Strange things are happening in today's Poland. In the name of winning the war of Ukraine with Russia, the fresh ruling squad becomes even more zealous than its predecessors in calling for arms and engaging the possible of the full of Europe in this tragic clash.
Even defence minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, who has the opinion of a reasonable politician, puts the highest hazard of confrontation, although there are no nonsubjective reasons for this. He admits that Poland has no safety strategy. Who, then, needs war? What are Poland's goals in its preparation? Is it about terrorizing and deterring Russia, or is it about imposing a large war on NATO allies?
The president of the State, who himself is in problem to the ground, including with his participation, is smilingly lobbying in African wars to support the warring Ukraine. Poland does not seem to have much more crucial matters to do in the planet today, specified as recruiting another state and acting as Kasandra, announcing Russia's imminent assault on the east flank of the North Atlantic alliance.
Violent NATO
Throughout the years of the “cold war”, defensive intentions of the North Atlantic Pact have been proclaimed. After it was completed under the name of the out of the area operation, and thus beyond the limits of the guarantees resulting from Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, interventionism was practised. If not in group, individual members of the alliance assisted the US straight or indirectly in armed interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. All these Western wars have brought disastrous material and humanitarian consequences, but by uncritical supporters they have been rapidly forgotten.
NATO's actual intentions are now offensive. This is the right for all who observe the ongoing "force show" – the largest joint military exercises since the "cold war" – Steadfast Defender. The operational usefulness of tens of thousands of soldiers, logistical mobility, resilience to intellectual force and consequence effectiveness are tested. Of course, NATO, according to the tradition of competition, attributes aggressive intentions to its opponent and defensive to itself.
Poland with the Baltic states grows to the rank of a front fortress, from attacking which a global cataclysm can begin. The blurring of borders between the actual tremendous commitment after 1 of the parties to the conflict, which is not a associate of NATO (the mercenaries, powerful arms supply, material and financial assistance, military training, etc.) and the allegedly defensive nature of doctrine—is evidence of hypocrisy and manipulation that has not been seen in years of the top cold-war tensions.
On the occasion of this mobilisation of measures and actions for the escalation of war, alternatively than its ending, it is evident that Poland is not a sovereign state, but a performer of the will of the American and Western European oligarchy, as well as the "servant of Kiev". besides bad smart PSL politicians (Tadeusz Samborski, Piotr Zgorzelski, Krzysztof Hetman, Marek Sawicki), citing ideological heritage Vincent WitosThey are incapable to diagnose these addictions loudly and argue them. Witos as Prime Minister, as needed, called on the peasants to execute an effective armed action in defence of their homeland against the Bolshevik storm. But then he himself and later the sanitation were aware of the necessity of peaceful arrangement with the Soviets (1932).
Today we are not dealing with either Russia's attack on Poland or Putin is not specified a madman to commit collective suicide of his nation, starting a war with NATO states. On the another hand, peasant wisdom tells farmers (or alternatively agricultural producers) to block the border with Ukraine, alternatively than support faithful skills towards Kiev. The Polish People's organization will not be helped by the 3rd Way erstwhile it compromises the interests of the electorate. It's time to realize that people don't burn to war on their own cause. Instead, they anticipate real defence of their state of ownership, welfare guarantees and improvement prospects.
Why, then, is there no area for a peaceful modus vivendi in considering the prospects of safety in the region? Why is the strategy of NATO and the United States itself dictated by “jaster” politicians who do not recognise any alternate solution to the problem? Why in Polish politicians is so fierce towards Russia, and so unreflexive knowing and indulgence towards Ukrainian politicians, behind whom the dark interests of the oligarchy are met, and cultivating symbols offensive to Poles? The Russian-Ukrainian War is an example of an identity conflict, the spread of nationalist – pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian attitudes. It would be best for the Ukrainians themselves to decide their destiny and belonging, without interference in their interior affairs both from the “Patronatic” Moscow and from the “good uncles” of the West.
Watching the Polish political scene for years, I ask myself, why in many politicians, regardless of perfect prowess, specified compatibility as to the necessity of pushing Russia out of Europe? After all, Providence has decided about our close neighborhood, which implies seeking consent, not strife! Territorially, Russia is half the European continent, and even for this reason, it cannot be pushed into Asia. Mammons with false hopes of triumph over her is to act against our country.
Poland does not have adequate possible to win an armed clash with Russia. The Atlantic alliance, on the another hand, as a tool of American imperialism, will alternatively put the bleeding of its allies at a tiny failure of its own. Just perceive to how the erstwhile president of the United States and at the same time the future candidate for the next word warns Europeans in an highly "transactional" way that they do not have the support of an alliance leader in the event of a conflict, as they do not pay appropriate bills for it. The past of Anglo-Saxon "empathy" should teach Polish political class something. Only that subsequent generations of amateurs of politics about this communicative have no idea. cognition and prudence as usual replace naivety and shortsightedness.
An example of a ruined Ukraine...
should discourage, not warm up to war. The Ukrainians themselves have had adequate suffering and destruction. They look forward to changing their authorities, from militant and relentless to ready for ceasefire and peace talks. More and more people realize that the state, which has been on the verge of collapse since 2014, began to boil for war and yet provoked Russia to a gremental strike. It did not aid the Western states to arm a ‘potajdan regime’. Thousands of soldiers paid their blood in the name of the American soldier's interests, investigating the effectiveness of fresh weapons and modern nature of war. The poorness of Ukrainian society is for long years unrecoverable, and the losses counted in the victims of people unrepeatable.
However, the rebellious statements of both sides lead to specified a intellectual state of politicians that those like before the outbreak of planet War I begin to “leuticate”. They dream of categorically dealing with Putin's government to liberate Russia from dictatorship and make it "happy" forever. More closely, subordinate to the “world leadership” whose center lies behind the Atlantic. Russia, on the another hand, is committed to the humiliation of the Ukrainian authorities so that they can accept the guarantees of their existence in the form and conditions dictated by Moscow. This can happen at the price of the dissolution of the Ukrainian state in at least 2 parts – pro-Russian and pro-Western. The costs of this task are hard to calculate.
The summoned “lunatics” are the participants of the events of 1914, who were “haunted by evil dreams, but blind to the reality of this nightmare they brought into the world.” That's what the Australian-British historian said. Christopher Clark in the 2012 book (Polish Warsaw 2017: „Lunatics: How Europe Went to War in 1914”). This masterful work should be a compulsory reading of all decision-makers who incite to war with Moscow. It teaches first of all how many interplays of tragic events and political errors of conflicted parties can lead to an uncontrollable explosion, which no 1 ex post can or can control. Clark showed that there were no war determinisms. The war did not gotta happen if for a minute motives (misconception and inability to rationalize political elections) were considered.
The ongoing war in Ukraine was not inevitable either!
Clark's work is besides instructive for another reason. due to the fact that all the culprits and perpetrators of all war make an apologetic atmosphere of noble choices and zealous dedication. It strikes a full deficiency of uncertainty about their tragic actions. After years, they act like they're never there. It does not affect admitting any work for the suffering of victims, for crimes and destruction. They are characterized by memory failure and deficiency of remorse.
But the attackers and defenders are guilty of not stopping the war device in due time by agreeing to diplomatic solutions. In the case of war in Ukraine, fewer people are presently dealing with its causes. Each side defends its dogmatized rations and has its declared supporters. It is only erstwhile they stay silent that the failure account and the “guilty” settlement begin, that the reconstruction of the causes will exposure biased omissions and silences, false and false narratives. Then the “document war” will begin, but many witnesses and perpetrators present have no chance to live to that time.
Historians will discover circumstantial events and uncover politicians who have underestimated the danger of creating conflict. It will turn out that on each side, besides on the side of the idealized Ukraine, which is the victim of the attack today, deliberately ignited the situation. The Americans themselves will someday discover the actual face of their commitment. It is already known present that economic, financial and armed interests of Western states and corporations played a major role, and Russian imperial ambitions and demonization Vladimir Putin were only propaganda justifications for the escalation of war.
Who knows if many reliable historians will always admit – as Clark claims about the background of planet War I – that “the issues of guilt and work for the outbreak of war entered this communicative before the war itself began” (p. 23). The point is that after the dissolution of the USSR 2 visions of the "civilized divorce" of the russian republics with Russia clashed. 1 was based on better or worse coexistence, the another was betting on dispersing until the full opposition. It was not insignificant to interfere from outside, especially in the interior affairs of Georgia and Ukraine.
Russia had the right to fear the expansion of the Western influence in the Eurasian “cheatersIt’s okay. ” Its call for "security indivisibility" agreements has been met with disregard for Western countries. The sources of increasing misunderstandings and increased tensions should be sought in the processes of the pushy “westernisation” of the russian East. No uncertainty the overthrow Viktor Yanukovych In 2014, with the participation of Western states, it was a turning point in Kiev's conflict with Moscow. And the alleged revolution of dignity – contrary to metaphor – began a dramatic period of degradation and dehumanization, sacrifices, suffering and humiliation of many Ukrainians, especially those Russian-speaking.
The disastrous experiences of large wars...
In the 20th century, they taught small to next generation politicians. The dynamics of the global system, in which continuous polarization and concentration of forces continue, may lead – as he said George (Jerzy) Modeling, American political scientist and theorist of global relations, born in Poznań (in Poland practically unknown) – to cyclically choice fresh hegemonic powers. The change of their regulation is carried out through large hegemonic wars, repeated in a cycle of about a century.
The United States reached its hegemonic position as a consequence of 2 planet wars, competing mainly with Britain and Germany and then with the USSR. After a 100 years, America's hegemonic function is threatened, especially in the economical dimension, by China's largest competitor.
America's long-standing grouping of the largest economies referred to as BRIC (acted in 2001 by Jim O'Neill, the chief economist of 1 of the largest investment banks Goldman Sachs). This acronym created from the first letters of the names of countries specified as Brazil, Russia, India and China (in 2011 South Africa joined South Africa, meaning a change to BRICS) became ominous for the projection of the American power. He increased not only anxiety, but above all the aggressiveness of the U.S. to not give the field to rivals in the race for primacy.
It is for these reasons that many forecasts of the inevitability of war appear in the West, but the work for calling it is shifted to Russia and/or China. However, it is America that trembles for its position in the global strategy of forces and for its maintenance is ready to make a global conflict. Her interior troubles and leadership are adequate to appeal to the public to divert attention towards countries that are arbitraryly identified as enemies. alternatively of seeking agreements based on common concessions and compromise, “democratic internationalists” and “neoconservative missionaries” are ready to set the planet on fire. Will the “republicists” be able to reverse these trends?
How should Poland respond to this disastrous and disastrous forecast? Polish ruling elites agree that in the Western confrontation with Russia they must show the top zeal in supporting America. This is expressed not only in faithful gestures but besides in a real commitment to arms. Poland spent as much as 3.9% of GDP on defence in 2023, the most in the European Union as possible. This means that in the event of a threat, the U.S. president will not request evidence of deposit and the US will come to Poland with help. Nobody knows how much specified an presumption is worth.
In the event of a global conflict, Poland will be the first on the front line. In the shadow of a possible war, the importance of its existential interests is stressed – naturally. These values include security, integrity, identity and development. Each is determined by the fresh polarization of the global strategy and the conflict of the West with Russia. Declarations of Allied Loyalty are an crucial reason for political psychology. However, no 1 truly can foretell what the armed confrontation between NATO and Russia would have ended.
Questions are born...
how much Polish decision-makers perceive another types of interests in their global doctrine – I bring to the runner-up Władysław Kosiniak-Kamisha – about which 1 of the crucial folk movement activists, professor, wrote Józef Cuckoo. These are coexistence and functional interests. The first points to the value of sovereignty, autonomy, participation, coexistence, cooperation, reciprocity, position and global role. The second, on the another hand, emphasize efficiency, permanence, regulation, information, creativity and innovation.
If, for all values, consisting of existential, coexistenceal and functional interests, they tried to go beyond the doctrine of Atlantism, then Poland could become a more independent associate in the Western community. First of all, due to the transit position on the most crucial way of communication and trade between the West and the East, our country could benefit from beginning to many centres and directions, including the countries of Asia and the Far East.
In the long term, normalisation of relations with Russia must not be overlooked or Ukrainian-Russian reconciliation excluded. In the Polish political class so far there are no brave visionaries, and after all, variant reasoning in politics is truly more crucial than the static and faithful position of vassal towards hegemon. Poland can afford to think independently and to calculate its interests in order to gain competitive advantages thanks to its geography and geopolitics.
There are now many foolish scenarios about the inevitability of armed clash with Russia. Meanwhile, there is simply a request to overestimate the credibility of existing affiliations and perceive to the voices of citizens, for which reality – peace or war – they opt. I place my hope in a young generation of Polish farmers who courageously influence the rulers and leaders of the folk movement, how to appeal for their interests and how to take care of them. The peasant realism has a chance to sober up Polish and European dignitaries. To break the solidarity of EU and Ukrainian oligarchs. I would like to believe that a realistic communicative of a real existential threat, influenced by social protests, will lead to the awakening of “lunatics” from the insane reasoning of a fresh large war.
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
Think Poland, No. 9-10 (25.02-3.03.2024)
