I'm fresh after reading an interview with Hazel Miller, which for the weekly “No” was carried out by the editor-in-chief of this magazine Agnieszka Wołk-Łanewska. The erstwhile Prime Minister was late dissolved. Łukasz Jastrzeżski, however, I, after reading the interview, remained alternatively reasoning that his title was powerfully elevated.
Braun has rather a comprehensive and multilayered imagination of history, global relations, state system, national identity. His reflection dates back to the times of Christianity, the Republic of Both Nations, the French Revolution, Polish national uprisings. He talks about monarchy, judaic history, the influence of various powers in Poland. He has certain views on the state of social relations and the economical strategy that he feels is desirable. These views evolve – Braun writes and reads a lot, so he develops intellectually. In the following years, it spreads the accents of its outlook somewhat differently, or even changes any views.
The views and statements of Braun can be assessed differently, but 1 thing is clear: no of them are consistent with the current demographic worldview – neither pre-sobor Catholicism, nor economical and social libertarianism, nor anti-Semitism, nor Anglophobia, nor anti-Ukrainianism.
Is that the same thing about Miller? He wrote practically nothing, his reflection reaches at most the end of the Polish People's Republic and the scope includes organization games and current global relations. Miller is simply a “political animal” whose full life has been politics, so he understands its mechanisms and knows its “kitchen”. It is not amazing that an age-old man who has devoted his full life to a craft knows a variety of his ark. But did this make Miller an exceptionally efficient player?
The Miller government was a short-lived phenomenon erstwhile compared to the ruling ones after respective word of the Law and Justice Offices, and mainly collected the fruit of predecessors (finalization of Poland's accession to the European Union). After 9 months of the SLD under Miller had already had social sentiments against each other, after a year and a half Miller lost most of the parliament, after 2 years miners threw stones at the SLD's office on Rozbrat Street, after a fewer months Marek Borowski removed any MPs from the SLD. Let us add to this constant scandals (Riwina, Starachowice, Orlenu, Dochnala, etc.). After 4 years of Miller's rule, support for the SLD fell from 40% to 11%. present Miller is simply a political margin, without any political influence and his home formation does not want to be associated with him in any way – let this be a summary of the political talents of the erstwhile Prime Minister.
Jastrzębski introduces Leszek Miller as a ‘stateman’, however, during his reign, the transformation of Polish safety into the current tool of repression against opponents of Atlantism – de facto the extension of the US peculiar services. Miller's effort to sanitize the state's finances in the form of a "Hausner plan" had nothing first in him, nor was it even peculiarly bold – this standard neoliberalism, in a somewhat diluted version to play electoral posts (and so falling down on the head to Miller's government); it was neither an anti-systemic libertarianism in the kind of Corwin or Braun nor the stateization and neo-mercantilism in the kind of de Gaulle or Mitterand. Like Miller's economical concepts are copy-paste of Yankee neoliberalism, so his abroad policy is copy-paste of Yankee neoconservativeism; Miller hung Poland at the US doorknob, and in this interview with “No” he postulates the same thing today. There is neither "realism" nor "prostateship" (on the contrary) in this, but there is only a copy of the current hegemon.
Miller remained mentally and mentally a provincial PZPR apparatusist who simply turned from russian to Yankee hegemon – before 1989 Miller copied russian communicative (which he admits in an interview, referring to the Katyn crime), and after changing the paradigm from Marxist to liberal photocopying the Yankee narrative. specified a inferior spiritual, intellectual and moral level was already characterized by Wojciech Jaruzelski, who, like Miller, had no views, and his cognition of political mechanisms he utilized – besides like Miller – only to adapt to the prevailing current at a given moment. Jaruzelski met Rockefeller in 1985, Miller in 2002 replaced Polish peculiar services with the "long arm of Washington". The trend of dismantling of the Polish state and the Polish subjectivity of civilisation and politics was so consistently developed by the PZPR-nomenklatura. Just erstwhile it was seen that Russia was falling apart, Polish apparatusists of russian “communities” replaced “souls” with stars and stripes.
Jastrzębski's colleague named Leszek Miller as "the Chancellor" – I believe, in designation of the political format of any German leaders. but that characters like Bismarck, Stressmann, Adenauer, Kohl or even “unspeakable” have been recorded in history, as they have imprinted on it individually, having a circumstantial imagination of political relations and the means to implement it in the form of an organized and civilized country. In another words, German leaders have entered past due to the fact that they were its entities. Miller and his formation for half a century worked to guarantee that Poland was not just a subject of historical processes (the reality of “limited sovereignty” during the period of communism is not an argument, due to the fact that the leaders of Romania, Albania or Yugoslavia were able to practice real politics, unlike the mediocre Polish apparatusists, always turning where the wind blows) and he himself was just a xerocopier.
Braun tries to identify Polish Logos more or little accurately. Miller most likely wouldn't really know what that word means. Braun learns after all – it is widely known that he reads a lot (less or valuable things) due to the fact that he refers in his statements to a variety of calibre authors (including notable authors or publications). In an interview with the weekly “No” erudition about contemporary political thought, however, Miller did not shine, only editor Wołk-Łanewska. Miller admitted only that he reads a commentative political run by Luke Warzecha. Twice for this he repeated, confusing most likely his interviewer that Poland should "hold on" to the US. So, if Braun had thought about this in his past years, then Miller “had forgotten nothing, he did not realize anything.” If he were to become Prime Minister again, in exchange for Yankee technologies and capital, he would most likely send Polish soldiers to war with Iran or install catalysts in Poland to torture Muslim activists kidnapped by the US. So we'd have a repeat of Jaruzelski's gathering with David Rockefeller.
I do not want to praise Braun, who is simply a novice in politics and seems to be mostly ignorant, so he seems clumsy and his behaviour is chaotic. The support of Karol Nawrocki and the begging for a "Senack Pact" compromised Braun as an Antisystem, giving him nothing politically, as the embassy on Beautiful set veto to bring him into the future right-wing government. Braun failed his most faithful electorate, but he did not receive approval from Washington and his overhanging expositions (PiS, Nawrocki) to join the regime's table. However, Braun has any views. Miller doesn't have any. Miller is just specified a “Bosak” of the PRL tip – likewise non-ideoic, slimy and spineless. It may be that in about forty years, Bosak, for whom politics are his full life, will be able to comment as profoundly as Miller today.
The only subject of Miller's interview for No is anti-Ukrainianism. In all the problems raised, Miller is right, but at no point exceeds the line of application of double standards and simple propaganda, which is characterized by a large proportion of pro-Russian commentators. It proves that Miller is not only clever but besides intelligent. However, it is not pro-Russian as many of its current fans of law and left, but Trumpist. In my opinion, Miller, whose political shrewdness has just taken over, plays Trump. He would like to be a Polish Orbán and hopes to become a Polish exposition of Trumpism. Of course, hopes are burning, due to the fact that Trumpists have more reliable allies over the Vistula River than political margin Miller – especially PiS and Nawrocki, but besides in the position of the national-bossists trampling around them.
Leszek Miller's return would only be able to imagine in 1 case: Russian business of Poland. This is, of course, completely impossible, due to the fact that Russia is besides weak present even to occupy the full Ukraine, let alone talk about the attack on Poland or Romania – Miller here is absolutely right. Only Russia, however, in its insecure concept of power policy, utilized to bet on the perfect technocracy. Miller, on the another hand, is an excellent collaborator – flexible, reconciled, willing to cooperate with anyone, devoid of morality (catalogically CIA, aggression on Iraq and its occupation, teasing the subculture of perverts during the period of decomposition of his political background) and views, cynical and technically efficient. Deprived of the perfect spine, however, technocrats are cowardly and soft politicians and thus inept. Jaruzelski was specified a cowardly and inept dictator. specified a cowardly and inept Prime Minister was Leszek Miller (he did not even have the courage to introduce a linear taxation and carry out extremist neoliberal reforms he dreamed of, alternatively carrying out the neoliberal-social democratic make-up of Hausner). The co-laborative government of Leszek Miller would so end up surely as the successive periods of Yanukovych's regulation in Ukraine culminated.
Ronald Lasecki
