Every war causes geopolitical turbulence, which takes time to recognize. Especially erstwhile the diagnosis of the causes and effects of aggression is based on misperception or obsessive ideology.
As war activities are accompanied by consciously created cognitive aberrations, called cognitive warfare, many observers are stuck in certain “cursed revirals”, not seeing a chance to go beyond the propaganda-settled dogma involved. 1 of these dogmatic assumptions is the belief of Western governments, supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, that if erstwhile defeated the USSR, it could besides defeat Russia. Although the USSR had real power and influence in the world, it was incapable to compete with the United States. Thus, the empire was imploded, as declared by the triumph of the West in the “cold war.”
On the basis of the mythological memory of this event, it is assumed that a triumph over Russia is possible through a combination of measures that can “pass” its atomic arsenals. The most risky thing is to disregard Russia's ability to defend the state of possession, even at the price of self-destruction. This phenomenon is peculiarly dangerous during the American geostrategic euphoria period, which is based on blinding the ability of the U.S. Army to effectively destruct the opposition of all real and imaginary opponents.
After 4 years of war in Ukraine, apart from earlier phases of conflict, it is clear that the armed confrontation with Russia has become a permanent component of the intellectual environment of global Poland. Warsaw governments and Polish diplomacy entered among the most crucial participants of the conflict, treating the war in Ukraine as an chance not so much to deter or halt Russia, but as a real chance to overcome it. This is what powerful reinforcements are expected to serve, making Poland the largest war ground, possibly as the American strategists and their home clackers want, like Israel in the mediate East. It is not essential to prove that specified a diagnosis is based on false reasons – examples of wars lost by Russia in past and disregard for its atomic status.
Infatuated by American centrism, however, Polish political elites fell into the trap of pro-war strategy, founded by the Donald Trump administration. Withholding America from actively supporting Ukraine, the president of the United States has put European states, among them Poland, before the request to keep a real but highly costly influence on the course of the war. Meanwhile, in the light of the implications of Israeli-American aggression against Iran, provoking a continuous increase in support for Ukraine leads to an imminent collapse in European solidarity and a extremist change in social sentiments to the detriment of war inciters.
Absolute Hegemony
With respect to the aggression against Iran, it should be noted first of all that there is an uncritical consent in the Western planet to forcefully deal with a state opposed to hegemonic pressure. The U.S. and Israel are aware that Western powers, but besides Russia and China, along with the Global South countries, avoid a high-intensity conflict. On the altar of their own interests, they are willing to sacrifice the obligations resulting from contracts and solidarity support.
An global opinion was amazed to learn that Russia and China were intimidated by violent aggression against Iran. The rhetorical protests did not impress anyone. They only confirmed that Iran was in a lonely situation. Many observers note that Russia is losing an crucial cooperant in the production and supply of drone weapons. China, on the another hand, is trembling at the failure of energy supply. In the war with Iran, it is at stake to take full control of natural gas and oil resources, allowing the United States to influence the worldwide distribution and regulation of these natural materials. Russia and China will then be sentenced to the designation of America's permanent primacy. In “crazy” Thus, Trump lies a strategical goal and a imagination of a fresh installment of hegemony.
Also from France, Germany and the United Kingdom, so active on the anti-Russian front, it spread not only with cold calculations, but with specified cowardice. Russia is trying to preserve area for manoeuvre and negotiating space to end the military confrontation in Ukraine and loosen severe sanctions. However, everyone, including China, demonstrates cynical restraint, which alternatively exposes their image compromise in light of crimes committed in the Iranian people.
On the occasion of the launch of the U.S.-Israeli alliance, it is clear how they treat the North Atlantic alliance in Washington. Trump's administration recognises Israel as a "model ally" whose level of coordination, interoperability and effectiveness of demolition distances conventional allies, specified as Britain. It's another slap aimed at Atlantic solidarity. Paradoxically, Israel with its army and doctrine of ruthless demolition of its opponent becomes a function model for the Atlantic allies of the United States.
Of these, only Spain demonstrated its separate and courageous position, defending sovereignty, consultation procedures and the regulation of law. The refusal of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez to authorize the U.S. Army to usage Spanish bases during the attacks on Iran is simply a consequence of a rule opposition to the assault war. Hispanics can defend their rights besides in the context of expanding defence spending under the dictatorship of America.
This attitude, unlike another European countries, shows that despite the intimidation, opposition within the Atlantic Community can be possible and opposition from 1 of the countries can trigger a collective reaction. This was the case for Greenland erstwhile the unanimous consequence of the EU states forced Trump to reconsider the decision and change the way in which it was done. However, the European Union is losing credibility and determination to defend the "value and principles" it so eagerly advocates in the context of unconditional support for Ukraine.
How do we last America's fall?
For many years it has been known that pushing the United States out of the hegemon position would be a convulsive process based on dramatic clashes and excesses that would ruin the normative and organization order of global relations. The uncritical support of the American strategy of "peace by force" puts many allied states in a hard situation. The tremendous instrumentisation of global law and hypocrisy in the application of double standards are emerging.
Once again, global law is an crucial component in creating global order only according to the liberal imagination of global relations. If you look at the global strategy from a realistic perspective, it turns out that the law is only useful to reduce the force and scale of the enemy's demolition and mitigate the effects of the demolition and killing measures used. The rules of the game during conflict are determined by the ratio of the strengths of participants and the rations of the winners. In Poland no 1 likes specified a narrative, although the present territorial form of the Polish state is the consequence of the dictatorship of the winners in planet War II, the more stubbornness of 1 of them, alternatively than the will of the bleeding nation.
We are presently faced with an effort at another dictatorship and the collusion of the 2 most militant powers, convinced of their mission to defeat the Ayatollah state. The U.S. and Israel want to prove their omnipotence in setting up order in the mediate East, but many signs indicate that action based on the rule of the divide et impera can lead to disastrous consequences for the aggressors themselves.
Against this background there is simply a request to distance Poland from the negative consequences of not only the war in Ukraine, but besides the aggression of the US and Israel in the mediate East. Finally, it must be decided whether Poland consistently stands up for global law, including respect for state sovereignty, self-determination and the right to self-defense or aggressive force policy. specified decisions now depend on the position of an independent state, even if it is minimally capable of directing its fate, alternatively than a passive pawn whose function will be determined in abroad capitals. The rhetorical question remains whether Polish political elite can present afford to decision distant from servoilism and service, which have become the basis for their legitimacy.
For now, everything points to the fact that Polish abroad policy was trapped between the “new imperialisation” of the planet and the defence of the interests of the national state. Since Poland's position is asymmetrical towards all the most crucial imperial players, i.e. the USA, China and Russia, defending independency against their pretensions of rulers becomes peculiarly difficult, requires the wisdom and courage of the rulers.
Membership of the European Union besides does not aid to defend its own interests, as this integration structure is actually geared towards subordination and dismantling of national states. Regardless of political affiliations, all Polish politician must be aware that the reason for the existence of a collective is present the defence of a sovereign national state. It is simply a basic test of loyalty and service to Poland. It cannot be pretended that membership of the European Union does not jeopardise the maintenance of this status.
Iran fights for endurance
The war against Iran primarily exposes itself to the effort to anticipate the improvement of the country's interior situation, the chances of its endurance in its present form, or the transformational consequences, which entail many existential risks. Due to the magnitude of variables that are hard to diagnose, there is simply a widening of the hazard area of force projection involving an expanding number of pages.
But what is most dangerous is the incalculability of the most crucial perpetrators of aggression. “The fog of war” (the concept introduced by Carl von Clausewitz) covers secret American and Israeli military and political scenarios. ‘Moving in the dark" focuses attention on psychopathological conditions arising from the egocentric personalities of 2 leaders – Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanjah, their engagement in various affairs and interdependencies. The paradox is that neither in the United States nor in Israel be effective systemic safeguards against specified “crazy in power”.
The war with Iran marks a breakthrough in mediate East geopolitics. Regardless of how it ends, it is simply a final informing against falling into the abyss of global war. The brutal "neutralisation" of Iran, carried out against existing standards of respect for the subjectivity of states, without any authorisation and against global law, will make the mediate East alternatively than stability, for many years stay a bleeding pandemonium of conflict, provoked by sentiment and harm, ideological and spiritual differences, conflicting interests and abroad influences.
The attack on Iran again puts the issue of preventive war and preemptive strikes on the agenda. In the light of the well-informed Iran-American negotiations in Geneva involving Oman, during which Iran agreed to make concessions on the uranium enrichment programme, there was no sign of Tehran's planned attack on US forces or Israel, as there was no indication of any threat of atomic programme launch and rocket production. The preventive war was so not logical. The situation is alternatively like the search for an excuse to strike ahead, as was done in the case of the Iraqi invasion in 2003.
The case of Iran should besides be considered in the context of the right to humanitarian intervention, which is cited by aggressors. global law, or more specifically the rule of work to defend (Responsibility for Protection, 2005) gives the anticipation of armed intervention to defend the population of another state from its own government, but there must be clear conditions for the threat of extermination, hunger or resettlement. This was the case, for example, in Rwanda in 1994, where about 800,000 civilians were murdered. For Iran, specified justification is hard to find.
Armed intervention itself has triggered a crisis situation, threatening, on the 1 hand, the outbreak of civilian war and the disintegration of the state, and, on the another hand, what is simply a paradox, the consolidation of society around the existing authorities (the alleged flag effect). The “hunting” of political leaders and their elimination reverses the conduct of states to the barbaric times. "Decapitation" of Iran's spiritual and political leadership means the application of the previously proven Israel method to Hezbollah and Hamas leaders. Direct elimination by utilizing a precise attack, without respect for any norms or even appearances, reverses Western civilization by centuries. It shows that there is no area for compromise in competition with crazy leaders and unscrupulous players.
The weak consequence of the Western states, as well as the fragility of the UN safety Council, shows that the usage of force as a means of policy implementation is becoming acceptable again. The full human accomplishment in debellization (ius contra bellum) and the creation of safety against war crimes is lost. The United States and Israel are creating dangerous precedents that others can imitate under akin circumstances.
Ukraine is losing weight
In the light of the attack on Iran, Russian aggression (also called "operation") in Ukraine looks different. A comparison of the strength of the attacks and the scale of the harm makes it possible to see how different the scenarios of aggressors' behaviour towards civilians and authorities can be and how different the perception of conflict is. At present, it seems that Ukraine is becoming a place of peripheral conflict in relation to the mediate East war, where, as in the lens, ambition and interests of the powers are concentrated, and local states become a field of tragic clashes. We see not only a distraction from the war in Ukraine, but besides the deprivation of the “medial oxygen” authorities in Kiev. Looking at the emotional responses of Ukrainian leaders, who knows if this will be a origin in the process of ending the conflict.
The comparison between the 2 conflicts – war in Ukraine and the mediate East – leads to the conclusion that they fit into an ideological confrontation, the essence of which is to defend sovereign attributes of states, defending not only their integrity, but besides the ability to defend their own specificities against imperialist tendencies, the desire to subjugate by the stronger, or even annihilation. The conditions of hostility do not follow apparent patterns.
Despite the constant tabooing of the causes of the conflict in Ukraine, today's distance towards it allows to better announcement how effectively the anti-Russian Western crusade was covered with ideas of liberal global order. The wearing of a coat of "principles and values" had nothing to do with respect for global law, but created an illusion and alibi for support from the vassals and fellow Americans that everything happens with a sense of decency. However, in the senseless Western War against Russia utilizing Ukrainians (in accordance with the principle: “our weapons and money, your lives”) did not manage to knock Russia to its knees. It may have been so easy for Donald Trump to enter another war “in the name of peace” and the imagination of “Great Israel” by setting up a cynical ally.
This time no 1 cites any values or principles. On the contrary, the customary rules of the game between sovereign states are ignored. In a transactional imagination of global relations, Iran has hindered the acquisition of control over the top energy resources and is opposed to the concentration of profits from operating, transmission and arms contracts by US companies and their Israeli associates. He pays the highest price for that.
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
photo of wikipedia
Think Poland, No. 11-12 (15-22.03.2026)
