Over the last fewer decades, we have been fed slogans about bringing global liberal governance, “based on principles”, which nobody has completely defined and understood, and even worse, has not practiced.
However, it was believed that the alleged free planet of the West under the American protectorate (the concept of propaganda, coined during the "cold war", in contrast to the planet "slaved" by communism), would defend its civilization primacy and push distant all threats.
Meanwhile, in front of us, this "great illusion" ends. It is not essential to be a pervasive thinker or sage to not see that after years of various forms of intervention, Western expansion has led not only to the retreat of many states from the West, but has caused a crisis of values, standards and institutions within it.
After a period of idealistic upheavals and spectacular failures, there comes a time for a realistic worldview, allowing to formulate claims that service a common knowing of global relations in the spirit of empirism, alternatively than normativism, according to causal-effectual rules. This is not about the request to absorb any elaborate theories or technological paradigms. Rather, it concerns knowing of cynical politics and hysterical commentaries of reasonably apparent principles of common sense reality.
The first is the belief that politicians themselves – according to their abilities and capabilities – are the driving force of the processes of peace and cooperation. Wars are the consequence of cognitive errors and rivalry processes, but are not inevitable. Manichean divisions into demonic forces of good and evil lead to the deliberate division and conflicting of co-existence on 1 globe of heterogeneous communities. Whoever doesn't see it is wrong.
The second regulation is respect for the hierarchy of forces, positions, roles and statuses in global relations. For this reason, it is crucial to find a place for yourself in the community and match expectations with opportunities. For respective 1000 years, co-decision mechanisms in the global strategy have been based on agreements between the largest geopolitical units – empires and powers. They are a "supporting structure" of the global relations strategy and find the global power arrangement. The trick is to fit in with your offer in these mechanisms. Those who do not realize this may be seriously disappointed by the contempt or disregard of those who are clearly superior to another countries.
Poland is facing specified humiliation, after eliminating its typical from the delegation of European leaders, consulting with Donald Trump "Peace conditions" between Russia and Ukraine during the fresh "spectacles" in Washington. Although many politicians, especially from smaller and weaker countries, do not like power diplomacy, and the memory of the "powers concert" evokes negative associations with unfair decisions in history, despite the strenuous attempts to multilateralize global relations, nothing has been invented more effective to reconstruct peaceful governance in a hierarchized world.
The 3rd correctness refers to the dependence of intellectual climate in global relations on the 2 most crucial characteristics of politicians – prudence and restraint. The derivative of these qualities is the authority of the leaders, their respect among others, which translates into the prestige and reputation of the state. It is besides crucial to have individual relations between leaders, whose origin may be common acceptance, akin preferences, loyalty and many another qualities that we usually learn from political biography and diary literature. It is simply a pity that Polish politicians do not realize this, who in fact do not number in any social circles of the Western world. There are besides no close neighbourly ties, but “artificial and hypocritical friendships” as though Andrzej Duda or Donald Tusk with Volodymyr Zelenski do not translate into lasting political benefits.
The 4th regulation concerns flexibility and accommodative capacity of state policy, depending on changing circumstances and circumstances. The condition for a change or revision of the global strategy is simply a fair diagnosis of the situation by the rulers in terms of obtaining the top possible benefits from their own interests. This means continuous rationalisation and optimisation of the state's abroad policy, based on an orientation in the dynamics of balancing forces and variability of geopolitical systems. The attachment to irrational dogmas, concerning, for example, the request to talk to Russia only from the position of force, leads Polish political elites and the related commentaries to stray.
The 5th regulation includes a request for multi-vectority of abroad policy. In an interdependent world, block divisions and exclusivity of groups, based on solidarity and ideological missionaryity, are lost. Pragmatic interests take the top, which according to the transactional approach, are focused on profits in relations with different partners, starting with hegemonial powers, i.e. the USA, China and Russia. Any stigmatisation of states due to their interior strategy is unfounded or even harmful. In conclusion, sustainable relations between countries and large economical conglomerates should be restored in global political economics.
Common sense realism...
stresses, in sixth, the function of national states in the processes of legitimacy of power in their territory, with respect for sovereignty and decision-making autonomy and non-interference in their interior affairs. States are historical beings whose interior and external functions evolve, but this does not mean that they are to be replaced by another organizations of political life of societies and nations. Although the values of sovereignty and non-interference have been eroded and degraded, the defence of the state of possession and the prohibition of war intervention stay crucial guarantees of the stableness of the global system.
Finally, seventhly, the vital function of realists with common sense is attached to past and geography. The complexities of global policy cannot be understood without taking into account the dynamics of power circuits in time and space. Politicians who deficiency historical awareness, and even worse, who are aware of false consciousness, are bound to have disastrous consequences. By granting themselves the right to moral judgments of another states, they do not realize the depth of historical processes or spatial determinisms. They show a deficiency of humility, harm the primitiveization of the message, not to mention the vulgarization of the language.
The argument for defending your own interests with the aid of erudition and historical experience is art, present badly neglected in the circles of politicians. I think only 1 Russian president can usage this political persuasion tool effectively. This awakens rage among all who have lost the ability to rationally communicate with their opponents through the prism of tradition and continuity of diplomatic culture, the vitality of interests and inherited patterns of behavior. Strangely, at the Washington gathering on Ukraine on 18 August 2025, a reminder of the crucial historical experience of 1944 on the end of the war between Finland and the USSR was impressed by the president of this country Alexander Stubb. It was an instructive lesson in historical realism, referring to the relation of forces between the conflicted parties.
In the light of the above, it is clear that neither the Polish political thought nor the practice of subsequent governments of the 3rd Republic of Poland are able to make specified patterns of behaviour as would show their accomodational abilities, as well as the removal of confrontational and conflictive thinking. The Polish government does not seem to realize that anyone who organises the peace process and seeks compromise solutions eliminates from his group supporters of competitive and pro-war strategies.
Vanity over Vanity
How mediocre the cognition of Polish political leaders and intellectual poorness of their advisors must be erstwhile they are incapable to realize why they do not adhere to the emerging geopolitical reality. interior disagreement on the Polish political scene and embarrassing evidence of incompetence and violations of constitutional rules in terms of powers and responsibilities of the state authorities show that the biggest enemy of Poland is not Putin and Russia, but the fierceness and common combating of compromised cateries. Against this background, bringing about an alternation on the political phase becomes a burning imperative for the counter-elite and an impulse to mobilise society for a fresh form of political representation.
The Polish scenery mainly lacks specialists from political crafts. Studies in the fields of humanities, whether history, political science, economics, law or sociology, not only do they not prepare professional staff, but even harm their professionalization. Graduates of university studies, who hold the highest state positions, as can be seen from the examples of successive presidents and prime ministers, not to mention lower authoritative levels, are deprived of simple cognition of effective governance of the state and meanders of global politics. There are exceptions, of course, but their personality qualities are more crucial than knowledge. A horse with a row of who will show politics in Poland, showing cognition and sensitivity to how politics are practiced in various parts of the world, specified as China, India, Turkey or Brazil. And even in a reasonably geographically close Scandinavia.
Polish politicians do not realize the complexity of negotiating processes with different partners, assuming naively that all states and their representatives behave likewise and even the same. Ignored by their different pasts, they are convinced that the Polish, after all a alternatively peculiar view of history, must be shared and respected by others. Naïveness in treating Ukraine as a partner shows how Poland was deceived in building harmful and dangerous narratives by neo-Bander environments. Persistence due to ill-conceived neighbourly loyalty and the misinterpretation of self-interest defence in the context of the tragic war of 2 Slavic elements played by the West, especially the Anglo-Saxons, brings to Poland the lamented consequences both in the moral-psychological and strategical dimension. Poland was utilized again in this sense, condemning the implementation of directives on which the ruling formulation has no influence.
In a globalised world, there is simply a business culture of a diplomatic nature. Each player must be able to specify and value their interests and to item their attractiveness and the benefits others could accomplish after accepting his offer. knowing a complex game of interest is crucial for decisions taken at interstate level and in global organisations, especially in the European Union.
Polish governments have a problem not only with coherent articulation of their own interests. They cannot decently read the interests of their alleged partners and contractors, not to mention their opponents. Worse still, they take another people's business for their own, as happened in Ukraine. For these reasons, they do not respect the global arena, as they are set up in an altruistic and submission position alternatively than an interesting and transactional position. They cannot specify and show the first bargaining power, they deficiency alternate reasoning and knowing of the global political economy, based on sophisticated culture (performance).
Common sense realism highlights the importance of common trust in global relations, which is the basis for credibility and a warrant of compliance with obligations. Western civilization peculiarly refers to the heritage of Roman law, in which it attaches peculiar importance to the principles of good religion (bona fides) and the sanctity of contracts (pacta sunt servanda). It turns out that in today’s conflicted world, these principles have lost importance. It violates or freely interprets not only Treaty provisions, but besides undermines soft law regulations. There is no respect for individual agreements (gentelman’s agreements) or silent agreements, implied, which, in global relations, make a delicate but crucial tissue of assurance and well-being.
It is hard to be amazed that, after experience of expanding NATO to the east and regulating the Ukrainian conflict in the Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015, Russia retains a far-reaching distance from "temporary solutions", starting with the proposal for a truce. While part of the global opinion looks forward to fast decisions on the war in Ukraine, the many inconsistency of the West, especially the US, for example with respect to further arming Kiev, undermines good intentions and weakens the pronunciation of the American peace initiative. erstwhile the basis of common trust has been destroyed, there is no easy return to respect for diplomatic culture and language clarity. Conceptual chaos and communicative cacophony weaken the pronunciation of diplomatic dialog and do not warrant affirmative results.
Ukrainian Trap
The Ukrainian War will long supply material for analysis of how many and cardinal mistakes were made on the side of the West, ignoring Russia's concerns about its safety and involving Ukraine in a war-based confrontation with an atomic neighbour without having its own attributes of strength. In fact, Western consequence to Russia's war has led both the United States and their European allies into a trap, from which there is no easy way out. Russia's determination to defend its rations is so large that it does not fear either threats of escalation of Ukraine's military aid by the West, nor pressures in the form of fresh tranches of restrictions, called sanctions. The second have lost their power of demolition and become unproductive, as Russia has had most of the global community behind it. It is primarily supported by the powers of the Global South, headed by China and India and another BRICS+ participants. As a result, it turns out that the strength of the West is related and relative, i.e. it is based not on the resources themselves, but on complex relations between the parties and is simply a hostage to the ability to control the hazard of full destruction.
Many war instigators do not realize these dependencies, which means that everyone can find themselves in an impossible situation. Therefore, the sooner peace efforts bring tangible results, the more efficient it will be to return to constructive arrangements, which will mean safety guarantees for each organization – with whose participation and at whose cost.
Russia is distrustful of European proposals due to the fact that it sees another trick in them. The location on the Ukrainian-Russian border of Western quotas raises concerns on the Russian side that they could only be a cover for Ukraine's next reinforcement, for which the Ukrainian president, whose political destiny is not certain, is optimistic. The only effective solution would be to demilitarize the disputed areas and categorically renounce both sides of the threat of force or its usage against each another in the future.
The unrealistic approach to sustaining Ukraine's position as a full-value conflict associate contradicts the principles of common sense and delays the resolution of the problem. Moreover, in the peace process – if you want to negociate reasonably – you request to mention to the co-operation of Ukraine and the West in creating a conflict. Pretending that there were no warnings from Russia, starting with the celebrated Munich appearance of Vladimir Putin in 2007, before the expansion to the east, is simply a specified "sap of eyes", hard in the long run to defend.
The West continues to disregard the rule of indivisibility of security, which it itself supported in the 1999 Istanbul European safety Charter. In the context of this principle, Russia will most likely never agree to build its army in specified a way by Ukraine and allied guarantees that its scale and blade are aimed at its safety. In a situation of common blackmail and chess with fear of assault by each side on the other, we are dealing with an highly entangled Gordian knot, an impossible to peaceful solution, and even more hard to extremist intersection. So even if the European protectors of Ukraine and its artificially legitimized president have a coherent imagination of peace, it can prove useless without common sense of reality.
It is even more worrying to include Ukraine as a fragile and unfulfilled state of affiliation with NATO or the European Union in the organization defence obligations of these groups. The search for an analogous solution to the solidarity defence of Ukraine, as set out in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, gives emergence to a dangerous precedent for blurring the casus foederis mechanics in NATO itself, and shows another effort to outwit Russia to include Ukraine in the Euro-Atlantic structures, as it were, "from the kitchen". Meanwhile, the war may take long adequate to bring about the complete collapse of this country, which is the victim of protracted power games. The Ukrainians will then look for the guilty ones who have caused their misfortune. It is not hard to know that Poland will be among the “scapegoats”.
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
Photo by The White House
Think Poland. No 35-36 (31.08-7.09.2025)
