Portal partners
The good of the Armed Forces? What's in it for me?
Author:Mariusz Dasiewicz
"The good of the Armed Forces? What's in it for me?" – that's a question that recently came up in a conversation with one of the Naval Reserve officers. Simple, cynical, but unfortunately very current.
In the article
There's a time when a man says, "Check." It publishes specific information, presents a ready-made offer and says: please, here it is – the deadlines agree, the technology transfer planned, cooperation with the Polish industry possible, and the combat readiness real already in 2027. What's going on?
Editorial comment on submarines in 2027
The text ‘Submarine ships in 2027. There's an offer nobody's talking about. Why?" sparked reactions perfectly entering the known curd: Hit the table and the scissors will speak. And indeed – they spoke. Loud, nervous, sometimes factually, but more often with a clear attempt to blur the subject.
Entries on the X portal, their comments – show one thing: the subject of submarines has ceased to be the domain of cold analysis. It has become an area of personal accounting, environmental loyalty and social allusion.
What hits the most? No joy. No hope. No reflection.
Nobody said, "It's a good thing something's moving." Instead, as if according to a pre-arranged plan, a campaign of disproving the concept itself was launched. Because, after all, It cannot be that someone brings a ready-made solution – and not "our".
Some commentators – those closely connected with the sector – did not even try to hide that they were not interested in the meaning. Instead of having a discussion in the first place, there have been phrases about "table out of nowhere", "propagand", a comparison to "buying the entire bakery just to eat bread".
Someone is questioning the capabilities of the shipyard, another insinuating that the Spaniards are trying to get rid of a unit that... has just entered service at Armada Española. Someone else is saying that "there will be no ships unless they are German or French boats."
And the others? They were just silent – although for years they said the loudest that we should "save the MW of the Polish Republic".
Is this really about ships?
Is it really about strengthening the Navy, or is it about who's gonna sit at the table? Where does analysis end and business begin?
I don't give names – because it's not about personality, it's about mechanism. A mechanism known for years: analysis, creation of "self-requirements" peeled from reality, and then selection of "known and proven partners". Even if they do not meet the requirements, even if they do not fit in the terms, even if they cost more – it is important that theirs.
As the commander said earlier:
"The good of the Armed Forces? What's in it for me?"
Quote bitter, but unfortunately customs. It exposes logic, which has paralyzed the modernization of Polish submarine capabilities for years.
When an offer falls – immediately doubts arise
The offer doesn't come from "our shipyard"? It means something's wrong. The label "tables from nowhere" appears. The slogan "incompetence" will fall, there will be someone who will recall the "last Talgo affair" – although the subject concerns a completely different sector. What if someone mentions that time is running out because SAFE ends in 2030? The answer is ready: "We still have no requirements."
It's not even an objection anymore. It's a mechanical impulse to block everything that doesn't come from its own circle.
Submarine ships for MW – chance or trouble?
I do not know if the S-80 will go to Poland. But I know one thing: if this debate continues as it is today – There won't be a hit.. Because once again everything will break down about environmental games, mutual spite and fear that "someone else would sit at this table."
Or is it time to stop treating submarines like props in a rivalry industry?
Finally – thank you
Thank you for every reaction – regardless of tone. Because each one shows one thing: the subject is important and evokes emotions. That's what I was hoping for. After earlier comments from "Navy Lovers," I knew that the spark would hit the fuel. Sometimes an explosion, sometimes Quiet. And that silence says the most.
I didn't mean to offend anyone. If someone took it that way, I'm sorry. I had one goal: to force reflection, even bitter. Whether we really care about the capabilities of the Navy or just about who's supposed to keep the pen on the signature.
Mariusz Dasiewicz
Spain itself "signed out" from Orka's political program by failing to buy Talgo. Thank you. Goodbye.
Did Navantia make an offer? Because MON says no.
I completely agree with the author. I don't believe you can't buy 2-3 submarines for 28 years. Destructive, even sabotage can be seen with the naked eye. Turkey and South Korea dealt with this phenomenon in the 1970s and 1980s. Charges of treason and long-term prisons, and in several cases the harshest sentence. Effects visible. Unfortunately, such actions in liberal democracy (which I am a supporter of) are unrealistic, so nothing will change. Someone says there was no Spanish offer. She was, only with representatives of Navantia none of the decision-makers met, and as you can see, an offer of interest, unless the most attractive.
Burdelik. The Writ-DY destroyed the Navy for their visions and there are consequences. The letter-DY ruled on principle and what I would get out of it. PIST-DY, when expanding the NATO base in Elbląg, had to find Polish language-speaking service somewhere. They found her in the Navy. The sailors went to the Land Army – this is extreme PIS-D moronism. In the Navy, only those who support the WRITER-DY remained and where those who went to Elbląg WRITER-DY accepted their lifetime WRITER-DY after great protection. The protection costs so they must forge back, or snort on the side. What's in it for me?
I only have one question. As I understand it, the ship is over 80 meters long, and we in the Baltic need about 50 meters. In short, smaller ones will also affect shallower waters. So is the Spanish option an option for us?