Polish price for peace in Ukraine?
Our interview with Dr Wojciech Szewko.
Michael Murgrabia:Many Poles have hoped for the election as 47 president of the United States, Donald Trump. During his first speech he stressed that America is the most crucial to him, that it is “first place”. What does that mean for us as allies of the United States? Are the hopes of his presidency justified?
Dr Wojciech Szewko: At the minute it is very hard to talk about this due to the fact that Donald Trump's plans for Central, east Europe and the world, we know only from a fewer of his enigmatic statements. Let's be honest, we know little, for example, what he said during the campaign. So it is hard to take it seriously. We besides know what his denominations, whom he chose to take the most crucial positions, but these denominations spoke mostly publically before becoming denominations. In fact, we know their old views, theirs as scientists, politicians, activists, but we don't know their views as members of Trump's crew. These may be fundamentally different views. Not wanting to look far, I will mention the general's example Kellogga, liable for possible talks between Russia and Ukraine about the end of the war. Until recently, he wrote specified quasi technological articles that indicated that he was opposed to sending any weapons to Ukrainians. He now gave an interview, in which he said he was a large supporter of sending weapons, due to the fact that if Biden now sends extra weapons to Ukraine, he will thus strengthen Trump's negotiating position. It hasn't been long between his statements. The question is, isn't that Trump's view? In Trump's team, he will decide, as before, on specified fundamental foundations of global policy. These are all speculations at the moment, so they may not come actual later. It is as if in Poland individual on the basis of electoral promises, 1 or another policy, tried to find how he would later regulation the country and how fewer of these promises he would like to fulfill. It's like 1 thing.
The second thing I don't rather realize is the hope we're putting together in Trump. Trump is simply a politician for whom Poles, those who are, of course, citizens of the United States, voted in mass. Trump made it clear that for him, the primary slogan is “American first” and he will do what is good for the United States. So if for the sake of the USA there is simply a commitment of Poland to the Russians, or any fresh Yalta, where fresh spheres of influence will be outlined by the map, and for any reason it will be good for America, then Trump will not hesitate. He was not elected president of the United States by a Polish voter, but by an American voter. These hopes that he will do something good for us, it is as long as he is on his way with Poland. If it comes to the conclusion that doing something good for Poland will bring any profit to the United States then it will. Here the field of large challenge which faces Polish diplomacy, the Polish lobby, the Polish one, which for specified a large cultural group in the US, has never truly been able to fight for the interests of itself and Poland, or at least not like all these another influential cultural groups in America, any far little numerous. It is simply a large task, to bring about a situation in which he considers that even if he gives up the full of Europe, he will sale it, trade it with Putin, it is Poland to simply spare it.
Many people remember how Poland gained independency after the First planet War. It was then that president Wilson simply added to Wilson's points, a point on Poland's independence. We had Paderewski at the time, who was an highly influential man in the United States. He went from politician to politician, 1 senator to another, from lobbyist to lobbyist, and that independency left, and partially won on piano. At the moment, we do not have Paderewski or any another strong personality that would enjoy the trust of Americans, and could argue something that might be for Poland, for any reason, not good.
It's worth remembering what Trump says about himself that he's unpredictable. This is contrary to appearances, due to the fact that his enemies, or enemies of the United States, never know precisely how he will behave in a given situation and whether they will find his good temper or his bad mood. Good, so it can give distant countries, give distant spheres of influence, or bad, where it can instinctively look with the fingers of an atomic button. For this reason, Donald Trump's background claimed that if he were president, there would have been no war in Ukraine due to the fact that Putin would not have known what Trump would do. He'd be 50-50, or he wouldn't do anything, or planet War III will begin. With Biden, however, he was 100% certain that he would do nothing due to the fact that he assured him of it many times. Well, if he doesn't do anything, we go in, why not.
Another thing people rise is to see a change in attitudes towards left-wing minorities, deviants, etc. Everyone's talking about Trump getting over it in the United States, and they're happy about it. On the 1 hand, the US has a strong influence on Poland, but do you think it will have a real impact if this agenda is shortened.
It will definitely end a certain era of political correctness, but it will besides end everything that caused it, and that is most likely something that the Americans most accept that filling positions, especially delicate positions, is not determined by skill, but by another qualities. You know, it's like a blind man is simply a pilot of a plane, due to the fact that there must be a parity of people with disabilities. I'm exaggerating, of course, due to the fact that it wasn't, but that's how it starts at a certain point, that there must be any percent of gender, LGBT, and another letters that we can put together. If this is to be a criterion of e.g. selection of positions in the army, then this is actually something sick, deviating and perverting the thought of the state. What is different is tolerance for certain social, political, or even biological phenomena, and what is different is organizing the state under any kind of bizarre number keys. For a long time, Republicans have had it on their agenda. It's not about taking a person's rights, it's about getting a job, taking a place in college, contests, deciding skills, not skin colour or sexual preferences. This political correctness and all these bizarre ideas are just about certain professions. Why isn't that in the mine? Let's say there's 30% of women, 30% of gays, and any part of the unsexed. And that's to decide that specified a individual will chop that coal in the mine or not. This is sick. That's something that the Americans didn't like, and it's something that the army says. In the army, definitely. However, he will not interfere in another spheres of life, but besides a large part of these powers will be given to state legislation. I'm not precisely a specialist on this one, but I've seen information that any government has said there won't be 7 different types of toilets, for women, men and everyone else, who can imagine what anyone can't imagine.
Kamala Harris presents himself in Poland as evil and there is simply quite a few fact in it, but in his approach to Israel he is diametrically different from Trump. Would she be better at that?
No, she would have continued Biden's policy, and she did it during the campaign. I don't think it would make much difference here. This is where we request to talk about the complete separation of the Democratic elite from their own electorate. Let us remind you that their left-wing electorate is, to say the least, skeptical, not so much to Israel as a state, due to the fact that remember that any of this electorate are left-wing, left-wing Jews, officially concentrated in various organizations. Let us remember that these massacres, genocide in Gaza, were first contested in the United States by left-wing judaic organizations who organized the business of the hall in a congress, specified a celebrated 1 that is usually occupied there. Let us remember that Kamala Harris continued Biden's policy, which is simply a completely scandalous policy. She is all the more incomprehensible due to the fact that 1 must remember that the U.S. government, which presently supports the Israeli government, which commits all these crimes, the genocide of which the Prime Minister is presently being prosecuted by an global criminal tribunal, that is, the government of the far right (From the editorial board: The utmost right is simply a word very broad and blurry, invented by the left and inactive extended to discredit the right. Within this term, everything from alleged homophobia and anti-Semitism, through fascism, Nazism, neo-Nazim, to reactionism and monarchism. The Israeli government is undoubtedly a chauvinist, nationalist, genocide, and racist government.) So utmost that there is no specified right hand in Poland, there is no specified right-wing thought in Poland.
We have a left-wing, liberal, centre-left government... we can argue here about what it truly was, which is the Biden government, which abruptly supports so far-right abroad that it does not fit into any scale. It was completely incomprehensible. It is simply a matrimony of the left with specified an utmost right that we could most likely compare, his Likud, to Germany, to those inventions from the 1930s, from the vicinity of Thule Lodge. These would be any mixed slogans of spiritual extremism with slogans of racial superiority, apartheid, lebensraum, that is, the necessity of surviving space, settlement in all neighbouring countries, the concept of subhumans having different rights than indigenous Israelis, and this is something supported by the left-wing candidate. That's why people from the left did not vote for her, they stayed at home, and any Muslims inactive voted for Trump, due to the fact that Trump is simply a variation for this aberration. They voted not due to the fact that they believe Trump would do something useful to Muslims, or that he would protest Israel, although possibly besides due to the fact that this "america first" would be an "america first". If it turns out that Netanjahu will effort to play president of the United States again, Trump will neglect in my opinion. Trump had already been deceived by him once, in a very insolent way, and Trump complained about it. He may let him off a small bit, but 1 must remember that support for Israel is not necessarily the support for Netanyahu and the fewer neo-Nazis he has in his government, that is, the support for the state, for the thought of this state. Half of the people of Israel believe that this government is leading to a collapse. Therefore, there is individual from whom to choose a fresh Prime Minister, if the Americans had already decided to intervene deeper into the politics of that country.
My point was that Trump accused Kamali Harris that she had no time to meet and devote adequate attention to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Hence, I thought Trump was pro-Israeli alternatively than Kamala and Biden's current government.
He surely did. but for his electorate, especially for Protestants, especially evangelicals and Baptists. I'm not a theologian, there's a theologian here who should speak. There is specified a phenomenon of Christian Zionism. These preachers choose any passages, mostly drawing from the Old Testament and concluding that the Messiah will come erstwhile the Jews regulation the earth and there will be large Israel and then the Messiah will come. It's a small millennial. It was characteristic of Christianity in the millennium times that times are near, that there will be a final judgment, etc., so specified milienarian concepts appear in Baptists cyclically. Now there is an component of this cycle where they, like 1 husband, claim that Israel must be supported, due to the fact that Israel has a peculiar function, is to exterminate all another nations, due to the fact that it is written in the Old Testament, etc. I am not a specialist on this, I can talk competently about Islam, and about Christianity, especially Protestant, definitely not, but this is as if this direction.
For very many Republicans, it is an impossible situation, they are full dependent on the support of these "bishops" who now have specified an agenda and, in fact, even the faithful do not necessarily agree with this concept. However, confronting this agenda would end for any Republican so that he would not be elected. At the moment, the view of Christian Zionism prevails, which in my opinion is madness and aberration. After a while he disappears to reappear. Concepts specified as that erstwhile the Jews rebuild the 3rd temple, Christ will walk. Jews claim that Messiah and absolutely not Christ, but this is simply a completely different issue.
I listened alternatively carefully to the first speech by 47 U.S. president Donald Trump. The conviction was that “the US has more oil than Saudi Arabia”. Why did he emphasize this so powerfully in your opinion?
He stressed one more time that the United States is energy independent and can besides be a player in the oil market. This is simply a substance of setting the United States in a power position against all those who effort to play and blackmail the United States. Since the large oil crisis, besides due to the Israeli-Arab war, countries specified as Saudi Arabia, the United arabian Emirates, from truly very mediocre countries that had financial problems, were in debt, where in Saudi Arabia the origin of income, the origin of motto, were pilgrimages to Mecca, or spiritual tourism, and very susceptible to various kinds of political turmoil. From that point on, these countries, due to OPEC, which is simply a cartel monopolising oil production and dictating or setting prices which have nothing to do with the free market. For years it was Damocles' sword that hung over the States, just as it was during the oil crisis, erstwhile the arabian states could spin the tap. Now Trump clearly says they can spin whatever they want due to the fact that they're not dependent on them. You may starve the remainder of the planet and yourself too, but not only are we able to feed ourselves, in an energy sense, but we can inactive play in the oil marketplace and, for example, play for lowering oil prices if we have specified a fantasy. This is besides a reason for how Saudi Arabia played Biden through this term.
It is no secret that the Americans wanted to starve Russia, and so they wanted Saudi Arabia and OPEC to agree to lower oil prices, or increase production that would lower prices. They did not agree to this due to the fact that they have a deal with Putin (OPEC+) and Mohammed bin Salman said it was more crucial to him than any another work of this type. For them, oil production is purely economic. Well, it's not purely economic, due to the fact that it's a cartel that dictates prices and doesn't match any marketplace demand. This showed that if the Americans had actively joined the game, as Trump or his surroundings at least suggest, they could have played to lower oil prices. On the 1 hand, it would hit the American pocket, but on the other, it would origin Russia to have nothing to finance war.
It besides shows that Trump gives a clear signal that he will not be allowed to blackmail himself. That's how I read it.
Yeah. This is the large uncertainty that is ahead of us. On the 1 hand, as an ally of the United States, we have 1 affirmative signal, which echoes from Kellogg's last statement, that they will talk about peace, but from the position of force. We go back to the diplomacy of a fat stick, which is simply a celebrated saying to talk with a smiling face holding a fat stick behind your back. Biden was completely incapable of utilizing that fat stick, so everyone made it as they wanted. Furthermore, Biden's full abroad policy is simply a series of disasters from beginning to end. Trump announces peace is to be by force. He wants to rebuild the power of the United States. This is the affirmative message. We, on the another hand, should be afraid whether, for example, in a situation where he concludes that the conflict with China is simply a precedence for him, whether he will be able to guarantee the neutrality of Russia. If so, the question arises what the price of Russia will be and whether the price will not be, for example, Central and east Europe. I'm not talking about taking over territories, but about a situation where Putin says it's my sphere of influence and they're expected to defuse, they're expected to have limited NATO membership, and any more out there... and in return for Xi Jinping calling, I won't answer my phone. Of course, this simplifies very much, but it is simply a danger that in this quest to "america first", to rebuild power, it may turn out that we are pawns in these games, but we would like to be the pawn that is not sacrificed besides rapidly and besides easily.
You besides talked about Trump being unpredictable, that's good and bad. You mentioned the situation with the Kurds, I'd like to remind you how they were treated.
Exactly. It was a concept that came up in Obama's time. I think it makes quite a few sense. Kurds, who are 1 of the largest nations without their own state, due to the fact that they live, in an unknown number, due to the fact that not everyone there admits to being Kurds, but there may even be up to 30 million Kurds in Turkey, respective million in Syria, another fewer million in Iraq and respective more million surviving in northern Iran. And this is erstwhile it came to fight the muslim State (ISIS), The Americans realized that all those free Syrian armies etc. that they had equipped as shortly as they crossed the border were selling all the equipment at the first better marketplace and disappearing. Therefore, the only army that was able to fight the muslim State, and were very motivated to do so, were the Kurds. In addition, Kurds from specified a maoist YPG partisan, YPJ. So the Americans specifically changed its name to SDF, so it's not that they're communists... what communists, what Kurdish terrorists, we're giving SDF, not the Kurdistan Workers Party. The Kurds fought not only to reclaim these areas where the Kurdish population lives, but besides the Americans utilized the Kurds in general to break up the muslim State, gaining the capital of that country, or Rakka. They died for thousands there. They seized the land as far as Euphrates in confederate Syria where the Kurds never existed. They were just doing American infantry. Americans gave artillery, aviation, etc., but these soldiers, you could say, "the me," were the Kurds. The mercenaries, due to the fact that they were convinced they were fighting for our freedom and yours. As shortly as they've won all of this, erstwhile president Erdogan said he doesn't like these Kurds, due to the fact that they're creating a quasi-state, and consequently, his own Kurds want the same thing, they might want to join, and don't let God go yet, declare independence, we're about to have a large war, due to the fact that the 30 million or something that's in Turkey will abruptly rip 25% of the territory where they live in dense clusters from Turkey. As a result, president Erdogan had the thought that he would step in with troops, mercenaries, various groups of jihads that cut off people's heads on the streets, I am not exaggerating due to the fact that they are well documented cases. These mercenaries are on Turkish pay. Now it's even said it's a Turkish auxiliary army due to the fact that that's what they're called. What did he do? He attacked those Kurds. What did president Trump do? He withdrew American troops and allowed Erdogan to do so. erstwhile he was asked that it was our ally, that they were fighting for us, that the blood was pouring out, he said no, due to the fact that they were not fighting for us in Normandy. It was known to be planet War II. That was the argument. He was asked this in the context that they could lose allies and credibility. He said the allies would always be somewhere. Do you understand? alternatively of the word Kurds we can besides insert Poles. Trump's unpredictability here has come to light. The plan was to actually make a Kurdish state, which would be highly pro-Western, and secular, even though the Kurds are Sunni Muslims, they would not make a spiritual state, due to the fact that religion and state are separated from them. They had a kind of Swiss, canton, quite a few direct democracy, women's rights, in the mediate East, that's, to put it mildly, not obvious. Moreover, these women can co-ordinate, they are mayors, leaders of national councils, etc. It would be a country that would actually separate Iran from Syria and Lebanon. It would be the largest base for all pro-American and pro-European operations throughout the mediate East.
It's a starting point.
In addition, it is inactive self-sufficient, due to the fact that the Kurds control there, at least formally, oil and gas deposits, at the minute in Syria, the largest ones that they have taken from Asad. This would so be self-sufficient, self-financing. It destroyed Trump. Therefore, the question arises what will he do with specified Poles.
Will we be leverage in what he promised and announced in the run that he would end the war in Ukraine. The question is, how much does he truly want to end the war?
Did we fight in Normandy? No Poland was active in operations against the Germans, alongside the Americans, so I hope they will remember. As for the fast end of the war in Ukraine, I said it erstwhile on tv and I will repeat now that erstwhile it comes to peace in Ukraine... For us, war is not dangerous, in the sense that it is going on, and nothing is happening here. However, making peace, whether it will be a deal between Ukraine and Russia, which does not bother us, is not dangerous, but if it is simply a deal between Trump and Putin, then we do not know what will be on the table. We can hope not Poland. If they get along about Ukrainian concessions, not, for example, about what the arrangement of forces in Central and east Europe will look like.
You mentioned certain conditions that Russia might want to place during specified talks. What would be on their side of the table?
Russia presented 2 papers clearly before the war. 1 addressed to the United States and the another to Western European countries. There, as far as Poland is concerned, due to the fact that Poland is besides mentioned there – expressis verbis – these conditions concern mainly the anticipation of vetoeing by Russia, presence, forces, maneuvers and weapons of various types, in the territories of countries bordering Russia. In short, safety architecture must besides take account of the Russian interest. From this point of view, we would return to the NATO-Russia document, which means Russia would have the right, for example, to veto situations in which we invitation American troops to Poland, or troops of the alleged old NATO. This may besides apply to the anticipation of vetting stations, any types of weapons, specified as rocket weapons. Russia could besides request a simplification in the number of tanks or artillery that Poland has. They could request that Poland defuse itself in part due to the fact that it threatens Russia. Poland will stay a sovereign country, but it is to stay a weak country so that Russia can invade it freely, and that it has neither time nor strength nor chance to arm itself. The best she can do is save the Germans. 1 can only hope that they will come here to fight on our side. This is simply a large danger. This besides applies to Romania and many another east European countries or Asia, where this would be similar. In summary, it will be the disarmament and the law of the Russian veto, or interference in the sovereignty of east European states, if the West had agreed to specified a dictum.
So peace at our expense... Whatever the cost would yet be.
