I do not know if you have noticed that there has late been a "change of narrative" in many fields? After Donald Trump took power and his first decisions it turned out, for example, that the Green Deal is not as neutral as it was 2 months ago and if we do not accept it, then the planet will not be burned. It is akin with the Ukrainian-Russian war. After the propaganda about Ukraine's regular victories, gigantic Russian losses and the collapse of the Russian economy, which has been served for 3 years, all of a sudden, there has been a "change in narrative" and it turns out that Russia is winning this war, the chances of Crimea and Donbas regaining Kiev, and that there is not even a Ukrainian counter-offensive, and the future border on the current front line is the summit of what Ukraine can dream about. However, it turned out that even Ukraine's entry into NATO is not an alternative, or actually there is no chance.
This "change of narrative" has already gone so far that I have stopped being a "Russian onucce" and it has begun to be seen that it can be actual that I have been proclaiming for almost 3 years the thesis that this war can only end at the American-Russian summit (maybe with China) where the Atlantic and Eurasian worlds will make a fresh discrimination between their spheres of influence in our region. So either the Trump-Putin summit, where the delimitation of influence will be carried out, or the war will proceed with the imagination of planet war III, culminating in atomic war. (with a certain amount of unfortunate coincidences). I can see that what intelligent politicians, analysts and journalists, having moved on to announce the Ukrainian army's regular victories, are now beginning to fall to the second utmost and increasingly with the horror in their mouths burp about the "new Yalta" which will establish zones of power influence, resulting in Ukraine being on the side of Russian influences, and as Ukraine is and Poland, in accordance with the archaic expression of Giroycia, that "there is no free Poland without free Ukraine". In a word, the clouds of Yalta 2.0 are coming.
I realize that the word “Jalta” is not very good in Poland, due to the fact that after the last Yalta we lived in communist poorness for half a century. But let us consider the importance of the Yalta strategy for the world. While it was a disaster for Poland, it meant peace for Europe. Thanks to the exact delimitation of influences in Europe, no war has broken out, and all conflicts of large powers have moved beyond Europe, precisely where no Yalta treaty has delimited borders and we have had permanent conflicts to extend or defend influences by either of the 2 major powers. Thus, erstwhile it comes to ‘Jalta’, it should be understood under this word to delimit the influence of powers, something that was erstwhile referred to in European politics as a ‘powers concert’ which, by establishing agreements between themselves and its allies, protected themselves from wars. So erstwhile individual talks about “new Yalta” or “Jalta 2.0” he means specified a delimitation.
This does not change the geopolitical fact that, nevertheless we call the existing situation, our part of Europe is waiting, or the Trump-Putin agreement, which, as the second says, will make a "new safety architecture", or we will face an extension of the war in Ukraine with possible escalation to Poland and reaching for ABC weapons. nevertheless the opponents of specified a solution will frighten us with the word "Jalta" – and they will – this peace for the next fewer decades can only be born at a summit where it will be determined which states belong to the West, which to the East, which are neutral, etc. It is simply a lasting peace specified as the Westphalian (1648) or Viennese (1815) alternatively than the short-lived Versal 1 which both parties considered short intermezzo before another war. Let us remember that all specified war in the Atlantic and Euro-Asian planet has a large chance to be fought in Poland.
The conclusion of specified a peace does not prejudge that Poland would again be in the sphere of influence of the russian Union, due to the fact that there is no specified country. Russia is not a russian or communist state, but it can be said that it is precisely the absence of a serious ideology of its own which the West can oppose. The West itself has already ceased to be a free and "free world", transforming itself into a mix of socialism and the regulation of large corporations, and in a strategy of "fighting democracy". There is no freedom of speech anymore, due to the fact that it was replaced by the fight against “the speech of hatred”. Rather, we are dealing with the alleged convergence theory, where both systems match 1 another, and only geopolitical interests divide them. The power of Russia is hard to compare to the power of the russian Union. Putin is simply a sober politician and is aware that Russia has no economic, political, military or even demographic possible to control its empire created in that Yalta. This has already been expressed by the alleged Doctrine of Medvedev, which refers to the "near foreign" or Russian sphere of influence covering the erstwhile russian states and having a crucial Russian minority. Poland does not meet these criteria. The point of dispute between the US and Russia is Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic Sea, peculiarly Latvia and Estonia, having 1/3 of Russian citizens. Trump seems to agree that further expansion of NATO to the east will not and will gotta agree to the pro-Russianity of Belarus and the territorially truncated neutrality of Ukraine. In my opinion, the top problem in dispute will be the Squid.
So far, Trump and Putin have expressed interest in the bilateral summit. And very well, due to the fact that it distances us from war with Poland in the function of the battlefield between the armored troops of both sides. For the last 3 years, it has been "unuscism", and it is nothing but old political realism, which is to defend itself first and foremost.
Adam Wielomski
