Radosław Sikorski called on Europe on 27 August not to open premature negotiations with Russia and accept the short-term hazard of a firm policy. The head of the MFA convinces that succumbing to Kremlin threats will increase the future threat. For Poland, this means the request for strong deterrence, maintaining support for Ukraine and defending the east flank of NATO.
Kremlin tests Western immunity
Radosław Sikorski presented his diagnosis in a text published on 27 August by the British weekly "The Economist". Russian escalation threats were considered part of a permanent strategy aimed at examining the determination of NATO states. The speech of diplomatic messages is not at stake. The question is whether Moscow will see a community ready to defend its own borders and interests.
The head of Polish diplomacy rejected 2 arguments frequently raised by supporters of fast dialogue. The first is that we request to talk to Russia before it weakens or sinks into chaos. The second is to reduce force for fear of escalation, including nuclear. According to Sikorski, both lead to incorrect conclusions. Russia is simply a highly centralised country, and threats service the Kremlin to enforce concessions.
This is besides crucial in context Sikorski's earlier declaration on the terms of negotiations with Russia. The conversation makes sense erstwhile the another side actually wants peace, alternatively than erstwhile it treats the negotiating table as a tool for rebuilding forces and breaking the unity of opponents.
Premature dialog would be a reward
The Minister pointed out the concrete consequences of besides fast political beginning to Moscow. specified a decision could strengthen Kremlin's position in Russia itself, encourage further hybrid operations, weaken European aid to Ukraine and deepen divisions between Western countries. In another words, diplomacy launched without appropriate conditions would not put force out. She could make it more effective.
In this part, Sikorski's diagnosis is accurate and close to hard realism. Peace does not arise from the very readiness to talk. He needs a balance of strength, a credible deterrence, and the belief of his opponent that further aggression will not bring profit. For years Europe has confused buying time with building security. Poland cannot pay again for this mistake with the location and safety of its own citizens.
Risks must be controlled, not displaced
Sikorski argues that European leaders should take greater risks in the short word in order to reduce more serious risks in the future. It's not about fighting or looking for war. It is about credibility: The Kremlin is to know that pressure, sabotage and threats will not break NATO or cut off aid for the assaulted Ukraine.
Poland has a direct interest in this matter. We are a state of the east flank, a relief facility for Ukraine and a possible mark for Russian hybrid operations. That is why we request our own military capabilities, efficient services, infrastructure protection and alliances based on real defence plans. Russian threats to Transnistria show the same excuse mechanism: First information pressure, then effort to impose a field of decision on opponents.
Polish business requires cold blood
The Minister's words do not exempt the government from the work to account for costs itself. Warsaw cannot accept any European initiative simply due to the fact that it has been given the slogan of solidarity. The safety of Poland requires cooperation in NATO, but besides control over its own decisions, army and resources. Fearing Russia is intended to service the Republic, not the national ambitions of Brussels.
However, the worst solution would be a fear policy in which all threat of Putin opens the way for him to make another compromise. Short-term caution without force frequently produces a long-term threat. Poland knows the price of another people's illusions besides well.
Source: WP News, “Rzeczpospolita”, “The Economist”
Source: WP News
