this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2026
358 points (97.9% liked)
Greentext
7566 readers
1217 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Invades Poland with what? More drones?
The Poles have quietly been building one of the largest militaries on earth. They're not trying to let themselves get conquered or partitioned again. I don't think it would take much for them to go eagerly to war with a belligerent Russia. More likely Russian's next conquest will be against small and vulnerable countries like Georgia or the Baltics if they can get NATO to crumble (or Trump goes to war against NATO over Greenland).
Look, I'm all for a prepared Europe, but this quote is a joke at best.
Poland has 300k troops (all numbers are active and reserve combined), Germany has 862k, France has 300k, Ukraine has ~2.2 million, China has 2.53 million, Russia has 3.57 million, the US has 2.8 million.
Poland might be building one of the largest European militaries, but they're still 10x smaller than the belligerent players.
In what world does Germany have 900k soldiers? Google says 180k active duty, you only get to 900k if you count someone who did mandatory service back when he was 18, which was like 30 years ago, and hasn't touched a gun since. If you define military as "people who train regularly and would be ready on a short notice", we have nowhere near as many (since mandatory service was effectively stopped 10+ years ago)
Point is, those numbers mix active and various qualities of "reserve" personnel
I literally said that.
EDIT: The source of this number was looking up Bundeswehr on Wikipedia which lists 860k reserve personnel and 184k active personnel.
Sorry, i should have been more precise myself and should have read your answer more clearly.
My point is, those numbers are a bad indicator for military strength.
Someone having gone through a few months of training decades ago doesn't make them a soldier who is ready to fight on a short notice.
Likewise, a country at war with less personnel but a huge stockpile of resources and working structures will likely conscript a lot of citizens anyway.
Poland doesn't have conscription at the moment (they stopped at a similar point in time as Germany), and their number seems to count only "proper" reservists. Germany counts everyone who at some point was part of the military as (legally) reservist, regardless of their current state, fitness, or motivation.
No worries, I thought you might have confused the statement as only applying to the first group. I see what you mean about how you count reservists and think it's a totally valid point.
🤝
Nice propaganda you got there lmao
Russia moving their nukes to Georgia is the most telling sign yet that they're not serious. Our intercontinental ballistic missiles are marginally closer to you is not the brag they think it is. It means they've given up on military superiority and are now resulting to chest thumping in an attempt to intimidate, they wouldn't do that if they still had a functional military.
So I'm reasonably confident that Poland is safe from Russian aggression.
I also can't really see the US going to war in Greenland. It's a wholly unpopular idea both with civilians but also with the US military who know that all it would result in is them losing a significant chunk of their forces to hypothermia since the US is very weak in cold weather combat. They already have a US air base in Greenland, controlling the rest of the country wouldn't increase US national security and the only person who thinks it would is Trump.
I think there wouldn't be any serious combat, to be honest. Denmark isn't that stupid, worst the yanks would get is a belligerent hunter with a rifle. So, all cold weather deaths would be on them, tbh. Besides, they have a military base on Greenland anyway, it's not like it's completely new to them
This is the thing though. They have a military base in Iceland and Denmark pretty much gives them free reign to do whatever they want in the country so they don't need to launch an actual invasion.
But of course Trump is an idiot so he's threatening this anyway even though it'll result in zero benefits for the United States.
The thing is though if they try and take Greenland by force it's going to involve them occasionally leaving the heated interior of the US military compound. I'm sure that's going to be a fun exercise for the troops.
It makes more sense if you assume that everything trump says is a lie made to misguide his voters.
"Why Canada and Greenland?" makes a lot more sense when you ignore the bullshit about climate change being fake. Lots of currently frozen resources and potential farm land up there.
Also the UK has a fancy new anti done laser which they're quite excited to field test via any willing ally.
Since we're already at the point of using riders on horseback, maybe it'll be tricycles by 2027?
Nah, you need both legs to turn the pedals on those
If you strap the foot to the pedal, one will do
Dont forget Korean gooners!
Wait nm Xi has dibs that year
On horseback
Babushkas.
In ERA.