A fewer years ago, Chinese direction for Polish abroad policy was heavy lobbyed in any environments. Then I made an analysis of: “Do China have anything to offer Poland?”. The answer to the title question sounded rather unambiguously in the final thesis.

It is 2025 and as a consequence of Donald Trump's policy, the United States has ceased to appear as a unchangeable and reliable partner for the European Union. This has become an chance for another wave of pro-Chinese lobbying. This time, however, the mediate State would become a partner and a strategical ally for the full European Union. Which, according to some, would besides service Polish interests.

due to the fact that the discussion of the power of the People's Republic of China, as well as the alleged benefits of cooperation with it, returns like a boomerang – only that in changed circumstances, it is worth one more time to survey this issue. First on the level of EU-China relations and later on in the context of Polish national interests.

Strategic Union Partnership with China?

Analyzing possible disadvantages and advantages of cooperation with China automatically imposes an economical topic. But he is not the most important. These geopolitical conditions – linked to the safety level – are truly crucial. Both for the Union and Poland. Especially in the realities of Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine. The second is now a threat not only to be reckoned with but to be genuinely prepared.

And at this point, it is crucial to make it clear that there are no illusions. The creation of a block – even if only an economical – of the European Union with China would automatically set Europe on the side of its opponents towards the United States. In specified a situation, Washington would surely leave NATO and break all safety guarantees with the hostile European Union.

In this matter, you can't eat a cookie and have a cookie. Therefore, the main issue to consider is the answer to the question whether the European Union (including Poland) would benefit from a feeling of safety or the contrary? Would China, so far cooperating with Russia, be ready to abandon Moscow or put force on Russia due to trade with the Union?

It should be pointed out that the European Union is not prepared militarily to deter Russia for the next fewer years or even a decade. Yes, we have bigger economies, more modern technologies and even industry. However, we do not have adequate tanks, ammunition, soldiers, and above all atomic warheads and political will (common).

So, by deciding to completely break ties with the US – which is now playing with us, but inactive keeps NATO, its safety guarantees, as well as military presence in Europe – we would request real guarantees from China. To intimidate Russia. Does the mediate State have any specified potential? Nope.

First of all, it should be pointed out that Russia's atomic possible is simply a long and wilderness-led Russian-Chinese border. It is many times more powerful than the Chinese and only 1 country can balance this potential. United States. Those that would become a fresh enemy to the EU... So even if the Moscow-Washington alliance did not happen (which any people consider real, and I think it is impossible), the Americans, seeing the possible in partnership with Russia, could further endanger China if they tried to endanger Moscow. specified atomic ticks Beijing could not ignore. Like the EU.

It is crucial to remember that on the level of atomic possible there is the first league of powers (US and Russia) and the second league (the others). So now we have a reasonably balanced strategy of forces. USA-EU (France) vs Russia-China. But if the US stopped fighting Russia and defending Europe, then we would have the 2 most powerful atomic powers that are at least neutral to each other. And 2 powers from the second league (EU and China), which would have a fraction of the possible for Russia itself or the United States itself.

One can argue at this point whether the possession of any atomic weapon itself scares distant as much as it has an arsenal that can destruct the enemy's atomic possible in the first strike or even its own in the second. Let us presume that France's possession of atomic weapons alone is adequate to deter atomic Russia from ALL Europe.

Would the European Union so have drawn adequate conventional military force to defend Ukraine from Russia itself? And then set up an army like this on the east flank to defy Russian armed forces? If we had a fewer years to prepare, maybe. Today? That would be problematic. besides in the context of the political will of individual states, especially against Russian atomic pressure.

Therefore, the Russians could cut – unprotected by the US – the EU part by part utilizing a atomic scarecrow and entering the most hard to defend Baltic states. Which would automatically destruct a political Union that could not defend its members. Then it could turn to Moldova and inactive a weak military Romania. Finally, if Putin had obtained as much as he wanted, he could impose political conditions on the Western EU. possibly even without war.

It's a beautiful pessimistic scenario. Is it possible to get a Chinese military presence in the EU? Because, as I wrote earlier, the force on the bear's “tail” which is protected by an atomic umbrella would not do much. Would the Chinese be willing to send respective dozen, or possibly more than 1 100 or 2 100 1000 soldiers to the another end of the planet to defend Europe? Soldiers who should defend Chinese borders through Russia, India and the US?

Even if Beijing had found the will to make any kind of temporary (several years?) protective coat on the European-Russian border, how would it be if this army had transported to Europe and maintained it logistically? Which way would these streams of troops get to the east flank of NATO? Controlled by US Navy seas and oceans? Trains through Pakistan, Iran and then Turkey (unless only possible route)? After all, this would be a neckless and idiotic enterprise from a military point of view. In the event of a conflict, the Chinese army would stay completely without support and communication with Beijing, and it is doubtful whether it would have any motivation to fight Russia in defence of Europe. Only the assumptions of this kind of imagination cripple the head and common sense.

However, let us presume that China would like – but besides real opportunities and possible – to support the safety of the European Union. So what and how would the EU pay for specified support here?

The mediate State is not... State of the measure

It seems apparent that the European Union's asset towards China is simply a rich society that creates an absorbent marketplace for Chinese goods. Thus, the Chinese would want to keep the current trade relation between the Old Continent and China, and it is best for the EU to make its own marketplace more accessible to the Chinese.

By building virtual visions of alliances between the Union and China, or even Russia and the US, it is not possible to ignore in this arrangement the realities of the geography and possible of individual countries.

Such a geographically exotic alliance of the European Union and China would gotta have any cooperation. Otherwise, it would be pointless to include it, due to the fact that both entities would gotta act alone, and so they could not multiply their potentials.

A possible alliance between the EU and China would so face a very prosaic problem. Even if China abandoned its existing Russian partner for a richer European Union afraid of Russia, geography makes China incapable to consume the benefits of the fresh partnership. Like the European Union (as indicated earlier).

Cut off from the US marketplace for China, they would gotta keep access to the absorbent European market. This 1 is located behind 7 mountains, 7 forests, and above all, 2 oceans. Peaceful and Indian. The U.S. Navy dominates both, and the maritime trade way leads to the coast of India. Enemy China and friendly Russia.

Euroasia is even worse. If we look at the map, Europe is in its utmost western part. China at the east end. In between is simply a immense Russian body hanging over Central Asia. And India. So the land thread of the fresh Silk Road would not be an option either. erstwhile a land road cannot be transported as large a volume of goods as by sea. Without ships, the volume of trade between China and Europe would most likely fall by 90%, which would mean a disaster for China (which has already been cut off from the US market), but besides large EU problems due to the deficiency of Chinese components and components. Two, NJS would gotta bypass Russia and India. Which means to follow through easy for Russians to subdue Central Asia. Why easy? due to the fact that all energy resources in Central Asia are located on or close Caspian Lake. The Russian Caspian Fleet and Russian aviation dominate there. Moscow could blow up almost all Central Asia gas and cut off China and Europe from the Caspian umbilical cord overnight. That would be energetic. game over.

An alliance without fuel

From China's point of view, rejecting Russia and placing Russia on the European Union against the United States would mean not only the request to address the logistical problem of supplying goods from China to the EU, but – what is more crucial – bringing together energy resources without which China's economy will die.

It should be pointed out that The European Union-China couple has no 1 to act as a gas station (apart from the problem of common communication). Both are the world's largest importers of gas and oil. The import is carried out from the mediate East, Russia and ... USA (now the largest exporter).

So the EU-Chinese alliance would be exotic not only due to geography but besides due to energy. Cooperation on the Russia-India line, as well as India-US (as you can see, even direct cooperation on the Russia-US line) would effectively block the Union's contact with China. Simultaneously Without natural materials from Russia and the US, and with the control of the shipping routes to the Persian Gulf by the US, the Union and China would die of energy hunger.

Of course Russia and the Persian Gulf gotta sale natural materials to someone. due to the fact that that's what they do for a living. But who's going to last longer after the cock spins? Those who request natural materials for the functioning of economies, or those who, utilizing a monopolistic position, wait for the effect? In the energy natural materials market, unlike another markets, conditions are inactive dictated by producers and not consumers.

A strategical partnership without... strategical interests?

Thus, the Union and China would have large difficulties working together on a safety level, and would not even have the possible to respond to the actions of stronger atomic and military opponents. The Russians would attack countries with alleged limitrofu (Ukraine, Moldova, Caucasus, Central Asia and later Baltic States, Romania, possibly Finland?), and Americans could strike anywhere in the world, for example in the mediate East. Generating threats to Europe and China.

Our theoretical European-Chinese duo would besides have immense problems in order to get energy resources from 3rd directions. That's enough. The European Union would compete in specified conditions for access to oil and gas with China.

However, in order to even think about surviving without American and Russian natural materials, it is essential to first build infrastructure in the mediate East. Europeans would be a small easier. Pipelines from Iran, Iraq and Syria could be drawn through Turkey (for this it would take years and peace). Provided that the US would not intervene, for example, in Iraq and the Russians would not fight back for Syria and would not control Iran. The Chinese would find themselves in a much more hard situation. They would gotta usage Pakistan and the port of Gwadar, where tankers from the Persian Gulf would gotta go. These could be blocked not even by the US Navy, but by India, which would do anything to torpedo cooperation on the Pakistan-China line.

However, let us again theoretically presume that the EU and China have set their economies mostly on the basis of RES. Let us besides presume that in a short time – before the economies would fall – it would be possible to keep access to gas and oil from the mediate East, stabilize the political situation there (you request to send troops?) and deter US and Russia from any interference. And divide between Brussels and Beijing available from outside natural materials.

So let's imagine that we have a stabilization of security, energy and logistics between the EU and China (as you can see already quite a few these theoretical assumptions that would hang in the balance). The EU and China could work together on trade and economical issues. What could the European Union get from China in exchange for allowing Chinese to send their goods to the EU? And destroying European industrial competition? Would it be worth working with China at all?

In 2024, EU-China trade amounted to EUR 730 billion. Chinese exports to the EU amounted to as much as EUR 518 billion. Easy to count at the exchange with China, the Union came out with a 300 billion deficitand China has just achieved specified a trade surplus. China's full trade surplus was about $1 trillion. Thus, the surplus in trade with the Union represented about 33% of the full Chinese trade surplus. If we balance the trade between the parties a small more, would it be fair to say that the wolf would be full and whole? Not really. A wolf – alternatively a dragon – would die of starvation.

Because besides in 2024, the surplus of Chinese trade from the US amounted to... $300 billion. That's another 30% of the full Chinese trade surplus. Establishing a trade war with the US, as well as Chinese trade surpluses with the countries to which China exports by sea, The Chinese would gotta face a massive decline in trade profits at the outset. At least 30% (US alone), but it is possible that this decrease would be up to 40-50% or more (Japan, South Korea and further Asian, African or Latin American directions).

Under specified conditions, the Chinese economy is mostly based on production (the value of Chinese production is $4.7 trillion or about 25% of GDP) would have immense problems. If the Chinese didn't sale the goods elsewhere, their economy could fall into a catastrophic snowball effect. A simplification in production would force the simplification in employment and closure of factories. This would impoverish society and thus decrease consumption in China. The Chinese would not only not want to buy European goods, but would besides halt buying their own.. A decline in home request would turn on a spiral of production cuts and further occupation cuts...

It is worth remembering that Despite the attempts, the Chinese failed to build a sufficiently absorbent interior market. In production worth $4.7 trillion, the value of Chinese exports amounted to 2024... until $3.6 trillion or 76% of production value.

Thus, in the context of the trade war and crisis, the Chinese would not have thought of reducing their trade surplus from the EU, but even maximising it (if this were possible at all due to the difficulties described above). While making the European Union dependent on its own goods and technology and destroying European manufacture and innovation. So that Europeans do not change sides during the fight. And Europe's change of sides would be almost certain. Does anyone truly believe that in the name of saving the government from Beijing and China's economy, Germany, the French, and yet Poles will go to war with the US and Russia? Even if individual crazy in China thought so, they'd effort to make guarantees that they wouldn't.

World War III Spectre

A crash in the civilian production sector would make the Chinese do precisely what Russia did. They'd control to arms production. To keep jobs and the economy in check. Assuming that China would not feel alone – counting on the EU (sic!) – they could act more aggressively and attack their neighbours. Taiwan, South Korea, Vienna, Philippines. Unless they were blocked by Russia and the US (nuclear potential). Either way, there would be an arms race that would lead in a consecutive way to the outbreak of planet War III.

At this point, it needs to be stressed that The outbreak of global atomic conflict can only be stopped by isolation of authoritarian regimes and suppression of their forces in the embryo. Giving them a hand, conquering their chances in a possible war fight, and maintaining their hope of winning is simply a consecutive way to war. Let us compose plainly, allowing Russia or China to further defend, militarize economies and societies and then facilitate expansion is simply a simple way to disaster. The European Union's game to China is suicide and, by the way, it is playing for a global conflict that could lead to the demolition of the planet we know.

The “bad” are Americans

Lobbyists of the Chinese direction focus on presenting the geopolitical situation in specified a way as to exposure American actions, their effects and their interests. Donald Trump is going to redefining hegemony by reducing the American cost of maintaining it, as well as maximizing profits from the advantages and position of the US as the leader of the West. This will, of course, be at the expense of allies, including the European Union.

The strategical nonsubjective of the United States is besides to reindustrialise the country. Industrial restoration. This cannot happen without losses on the part of Europe. For there are only 2 large outlets in the world. USA and Europe. If Americans start defending only their own marketplace (and already do) then the European Union will lose the best recipient of its goods. On which it reached a surplus last year of 235 billion dollars.

Today many people are appalled by Trump's direction. They are outraged that the Americans have decided to do the same thing that the Chinese and Germany have been doing for decades. Just as the Germans devalued their currency – exchanging the brand for euro – in order to boost the competitiveness of German goods in the planet market, so by 2016, the Chinese had effectively pursued a policy of weakening Yuan to conquer Western markets. Same reasons Donald Trump is going to weaken the dollar.

This is of course problematic for a planet that holds the dollar as a reserve currency. If the dollar falls by, for example, half, our dollar reserves will besides lose 50% of the value. In addition, European goods will cease to be so competitive in the US market, and on the contrary, American products will become more competitive in the Union. This will support American producers and exporters.

But the unusual thing is, Some commentators find it hard to agree with the US on a more balanced trade balance, but they are not disturbed by the powerful EU deficit in China's trade and by hitting the Chinese besides in European industry. We have a deficit of EUR 300 billion with China. The US surplus is $235 billion. Well Even if we were to leave the U.S. trade for ZERO, then with Chinese expansion to the European market, Europe would go forward with a fewer tens of billions. Isn't it better to deal on a somewhat different terms with a long-standing partner and ally than to get along with a competitor and an enemy (this enemy will continue)?

The Americans besides want to bring industrial investment to the US. This isn't even about abroad investment. It is adequate that large American corporations will be forced to return from Asia (even not Europe) to the United States. American national interests have long gone viral with private, global American brands. These did not look at the country, employment, people, but at expansion and maximization of profits. What was just happening at the expense of American society and led to deindustrialisation of the economy.

Exactly the same – or stronger – the Chinese acted and inactive operate. These deliberately created barriers to imports to outside investors building factories in China. The Chinese utilized it to bargain Western technology. Europe has besides begun to usage tariffs to attract abroad investments to itself. This was served by duties on electricity (both Chinese and American). As a result, many Chinese electrical car and battery factories began to be built (in Poland too). Like mushrooms after rain.

In 1997, the American share of planet production was around 40%. present it is little than 16%. We have a situation where individual in the United States has said enough. He stated that he had to halt the existing processes, due to the fact that the US would end up without production and would completely depend on China in this regard. Does this mean that the US wants to lose its political, economic, monetary and financial influence in the world? destruct safety architecture and alliances? Nope. That means the Americans are starting to take care of their business so they don't lose to China and Asia. And we Europeans – who should besides want to stay in the race against China – We should yet wake up and see that China has been at war with Europe for at least 2 decades. And if you do, you gotta start reacting, build the tools of resilience, and finally... Start putting all the resources into it. due to the fact that there is no safety and strategical advantage without cost.

So far it has been the Americans who have cared for our – European – security. This allowed some, like Germany, to spend just over 1% of GDP on defence. There were more of these countries – going on a stowaway trip. There is no doubt, in fact, that many NATO allies have been breaking the provisions of Article 3 of the North Atlantic Pact for decades, which is better said not to be loud. After all, prior to the launch of the celebrated Article 5, allies are primarily obliged to "self-help", that is to guarantee their own safety and possible in this area, not to number that individual else will supply security.

At the same time, dependencies were built on competitors and competitors. Imports from China (as in the USA) were increased. Nord Stream and Nord Stream II pipelines have been created to increase and increase the EU's dependence on energy resources from Russia. erstwhile Putin turned his cocks in the fall of 2021, the situation saved more than a 100 U.S. tankers coming to Europe with liquefied gas (LNG). Not tankers from Arabia, Qatar, Venezuela, Australia or China (as if they had gas at disposal). Only from the United States.

Finally, despite the large chaos in the mediate East caused by the emergence of ISIS (2018) - where Europe gets gas and oil - where the Russians were besides trying to set their interests against us, it was the Americans and not Europeans who intervened in that region. By putting out a drasticly dangerous fire in our interest. It should be pointed out that if supplies of gas and oil from the mediate East were cut off to Europe, the Russians would have us in their hands. It is besides the Americans who take on the main burden of maintaining the way through the Red Sea and effort to pacify Huti. They had previously done so with pirates from Somalia (the US has a base in Djibouti).

When Chinese technology thefts, state aids from producers, the deliberate weakening of currency and another types of machinery to deceive the principles of the free marketplace and to conduct the economical expansion of China came to light, the US imposed duties and technological sanctions on you. Europe did not join in, even though it was a victim of the Chinese to an equal extent. Thus, it was the Americans who took on the burden of stopping Chinese people erstwhile later German or French leaders visited Beijing to make a trade fair (as if they did not see what “cooperation” with China leads to).

After all, it was the Americans who warned against Russia's possible attack on Ukraine. They first began sending equipment before the invasion of 2022. They supply situational awareness to Ukrainians on the battlefield, predominate in work for logistics. Finally, the U.S. was the first to send extra troops to the east flank of NATO. Washington's reaction was the most serious and fastest in terms of our reinforcement. The British (not in the EU and the French) rapidly became involved. And as far as real support is afraid with military potential, that's it. Yes, the Germans sent Patriots to Poland. That's something to mention, due to the fact that it would have been detected.

Let us besides remember that to the present state, there is no more adequate equipment in Europe to supply Ukraine with an advantage and to keep it in conflict until even half victory. Further hardware support – in the long word – will should be provided by Americans.

Of course, there should be a long list of "accidents" for Americans at this point, but it would be justified if we knew 1 case where the Chinese would act in our European interest.

A Real Chinese Strategy

Such an example is impossible, due to the fact that Beijing operates in a completely different – than Western – very selfish philosophy. Only the profits of 1 country and enslavement – by gaining advantage on all levels – of partners are important. Just as Chinese authorities enslave their society – systemically (system), technologically (system of rewards and penalties), consciously (propaganda) – so the People's Republic of China tries to enslave countries that are beginning to depend on it to any extent.

Malaysia, the Philippines, but Australia (in 2020 China, in order to intimidate Australia, imposed ... customs on it). The Chinese have already threatened with economical sanctions. For example, Norway in 2010 erstwhile Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In 2019, Beijing banned the issue of NBA matches in China, after 1 of the U.S. Federation players supported Democratic demonstrations in Hong Kong. The NBA Federation then made $5 billion on the Chinese market. Thus, the Chinese usage economical advantage not only to exert political pressure, but even ideological or social pressure.

Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam have been facing Chinese territorial expansion in the South China Sea for years, as well as economical pressure. After all, Malaysia at the last minute realized that the Chinese were forming their economical colony from it in the second decade of the 21st century. This in turn succeeds in East Africa.

China's force on Taiwan cannot be ignored. Examples could be multiplied. They prove that When the Chinese capture a state in their network of dependencies, they begin to build its subservience not only on an economical or safety level, but besides on an ideological level, as well as on the values that we value in Europe.The Communist authorities in Beijing are talking about dictatorship. The Chinese have not yet utilized war as a political tool due to the fact that they felt weak. That's the only reason. Meanwhile, China has been defending itself for years. Why?

The argument that Europe is far from China can be utilized in all this, and the authoritarian imposition of Chinese will will have limited influence on the Old Continent. Especially since we would be the marketplace for China. So let us besides presume that, in relation to Europe, the Chinese will behave according to the rules. fair play And as if we expected them to...

Let us so focus on what is in China's interest in the context of possible talks and closer partnership with the European Union.

The Chinese strategical interest is therefore:

1. Maintaining the conflict between the US and Russia.
2. Keeping Russia close to China, in expanding subservience to Beijing.
3. Acquiring an additional ally in the form of the European Union, which is to be a marketplace (shaving loser).
4. Building a quin-dependent architecture on the Beijing-Moscow-Brussels line against the US.
5. The marginalization of the function of the US in planet order.

So he plays in the U.S.-EU-Russia-China quadruple is not about changing the duo configuration. China – but besides Russia! – they want to turn the EU distant from the US and submit it politically. It's their business together.

Then a Russian gas station could service both east and west. The Russians would impose political conditions on the European Union, thanks to their military power and Europe's dependence on natural materials. Moscow would request Ukraine, Moldova, the Caucasus and possibly the Baltic States, especially Lithuania (access to the Kölewiecki Oblast). Poland in the best variant would be disarmed and completely incapacitated politically, energetically and economically (distribution of gross between Russia and Germany). Who knows if the Russians would go further within the increasing appetite. Leading to the outbreak of the planet War.

China in this arrangement would gain NJS land through Russia to Europe as well as the Northern Maritime way (We already know why Trump Greenland?) coasts of Russia to Europe. Thus, having Russia in the Chinese COSTS solves the Chinese LOGISTIC PROBLEMS WITH ACCESS TO THE marketplace IN EUROPE, AND WITH ACCESS TO ENERGY RAWS NOT NEEDED FOR CHINA economical AND MILITARY POWERS! And this is what China cares about most. In the face of a safe western direction, the Chinese could grow southward towards the Malakka Strait (which would endanger the conflict with India, Australia and possibly the US if they would inactive engage).

China would keep the anticipation of importing gas from Central Asia (although it is inactive under Russian control), But besides oil from Iran. Of course, the volume of sales of Russian natural materials through fresh pipelines would increase.

In this configuration Europe would become the vassal of the east. The Russians would force their dependence on the supply of natural materials, as well as the transfer of European technologies to them. Moscow would besides benefit from a margin for transporting Chinese goods to the EU.

The Chinese, on the another hand – utilizing the Russian whip and Europe's dependence on China's manufacture – would have milked Europe for the euro as yet. And they stole European technology from Russian factories. All this, of course, until Europe is poor. Then it could be pacified or consumed completely.

English eurusland

In the above configuration, in which the United States is completely alone and pushed out of the Old Continent, Poland – as an independent and self-government political entity – has no right to remain. Chinese would not want to keep Poland's independency and independency from Russia or Germany. For them, the lowest cost of transporting goods to the Western European marketplace would be important. Poland is only a territory on the map. It doesn't substance who runs this territory. German, Russian, Mexican. It is crucial that duties and taxes are as low as possible and work as inexpensive as possible (the handling/control of transport).

It would be naive to number on China to defend Polish interests against Moscow and Berlin – if they did not defend Belarus or Ukraine.

Without Washington, Berlin and Moscow, they would get along again over the heads of Warsaw. If Poles had doubts, Moscow and Berlin would let go of torrents of goods as part of the roundabout concept. In fact, that would even be certain, due to the fact that this kind of concept was already promoted by the Russians and the Germans accepted it. So the fresh Silk Road would most likely go through the subordinate Moscow Ukraine and... Hungary. Which already present attracted infrastructure (roads/wheels) to the border with Ukraine.

The Russians and Germans would crush in the space between them any symptoms of assertiveness and actions for the interests of Poland. And China – engaged in rivalry with the US – would not protest.

In fact, joining China and Russia – due to the fact that China will not turn distant from Russia at the request of the EU – would mean surrendering to Ukraine.

In all this, it should be borne in head that the current global "policeman" could at all quit interfering in the substance of Euroasia. The U.S. should then fundamentally let aggressive expansion of authoritarian regimes (then totalitarian regimes?) in order for this expansion to lead to a war between them (and conflicts of interest between the EU, Russia, China and Indami are unimportant). Then the U.S. – as in planet War I and planet War II – would ride on a white horse at the last minute and at the price of restoring hegemony would hurt 1 of the parties.

Interest of Poland, the Union or China. There's no road together today.

It is clear from the above that if individual promotes an EU-Chinese alliance, it works not only for the demolition of the European Union itself, but fundamentally lobbying for the fall of Ukraine and vassalization of Poland against the re-German-Russian reset. The emphasis requires that Russia (as a petrol station and a connector) is much more crucial for China than Poland. And the European market, not Polish.

Many present emphasize that Poland's function in the planet has increased. It's true. However, we must remember why this happened and in what arrangement of forces. The function of Poland increased due to the fact that the US – and later the EU – decided to defend Ukraine by Russia. There is no war on Ukraine in the EU-Russia-China agreement (because there is no chance without Russia). Ukraine is Russian. Poland so becomes irrelevant. Easy to marginalize and subordinate to political and economic.

This is clear, clear and clear for anyone who has even a basic thought of geopolitics and global politics.

It is in Poland's interest to keep the cohesion of the West. The Transatlantic Alliance, even at the cost of bearing higher EU costs in relation to the US. That's the only deal that serves our business.

For Poland China is not an alternate in the context of state rations. For Poland, the EU's taking Chinese direction now is simply a disaster. As for the Union itself, or possibly the planet itself. For unrestrained as authoritarianism from Moscow and Beijing will lead to expansion, and this could lead to planet war.

Russia and China should be stopped here and now. By firm and hard action. Europe needed a decade and a second invasion of Ukraine to realize this discipline in relation to Russia. The Americans already know that the same must be done with China. BEFORE these will be ready to invade Taiwan. It is time for Europe to yet realize that the East has been at war with the West for decades, and we must act. Not to pretend that everything's fine and yet to spare the Chinese a weapon that will then put to our head.

This is not a question of values and morality. Fights of good and evil. That's what hard business does. Us or them. West or East. Poland, either China or Russia. After 2022, it was easy to get to know those who sided with Russia. Now we will see – especially after European elites and decision-makers – who hangs on the Chinese belt.

Meanwhile, Poland should do its occupation and work towards strengthening NATO and economical partnership with the US. In all this Trump is surely not our dream leader. His methods of negotiating with allies are humiliating. The bill could have been put up in a better style, although it hurts us that it was even stood up. However, sympathy or antipathy cannot obscure our strategical interests and the Polish reason for the state. The United States of Trump is the only ally that has the possible to solve our problems. Poland with Russia. Union with Russia and Chinese competition. Trump is the only Western leader we have. With all due respect to others, for example, Macron is behind France, its army and its atomic arsenal. All besides weak and insufficient for the needs of the full continent in the context of the Russian threat.

It is in the interest of Poland and the EU to bargain with the United States. It is in the interests of Poland and the Union to accomplish a better position than the US. But at the end of the day, you gotta communicate. Otherwise, our destiny is poor.

Krzysztof Wojchal