather shady rhetorical move. All that said, I do in fact support giving Ukraine what it needs in order to defend itself. I think that is in fact a worthy and noble goal.
- some_random 2y ago
  I really don't think that follows, especially if Russia pursued the same strategy it has for decades now of generating a low level insurgency that it heavily supports but does not overtly participate in.
  - abraxas 2y ago
    I doubt that will work in the specific case of Poland as Russian minority is virtually non-existent here. There is of course a sizable Ukrainian diaspora now but I doubt they will go turncoat in large numbers.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    Russias trooo participated fully as insurgents in the donbas conflict. There are even videos of the participating troops admitting to it.So a insurgency is not needed, just the illusion of one.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    Entirely different situation compared to Ukraine, Georgia, etc. and there is basically no group of people that would make up that insurgency.
  - piva00 2y ago
    Salami slicing will not work in Poland, the country is both part of EU and NATO, not only part of the EU but its eastern border, Germany is right next there as a neighbour. Any aggression towards Poland is a very different level and degree than against Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, etc. Do you really believe the EU and NATO would sit on their hands in case some low level pro-Russia insurgency popped up in Byalystok or Lublin? Not only that, do you believe the Polish government would be doing nothing and accepting pro-Russian separatism cropping up anywhere in its territory? I don't think there's anything the Poles hate more than Russian imperialism, not even sure if they hate Hitler more than that to be honest...
- onemoresoop 2y ago
  Does Poland have nuclear weapons? A response from NATO will likely not involve nuclear strikes unless Russia starts first.
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    Soon. Everyone will want a piece of yellow cake now that everyone has shown its colors. Which makes the Russian conquest a race to gobble up as much territory as possible before every neighborhood goes full selfdefense forever.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  > there will be a nuclear war sounds like a pretty good reason to me to worry about it.
  - auggierose 2y ago
    What does it matter where you invest in that case?
- brnt 2y ago
  > there will be a nuclear war. Stop repeating FUD. Really, _everything_ about Russian foreign policy has always been to appear larger than they are, to push soft power as hard as they can, and to be very careful to pick only on evidently weaker neighbours with hard power. There will never nuclear war. It will always be used because it's a threat that works for some people. That's Russia psy-ops for you: even in the open Westerners have trouble accepting it because it confronts them with their own irrationality.
  - auggierose 2y ago
    Lol. There are many rockets holding nuclear payloads distributed all over the world. If you think it is impossible that they are ever put to use, you haven't lived long enough.
    - brnt 2y ago
      Or I have...
talldatethrow 2y ago
As a Pole, my biggest anxiety is that Poland will give in and become like the rest of the West. If they let in migrants (even so many Ukrainians is a problem IMO), if they give in to "diversity is a strength", if they give into equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity.... The country will be lost.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  And it's sentiments like these that give me a pause about investing in Poland. There's no guarantee that voters like this guy won't vote in a PiS or a PiS-style populist due to nativist sentiment as well as anger at non-redistributive development (Warsaw/Lodz/Gdansk/Wclow vs everyone else), and as a result the Polish govt ends up having to give us additional tax breaks and holidays to minimize our concerns (great for us, not as great for Poles).
  - some_random 2y ago
    I hate to say it, but after this summer's elections in France and Germany I really don't think this is a risk unique to any EU country. In fact I would put greater risk on other countries because they're starting out wealthier, people are a lot more open to immigration and centrist/liberal parties when they're getting 10% more money year over year and their children have a brighter and brighter future.
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      > I really don't think this is a risk unique to any EU country True! But I'm fine dealing with populist headaches in a $4T and $2.7T economy instead of a $690B economy.
      - some_random 2y ago
        Depends on who you are, I'm going to care about which one I'm investing in which is the context I was looking at this from
  - 2y ago
some_random 2y ago
I wonder how the situation compares to South Korea, which has been quite economically successful despite being in low level conflict with NK with a constant risk of escalation. Compared to that I feel like Poland is in a much better situation but I really don't know details. Israel might be another good comparison too.
- _dark_matter_ 2y ago
  See also: Taiwan!
- alephnerd 2y ago
  South Korea's development was largely driven by postwar Japan's FDI. Japan was SK's largest trade partner well into the 1990s, and most chaebols started off as JVs or tech transfers with Japanese keiretsus. Same thing in Taiwan. Germany was post-Warsaw Pact Poland's "Japan".
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  Poland is in NATO and has oodles of allied countries right next door, from Finland to down to Turkey. They have strong reason to be weary, but they're also not solely dependent on aid from across a giant ocean like SK. Israel has won or at least didn't lose multiple wars against their neighbors over multiple decades, and has mostly solid peace deals with Egypt and the Saudis. Few middle eastern countries can throw military resources around like Russia or NK, too.
pphysch 2y ago
[flagged]
- talldayo 2y ago
  > the war truly could have been avoided (multiple times, even in the first week after Russia invaded) but Ukrainian "leadership" succumbed to foreign (US/UK) pressure. If we want to play "woulda coulda shoulda", Ukraine arguably could have avoided this by not letting Russia repatriate Soviet weapons that could be used as deterrence. Ukraine used to have ICBMs that could strike deep into Russia, an obvious deterrent had they not been forced to give them up.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    Ukraine never had control of those nukes. The USSR centralized control of all nuclear weapons and everything related to them (launch sequences, codes, etc). And that centralization remained within Russia. They could have tried to override the lockouts and somehow manage to get them working but it probably would have been met with global sanctions on top of an invasion from multiple countries. Their other choice is go the route they went - exchange the nukes for a bunch of money and some mostly meaningless pledges of good will. The reality of life is that in many situations you don't have a good option and a bad one, but rather a bad one and a terrible one. So demonstrating one choice is bad does not make the other inherently better. And when you're a small power stuck between two giants, this is the name of the game. See: Switzerland managing to remain neutral throughout both WW1 and WW2. A tiny little power pissing off both the Allied and Axis powers, leaving them standing completely alone? Clearly a bad decision, but also clearly the best decision. Same here.
- some_random 2y ago
  I don't understand how someone could believe this in 2024, it's extremely clear that Russia's design for Ukraine was to incorporate it back as a client state at least if not completely annex it. This has been their stated objective from day one of the invasion that they have continued to pursue to today.
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
The biggest threat, IMO, is the crashing fertility of the country.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  big problem all over Europe, plus in Ukraine and Russia. regardless of which side wins that war their demographics are dwindling
keiferski 2y ago
YMMV but I don’t think this is a widespread opinion in Poland at all. If anything, most people don’t even think about it. It’s still largely a thing that happens over there somewhere, not at home. Source: living in Warsaw for many years.

alephnerd 2y ago

> I imagine that fewer foreign enterpreneurs will want to tie up their enterprises in a place with significant geopolitical risk. It's an unrealistic anxiety that doesn't come up when deciding FDI destinations within the EU. A bigger issue for me would be around the administrative capacity within Poland. What's to prevent PiS or a PiS-style populist party from returning to power, and redeveloping acrimonious relations with Brussels? (Btw, this is a common concern across the CEE - Babis and Duda's losses were too close for comfort, and if it weren't for generous tax holidays, some serious AoP planning would have happened) The difference between Hungary and Poland's GDP per Capita and development indicators is marginal, but Hungary's acrimonious relations with the EU has caused companies to shift greenfield investments to Poland, Czechia, and Romania. Also, the larger economic boom across the CEE is largely a result of investment outflows from Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus in the 2015-2016 when the Ukraine war started, and the sanction regimes began. This is reflected in GDP per Capita across the entire CEE

auggierose 2y ago

If Russia attacks Poland, there will be a nuclear war. So I wouldn't worry about that too much, as it will be risky then everywhere.

golergka 2y ago
> If Russia attacks Poland, there will be a nuclear war. How do you figure? Even if NATO actually invokes article 5, nuclear doctrines of involved countries do not suppose immediate nuclear escalation from a conventional war. Of course, risk of nuclear war goes up if Russia invades, but it doesn't automatically go all the way to 100%.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  This has been wargamed repeatedly and the conflicts literally always end in nuclear annihilation. I think it's easy to understand why as well. Whatever side is losing will naturally convince themselves that the cost of the risk of nuclear escalation is less than the cost of accepting outright defeat. Yet vice versa, the winning forces will not accept being bullied by nukes, because what's to stop it from happening again in the future, and so also won't back down. Next thing you know everybody's dead, and everybody loses, but at least nobody ever had to admit defeat.
  - golergka 2y ago
    > Whatever side is losing will naturally convince themselves that the cost of the risk of nuclear escalation is less than the cost of accepting outright defeat Then just don't put them on death ground. If they have a way out, with loss of prestige and resources, but still staying in power, they will take it. India and Pakistan have had border clashes when both countries already had nukes. It was close and very dangerous, but it is still a counter-example to claim that every war between nuclear nations is just automatically bound to become a nuclear war.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      In particular, destroy everything Russia puts over the border, and maybe even everything it's staging in an offensive posture near the border, but don't invade Russia.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        [redacted]
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        I deny you the right to put words in my mouth. I also note that the discussion was about Russia vs. Poland (a NATO member), which is rather a different situation than Russia vs. Ukraine. Your reply is therefore a non sequitur as well as a rather shady rhetorical move. All that said, I do in fact support giving Ukraine what it needs in order to defend itself. I think that is in fact a worthy and noble goal.
some_random 2y ago
I really don't think that follows, especially if Russia pursued the same strategy it has for decades now of generating a low level insurgency that it heavily supports but does not overtly participate in.
- abraxas 2y ago
  I doubt that will work in the specific case of Poland as Russian minority is virtually non-existent here. There is of course a sizable Ukrainian diaspora now but I doubt they will go turncoat in large numbers.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  Russias trooo participated fully as insurgents in the donbas conflict. There are even videos of the participating troops admitting to it.So a insurgency is not needed, just the illusion of one.
- keiferski 2y ago
  Entirely different situation compared to Ukraine, Georgia, etc. and there is basically no group of people that would make up that insurgency.
- piva00 2y ago
  Salami slicing will not work in Poland, the country is both part of EU and NATO, not only part of the EU but its eastern border, Germany is right next there as a neighbour. Any aggression towards Poland is a very different level and degree than against Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, etc. Do you really believe the EU and NATO would sit on their hands in case some low level pro-Russia insurgency popped up in Byalystok or Lublin? Not only that, do you believe the Polish government would be doing nothing and accepting pro-Russian separatism cropping up anywhere in its territory? I don't think there's anything the Poles hate more than Russian imperialism, not even sure if they hate Hitler more than that to be honest...
onemoresoop 2y ago
Does Poland have nuclear weapons? A response from NATO will likely not involve nuclear strikes unless Russia starts first.
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  Soon. Everyone will want a piece of yellow cake now that everyone has shown its colors. Which makes the Russian conquest a race to gobble up as much territory as possible before every neighborhood goes full selfdefense forever.
red-iron-pine 2y ago
> there will be a nuclear war sounds like a pretty good reason to me to worry about it.
- auggierose 2y ago
  What does it matter where you invest in that case?
brnt 2y ago
> there will be a nuclear war. Stop repeating FUD. Really, _everything_ about Russian foreign policy has always been to appear larger than they are, to push soft power as hard as they can, and to be very careful to pick only on evidently weaker neighbours with hard power. There will never nuclear war. It will always be used because it's a threat that works for some people. That's Russia psy-ops for you: even in the open Westerners have trouble accepting it because it confronts them with their own irrationality.
- auggierose 2y ago
  Lol. There are many rockets holding nuclear payloads distributed all over the world. If you think it is impossible that they are ever put to use, you haven't lived long enough.
  - brnt 2y ago
    Or I have...

talldatethrow 2y ago

As a Pole, my biggest anxiety is that Poland will give in and become like the rest of the West. If they let in migrants (even so many Ukrainians is a problem IMO), if they give in to "diversity is a strength", if they give into equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity.... The country will be lost.

alephnerd 2y ago
And it's sentiments like these that give me a pause about investing in Poland. There's no guarantee that voters like this guy won't vote in a PiS or a PiS-style populist due to nativist sentiment as well as anger at non-redistributive development (Warsaw/Lodz/Gdansk/Wclow vs everyone else), and as a result the Polish govt ends up having to give us additional tax breaks and holidays to minimize our concerns (great for us, not as great for Poles).
- some_random 2y ago
  I hate to say it, but after this summer's elections in France and Germany I really don't think this is a risk unique to any EU country. In fact I would put greater risk on other countries because they're starting out wealthier, people are a lot more open to immigration and centrist/liberal parties when they're getting 10% more money year over year and their children have a brighter and brighter future.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    > I really don't think this is a risk unique to any EU country True! But I'm fine dealing with populist headaches in a $4T and $2.7T economy instead of a $690B economy.
    - some_random 2y ago
      Depends on who you are, I'm going to care about which one I'm investing in which is the context I was looking at this from
- 2y ago

some_random 2y ago

I wonder how the situation compares to South Korea, which has been quite economically successful despite being in low level conflict with NK with a constant risk of escalation. Compared to that I feel like Poland is in a much better situation but I really don't know details. Israel might be another good comparison too.

_dark_matter_ 2y ago
See also: Taiwan!
alephnerd 2y ago
South Korea's development was largely driven by postwar Japan's FDI. Japan was SK's largest trade partner well into the 1990s, and most chaebols started off as JVs or tech transfers with Japanese keiretsus. Same thing in Taiwan. Germany was post-Warsaw Pact Poland's "Japan".
red-iron-pine 2y ago
Poland is in NATO and has oodles of allied countries right next door, from Finland to down to Turkey. They have strong reason to be weary, but they're also not solely dependent on aid from across a giant ocean like SK. Israel has won or at least didn't lose multiple wars against their neighbors over multiple decades, and has mostly solid peace deals with Egypt and the Saudis. Few middle eastern countries can throw military resources around like Russia or NK, too.

pphysch 2y ago

[flagged]

talldayo 2y ago
> the war truly could have been avoided (multiple times, even in the first week after Russia invaded) but Ukrainian "leadership" succumbed to foreign (US/UK) pressure. If we want to play "woulda coulda shoulda", Ukraine arguably could have avoided this by not letting Russia repatriate Soviet weapons that could be used as deterrence. Ukraine used to have ICBMs that could strike deep into Russia, an obvious deterrent had they not been forced to give them up.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Ukraine never had control of those nukes. The USSR centralized control of all nuclear weapons and everything related to them (launch sequences, codes, etc). And that centralization remained within Russia. They could have tried to override the lockouts and somehow manage to get them working but it probably would have been met with global sanctions on top of an invasion from multiple countries. Their other choice is go the route they went - exchange the nukes for a bunch of money and some mostly meaningless pledges of good will. The reality of life is that in many situations you don't have a good option and a bad one, but rather a bad one and a terrible one. So demonstrating one choice is bad does not make the other inherently better. And when you're a small power stuck between two giants, this is the name of the game. See: Switzerland managing to remain neutral throughout both WW1 and WW2. A tiny little power pissing off both the Allied and Axis powers, leaving them standing completely alone? Clearly a bad decision, but also clearly the best decision. Same here.
some_random 2y ago
I don't understand how someone could believe this in 2024, it's extremely clear that Russia's design for Ukraine was to incorporate it back as a client state at least if not completely annex it. This has been their stated objective from day one of the invasion that they have continued to pursue to today.

lo_zamoyski 2y ago

The biggest threat, IMO, is the crashing fertility of the country.

red-iron-pine 2y ago
big problem all over Europe, plus in Ukraine and Russia. regardless of which side wins that war their demographics are dwindling

keiferski 2y ago

YMMV but I don’t think this is a widespread opinion in Poland at all. If anything, most people don’t even think about it. It’s still largely a thing that happens over there somewhere, not at home. Source: living in Warsaw for many years.