Donald Tusk told parliament on Friday that if Russia took control of parts of Ukraine, then Poland would find itself in a “difficult geographical situation.”
He said: “We are preparing large-scale military training for every adult man in Poland. Our goal is to finalize the plan by year’s end to ensure a well-trained reserve force ready for potential threats.
“If Ukraine loses the war, or if it accepts the terms of peace, armistice, or capitulation in such a way that weakens its sovereignty and makes it easier for Putin to gain control over Ukraine, then without a doubt—and we will all agree on this—Poland will find itself in a much more difficult geopolitical situation.”
Talking to reporters, Tusk later clarified that he was not announcing a resumption of basic military service.
“If I were proposing a return to basic military service, I would say so. We have several models. One of the most appreciated ones is the Swiss model,” he said, adding that in the latter system training is “not compulsory, but there are incentives that cause men to opt for annual training.”
It wouldn’t hurt. It would sure enough get me back in shape.
In all seriousness: I truly believe it would not hurt to put everyone through some sort of basic training, including gun handling.
There’s a lot of things that could be included in such a program that would be useful for the general population to know both in times of war and in peace. Civil defense and emergency response. First aid, evacuation of wounded/incapacitated people from dangerous areas. Basic firefighting, shelter locations and evacuation protocols etc.
During world war II, a Japanese general was once quoted as saying “you do not invade the mainland US. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass”.
Compare the cost of doing this, with the deterrent effect of your enemy’s knowing that basically the entire population can mobilize as a militia, it’s pretty extreme.
Go Poland!
So I’m not in… horrible shape but certainly haven’t been exercising recently. The thought did cross my mind of starting again, just in case of complete societal collapse. Never thought id see the day where that was an ACTUAL possibility.
deleted by creator
Honestly pretty good idea, way better than mandatory service/conscription. Training with no strings attached.
Hehe no strings attached except they know where to find you when more cannon fodder is necessary.
I like Europe and Poland but Im not dying for some suit wearing men. I consider myself free because that’s what they told me in school.
So where are you moving?
Right now Im going to stay home.
Well the suit is your president. He’s the billionaire who is grifting billions out of the working class. The average citizen should be making $13,000 more a year but doesn’t because the “trickle down”. That’s just evaluation of 1975-2023. If you made an extra 13,000 last year and every year, your life would be better in many ways would it not? For many Americans that’s rent for the year. Meaning they could buy a home off the money they spend on it. Cars? Life, immeasurable
Im polish, I can’t imagine living in the US right now.
As a pole I absolutely agree, I don’t want to die for the ruling class, however I’m also willing to be taught how to defend myself and others against fascist agression for free by the state.
It might be useful against russian fascists, but not only them if you know what I mean 🙃
Edit: about that first point - every man in poland has to pass a military classification anyways when they’re about 16 and get assigned an ability score for eventual conscription in war, so the list is already there. It might even prevent conscription because there will likely be more volunteers.
Holy shit that guy’s so Polish.
I am Polish and I fully support it.
Why just men? Yes, men are generally stronger than women, but that doesn’t mean women are not capable of military service. And there are also men who aren’t capable of something like that.
Note: I’m against being forced into military service, just asking this
From a repop level men are more desposible than women. Which is funny cause women are second class citizens often. To clarify, 1 woman can only produce on avg 1 child per year. While a man can do far more than that. So if male pop dropped from a wierd disease or war its recoverable. Not ideal obviously from a genetic level but far better than if women population got cut in half. That would cause tons of problems.
Whilst this in theory may hold, people are social animals that live in societies with rules and norms and that typically have only one partner. If half your male population dies, you’re not gonna have guys go around having sex with multiple women just to make up the difference, you’re just gonna have a lot of single women.
Alternatively, there could just be a ton of single moms. I have seen that first hand. Males on my dad side are the worst. Dozen of kids each with multiple women globally. I Doubt I’ll ever be able to meet all my half siblings. But I 100% agree that my statement is purely numbers and takes 0 consideration on human emotions. Which is typical how wars are fought. 0 regard for the peasants feelings.
“Breed you dogs! I need meat for the orphan crushing machine”
Maybe because they don’t want to send their whole population to the meat grinder?
From a different article:
“Of course, it will be open to both sexes,” added the prime minister. “I do not want to belittle the role of women here in any way, but war – due to physical conditions – is associated more with men.”
Ah, that’s fair. Thanks!
The reality of it is that men are expendable, from a population standpoint. Birth rates are far more limited by the number of women than the number of men, since pregnancy and gestation takes so long.
Obviously this is over reductive, but it’s one way to approach the question.
Thats not true at all, its not like farm husbandry, human do not just bred like animals. Only a fraction of women would be willing to have kids without a long term partner.
I think there are no absolutes here. Some women will wait for a long term partner, and a fraction of that group will have children by accident before finding one, and some other women don’t wait for one (especially in a context where men don’t abound), etc. What women do overall is the amalgation of millions of specific biographies concerning unique women.
No absolutes sure, but there is a clear pattern…
Societies where there is a high male mortality rate adapt. Iceland apparently has had its uncommonly accepting view of single motherhood for centuries, stemming from the large proportion of the male population employed in fishing, and the dangerous nature (in those days) of going to sea meaning that it was not uncommon for fathers to die before their children.
not uncommon for fathers to die before their children.
Isn’t this usually the case?
They adapt by having more children per couples, not by having more single mother families. At least that was the case after WWII and WWI, but nowadays couples cannot afford more than 2 or 3 children.
And single mother in iceland is totally different, they were a couple with children before the husband died.
Only a fraction of women would be willing to have kids without a long term partner.
Have you seen the real world? Women who are willing to wait until a stable man comes along to have children with him are the exception, not the rule.
You mean the World where demography is crashing down? You are a clown
That’s… Exactly what was being said above
Because women only want equal or greater representation in the cushy jobs.
Feminism has never been about equality and the people who say otherwise are lying to your faces.
No.
How come we never see a push for equal representation in waste management?
How come we never see a push to include women in the draft, or abolish it for men?
Actions speak louder than words.
We don’t have conscription in Australia and women went to prison to help stop it:
During the late 1960s, domestic opposition to the Vietnam War and conscription grew in Australia. In 1965, a group of concerned Australian women formed the anti-conscription organisation Save Our Sons, which was established in Sydney with other branches later formed in Wollongong, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Newcastle and Adelaide. The movement protested against conscription of Australians to fight in the Vietnam War and made the plight of men under 21, who were not yet eligible to vote, a focus of their campaign. In 1970, five Save-Our-Sons women were jailed in Melbourne for handing out anti-conscription pamphlets on government property.
We do. You’re wrong.
Of course some of you do, it’d be asinine to think that literally nobody does.
But by and large, most of you don’t care about equality.
In the rogue state of Israel, it’s required for “both sexes”.
The only democracy in the Middle East.So I don’t see problem with it. More like a sexism problem.
EDIT: It’s “not compulsory”, so != conscription.
They need an army of pawns and believe men suit better the job.
The unfortunate reality of being close to Russia.
As a citizen of Canada, this has become relatable.
With a madman in charge may even be worse.
The mere existence of russia is causing people of EU so much… All the money making shit that explode, people’s time wasted on defence training, nations on rhe border living in constant stress.
What a cancer on this world.
I wonder if this applies to people with residency
