In Poland questions arise whether we are safe. In fact, there is no indication at this minute that Poland should be threatened. The claims that if Ukraine falls or loses, the destiny of Poland will be sealed, are an exaggeration.
The destiny of Poland and Ukraine, although intertwined with a natural anti-Russian instinct, is fundamentally different, due to the fact that the situation of our 2 countries differs. There are 5 fundamental differences in this context, with 1 or even 2 elements in the list of which durability can be doubted.
Firstly, Poland is simply a associate of NATO and the European Union. Secondly, allied troops are already stationed on our territory. Thirdly, our economy is not only related to the West, but, to be clear, it is mostly Western capital.
Fourth Ukraine has not yet lost, and there is no indication that even by adopting very unfavourable conditions of peace, it should disarm itself. Fifth, finally., fortunately Russia itself is weak, which during the war with Ukraine – let us remind – has already lost over half of the tanks with which the war started.
Query Characters
The problem is that the above list of our assets contains 1 or even 2 elements about which durability can be doubted. Unfortunately, we are not certain that Americans intend to retreat their forces from our country. To make matters worse, there is no shortage of advisors around Donald Trump, who propose that the United States retreat from NATO.
The fear of specified a script causes many commentators to argue that we should integrate even more closely within the European Union, and it is in the Union that we besides search a remedy for the military safety of our country. However, this solution, apart from its advantages, besides has very serious disadvantages.
PAP/EP/ PAPDonald Trump spoke in legislature about the end of the war in Ukraine
Security is NATO, not the EU
Firstly, the members of the European Union are not:
- being a atomic power and hard-core anti-Russian United Kingdom,
- militaryly very crucial and besides traditionally anti-Russian Norway
- no little hawk to Moscow Canada
- having a theoretically good but common distrust of relations with Russia Turkey
All these countries are NATO members for a change. NATO, if you could even imagine the worst scenario, the exit of the United States from the North Atlantic Pact, would inactive exist, but without the US.
The above would have us see the basis of our safety in NATO, not in the Union.
Problem with Germany
Some associate States are besides the problem of building a safety pillar into the European Union. Hungary and, unfortunately, Slovakia are almost straight pro-Russian today. However, the challenge is besides the largest economical power of the EU, Germany, which has not yet settled its affair with Russia..
Germany, let us remind you, for years they pretended not to see Russian threat, but also, for example, clinging to the NATO-Russia Act and opposing the deployment of allied forces in our territory, besides building Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2, They just ignored our safety.
Berlin for the first days of the war, erstwhile Poland was supplying Ukraine with weapons, it was actually waiting for the Russian triumph parade in Kiev, and then — although in time he started a weapon Ukraine delivered, it simultaneously on all possible occasion hamletized, waited and frequently failed.
Marcin Obara / PAPOlaf Scholz
The Polish attitude towards Germany is, of course, frequently burdened with excessive resentiments. It was very clear during the regulation of the Law and Justice, which were obsessively anti-German, and which alternatively of trying to talk to Berlin, only slid at Germany.
However, the policy of the Law and Justice Office is not president Aleksander Kwasniewski, who, in an interview a year ago in a podcast, an global study on the question of whether Germany would return to the affair with Russia, stated that so "and on this first occasion." The thought to build Polish safety based on a structure in which there is no Britain, but they are and dominate in it – Germany, is simply a bravado idea.
The benefits of the European Union
On the another hand, the European Union has tools that are not available to NATO, specified as the anticipation of launching financial streams, which can, at least, start major arms production.
So possibly the solution would be to establish, not within the EU, but on the basis of it, a separate structure that would complement NATO. but it's not the perfect solution either. The UK and Norway would most likely join specified a structure, but not necessarily Turkey and Canada.
The issue that should besides be seriously addressed is the proliferation of governance models. The European Union is an excellent tool to civilise disputes in Europe. For Poland, the Union has besides become a locomotive which has brought our country from communism to modernity and prosperity, which – although the challenge remains crucial social inequality – becomes the participation of an expanding number of Poles.
The point is that all of this was based on a very specific, militaryly ineffective, model of action, the essence of which is the laborious improvement of consensus, blurring of interests and compromise.
Military safety requires something completely other — fast and unambiguous decisions and a narrow, not a broad decision - making circle. 1 can imagine, of course, that alternatively of a two-speed Europe (as the European Union), there will be a two-mode Europe of decision making — a military and conventional one.
Only that it is simply a fiction and more frequently a military model (i.e. the 1 in which decisions are made without undue hold and excessive discussion) will affect the another areas of Union action than 2 equivalent models of Union governance will actually arise. Poland's militarization of the spirit of the Union, in all of it, but military, aspects of action, is not worth it. However, Poland is besides not worth an alternate scenario, in which the current EU spirit, which is simply a dense and frequently late-acting structure, will affect military aspects.
Let's not make a Moscow scenario
GAVRIIL GRIGOROV / SITEMLIN POOL / PAPRussian president Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin office, Moscow, Russia, 7 February 2025.
Enlarging EU competences has another drawback. If we presume that Russia's goal is to bring the utmost right to rule, then the Union, in addition to having to end its eternal “speak”, must give way to national states.
The French, in order not to choose Marine Le Pen, must feel not the strength of Brussels but the pride of France. The British, in order to halt the growth of the improvement Party, must feel London's doing, not the impression that London is following – strangely – the Union's doing. The thought that the EU should have even more to say - now besides in the area of military security, although it is due to the anti-Russian motives, can paradoxically contribute to the realization of Moscow's dream, the dissolution of the Union.
Political will is more crucial than the Treaty framework
The 2 fundamental challenges facing our continent today, namely the creation of a credible deterrence military mission that would hit Ukraine after the end of the war and the leaping increase in the combat capabilities of the European armed forces, are not dependent on the Treaty-Organisation Framework but on the political will.
Perhaps it is yet essential to find a expression that combines or complements NATO and the European Union. The point is that decisions to make a peace quota that should hit Ukraine, to increase arms spending, or to increase ammunition production in leaps, can now be taken. If these decisions are not taken, it is not due to the fact that we deficiency frameworks, structures or treaty provisions, but due to the fact that we deficiency political will. By the way, I'm sorry.
