Marcin Bogdan:Will the European Union capitulate before Russia?

This script was based on the real threat of the United States withdrawing from Europe. More specifically, the threat of the European Union depriving the United States of a real impact on military and economical issues in our continent, on the conscious push of the US out of Europe. The dynamics of events in modern politics is enormous. So what have these 3 weeks since Donald Trump and Volodymyr Żelenski met?

Firstly, Ukraine has returned to negotiations with the States. Żelenski realized that he had played a pathetic function in an anti-American game led by the Union. He besides understood that European support for Ukraine was limited to empty words without cover. He understood that Germany, France and the United Kingdom have no arguments for peace negotiations with Putin, nor do they have adequate military and technological capabilities to support Ukraine in the event of the request to proceed the war. This is very good news for us, for Poland. There is already talk of not only American-Ukrainian cooperation in the extraction of uncommon earth metals, but besides of American control over Ukrainian atomic power plants. There is no better protection for Polish people against Russian imperialism like the presence of Americans in Ukraine, that is, de facto in the area between Russia and Poland. And that's the presence of civilians in economical cooperation, not military units and troops. We should so support these negotiations.

But that's most likely the only affirmative information from the last 3 weeks. European politicians launched a mass anti-American attack. Unfortunately, actions followed. The European Parliament adopted on 12 March a resolution on the White Paper on the future of European defence (2025/2565(RSP)). It's a multipage paper with 89 points. The first 1 leaves no illusions about the intention of its authors: “The EU must act immediately to guarantee its own autonomous security, strengthen partnerships with countries with akin values and importantly reduce dependence on 3rd countries". This is simply a preview of the implementation of what I described in the column mentioned at the outset 3 weeks ago. In the name of leftist ideologies, the European Union cuts off from the United States, which based its policy on normality. If anyone has further doubts, I quote another point in this resolution: “recent actions and statements of the American administration further exacerbated concerns about the future U.S. position towards Russia, NATO and Europe's security". Consequently, Resolution: “calls, however, for the improvement of a full operational European NATO pillar that would be able to operate autonomously“.

What, then, is the military autonomy of Europe? Resolution: ‘rejects the script in which EU funds contribute to strengthening or deepening dependence on non-European entities both in capacity production and deployment“. Europe evidently needs neither American weapons nor American troops. She'll be fine. How will it cope, how will Europe's organized defence structure be? Resolution: ‘calls on associate States to aggregate request by joint procurement of defence equipment with the anticipation of giving the Commission a mandate to order on their behalf“. Who of you, taking care of the safety of your home, would entrust your neighbour to acquisition a lock at his door, alarm or another means to defend and defend against a possible thief? Especially erstwhile you live at the edge of the settlement and your neighbor, even the most kind, in its depth?

The resolution adopted by the European Parliament deprives EU associate States, including Poland, of self-defense. It is shameful that Euro MPs from the groups forming the current Polish government voted for this resolution. It is shameful that the Polish Sejm adopted a resolution accepting and supporting this resolution. Those voting for this resolution misled the public, saying that the resolution concerns the “Tarchy East” and serves to increase Poland's security. Among the 89th multi-points of the Resolution, the issue of the Tartar East is referred to in 1 conviction of 1 point. Resolution in point 15. "emphasises that Shields East and Baltic defence Line should be flagship projects EU to advance deterrence and overcome possible threats from the east". The full document, the full Resolution is written in a firm tone, until it is full of terms specified as: "Call‘, ‘calls‘, ‘He's definitely careful.It’s okay. ” But on the issue of the “Hard East”, the evidence is highly ambiguous: “should beIt’s okay. ” The Polish language is rich, but it does not always clear for many. The word ‘should’ is wishful, unlike the word ‘must’, which is decision-making, imposes an obligation. Therefore, in order to avoid specified interpretational doubts, it is considered that in the normative acts "should" means "must". Only that the EP Resolution, like the Resolution of the Polish Sejm, is not a normative act. The resolutions of the European Parliament do not have the power of a legally binding document, they simply express the position of the European Union. All the more reason to expect, in matters as crucial as security, unambiguous wording, without allowing for any subsequent interpretation. But possibly it's just an imperfect translation of the Resolution into Polish? So let us look at the first evidence of this point in English: “the East Shield and Baltic Defence Line should be the flagship EU projects’. The authors of the Resolution utilized the word “should be“- should, not ‘must be“ - they have to. Well, "must it on Rusi".

A threatening resolution and a shameful vote by Polish MPs from government groups. But that's not the only bad news in the last 3 weeks. KE president Ursula von der Leyen stated with unbridled sincerity: “The fact that we tried to get free of the dependence on Russian gas besides caused immense energy problems. So I think it's besides that You can't get free of this dependency creating a safe and affordable energy market". Unfortunately, this is the authoritative announcement of my script. The European Union is striving, for ideological reasons, to break off its cooperation with the United States and, at the same time, to believe that it cannot get free of its dependence on Russian gas, it cannot get free of its dependence on Russia. This is the announcement of the European Union's surrender to Russia. Capitalation at the expense of Poland. Capitalation, which can take place at the expense of the existence of the Polish state. The cost of setting the limit of influence between the EU and Russia on the river Vistula.

Fortunately, nothing is yet settled. That is why I have a proposal for Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen, which I will express not in the form of an elaborate resolution, but in 3 simple points:

1. The European Union will halt interference in the interior affairs of Poland and in peculiar halt any interference in the presidential and parliamentary elections in Poland


2. Poles will elect the president and then the fresh Parliament, which will establish a fresh government


3. The fresh Polish government will make the essential economical investments to deliver German gas in adequate quantities to meet the needs of their population and industry

Explanation: Poland investing in the Lech Kaczyński LNG terminal, investing in the strategy gas pipelines connecting Norway, Denmark and Poland (Baltic Pipe), Poland has completely become independent of Russian gas supply through its sovereign economical policy. Poland could, Germany couldn't, well, we'd be happy to help.

Finally, a proverbial cherry on the cake. I propose that the following clause should be included in the agreement on the sale of gas by Poland to Germany:

Every euro earned by Poland on the sale of gas to Germany will consequence in the automatic remission of 10 cents from the amount due to Poland by Germany. All right, 20 cents. classical win-win deal. Nobody loses, everybody gains. Isn't that fair?

Mr Bogdan