When, over the last 4 years, we have been anxiously addressing attempts to plan possible post-war scenarios in east Europe, Ukraine was constantly at the centre of our interest and the question whether it would receive from its allies a form of fair and unchangeable peace. This problem, of course, remains valid. But we request to start worrying about the conditions of post-war war in the context of our own Polish fate.
The year 2025 brought with it the most serious geopolitical change since 1989–91. The United States, a pillar of the Western civilization community, around which since 1945 its axiological achievements, principles and values have been centered, have abandoned this community of ideals. Like Russia, which formulated it explicitly in the ultimatum of autumn 2021, which it then made conditional on a possible refrain from aggression against Ukraine, the US besides rejected the model of global governance based on a structure of alliances and institutions guaranteeing collective safety and chose a imagination of a planet based on a renewed "powers concert", each of which has the title to specify a certain part of the planet its exclusive sphere of influence and to take any action there. The U.S. forces action in Venezuela is the first applicable example of Washington's usage of this reasoning in a peculiar policy.
The year 2026 will set out its attitude towards the emerging fresh order by the various countries of the world. erstwhile NATO ceases to be a list of closest allies sharing the same or akin political and moral values, this function is to be played by Donald Trump in the last weeks of the "Council of Peace". Arbitrary choice of places in the planet and ongoing conflicts – kind of à la carte – engaging in their extinction (or escalation) to then gain fresh political influences in different regions and – a key component – to turn them into conditions for making economical deals and making money. In fact, this is the imagination of the US President's abroad policy and he wants to implement it now with partners who will share its "values" (anti-values?). It is these countries who are the first to study to the “Council of Peace” the most eager accessions and sign commitments in Davos to pay in individual to Trump (who has declared himself the “president of the Council of Peace” for life), so he intends to make a billion dollars in this business model besides after leaving office) for “permanent membership” in the “Council” (from which Trump can exclude anyone at any time). Making the Gaza Strip the first task for the “Council” exposes the business nature of the collusion, as there is no indication that the president of the United States would quit the plans announced in spring to deport Palestinians and make resorts in Gaza to make fabulous Abu Dhabi, Dubai or Riyadh-style money.
In the same way, the Prime Minister of Canada gave a program speech and set himself up as the leader of the opposition to the planet marked by the “Council of Peace”. Mark Carney calls on the others at the “place of battle” of the epigons of the Western planet and its values to join Canadian efforts to build an alliance that is in fact a organization to the collective safety model, a organization of weakening liberal ideas, a organization of treaty commitments, a organization of free trade, a organization of human rights. Having lost the strongest pillar, the US, the alliance of Western Liberals from Carney's imagination wants to decision towards a value-based realism. Realizing the position of the majority of its participants as at most averagers in the planet power game, he sets himself goals more modest than he wanted to have the West at the minute of his top triumph of 35 years ago. The primary nonsubjective is to supply liberal Western democracies, without the US as an ally, to defend against threats from enemies declared and possible enemies. Definitely Russia. It's not known if it's China. But possibly the United States, too.
Two competitive blocks are being built around us: a Europeanised NATO coupled with the European Union, supported by Canada, Britain and Norway, a stronghold of democracy and human rights, and the scattered planet states of the "Council of Peace", mostly authoritarian and completely cynical with respect to abroad policy. In this second block there is already Belarus, and the issue of allies with it examines Russia invited by Trump. The 3rd centre of global force will naturally stay China, which will not enter any of the blocks, but may prove to be an arbitrator in their common abrasion. The passage of the US from the NATO camp to the “Council of Peace” camp undoubtedly, for the first time, outlines the real way for Beijing to accomplish the position of the most influential state on the globe.
Closer to the body shirt. While Poland and another east countries of the NATO flank must have been most shaken by the Trump administration's policy towards Russia and Ukraine (in Poland, it is possible to have the impression, any have shaken insufficiently), so Western Europe survived its minute of falling shell casings out of sight erstwhile Trump did not regulation out military entry into Greenland, or actual aggression against Denmark. As a result, in most Western European countries, including Denmark, France, Germany, Spain and even Italy, more than 50% of the respondents to the fresh poll considered Donald Trump to be the “enemy” of Europe. In Poland, it is inactive a tiny group – 28%, although it is already clearly bigger than supporters of the thesis that the president of the United States is our “friend” – 17% of Poles inactive believe that. So most of us are... disconcerted of this crucial issue. It seems that Poles are in a state of stupor caused by shock, betrayal from their top American love, in which they had so many false hopes. Most of them know that Trump is our enemy, or at least non-friend, but he prefers to think about it – proverbially – "tomorrow".
That's a problem. The clear attitude of public opinion will push politicians in individual countries of Europe to take concrete action, to Europeanise NATO and to build parallel and with time alternate military alliances. These alliances will, of course, have an eye mainly on Russia, but in their field of attention there will besides be other, insignificant states of the "Council of Peace", in case they want to satisfy their business attitude towards global relations by creating any kind of safety crisis in Europe. Many commentators say that this was yet Trump's goal and it is his taste erstwhile Europeans take matters of their own safety on their own shoulders. This is surely due to both strategies published in fresh weeks by the Trump administration: the National safety Council and the Department of Defence (War) respectively. Both papers make it clear about the cascading withdrawal of the US from the safety structures of NATO's European states (in this context, the joy of Polish politicians from the declaration of not reducing the US Army quota in Poland is truly heartwarming). However, the first of the strategy besides talks about breaking down and weakening the cooperation network between Europeans, and thus weakening Europe. This is completely incompatible with the thought of encouraging Europe to make greater efforts and military autonomy, and the approach is focused on the declared support of the Trump administration for the anti-EU forces of the far right, whose fight for power Washington is going to applaud at least. Fidesz Orban has been in favour of the MAGA circles for more than 5 years (exemplified by joint Hungarian-American projects implemented, among others, by the Danube Institute in Budapest), the AfD has been clearly reinforced by Vice president Vance and Trump run sponsor Elon Musk, in the early 2025 election campaign, with akin support for the Le Pen organization in France and later Farage in the UK. Trump seems not only to want a Europe without an umbrella, but besides a weak, incapable to defend itself, and surely incapable to defend itself against US pressure. The U.S. President's approach to Europe brings striking similarities to Vladimir Putin's approach.
Meanwhile, Poland is divided. We are a country in which political combat is increasingly taking place, not on the issue of dispute, but on the very fact of combating the opponent. The problem of Poland, beginning this year, will besides be that we will not get any consensus about the place of our country in the face of a fresh division of the world. Donald Tusk's current government and supporting political forces will most likely support participation in an alliance based on the Western values that the countries of Europe and Canada want to develop. Despite the expanding rhetoric in European-American relations, however, Polish Democrats inactive avoid besides strong criticism of Trump, even if it was appropriate, for example after offensive words to Polish soldiers who served and died in American operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A major problem for choosing to participate in an alliance without the US will besides be the fact that the government has purchased most modern weapons for the Polish military in the US, due to the fact that the actual anticipation of utilizing American weapons depends on continuing political cooperation with Americans. A script in which Russia uses military force measures against Poland, and Poland cannot leave the hangars with its equipment, due to the fact that the Americans refused to give us current codes, because, for example, they are implementing interesting business projects in the framework of the “Council of Peace” together with Russia, should be the subject of a frank conversation between Polish politicians and experts. For now, it is simply a large elephant in the mediate of a area that everyone would alternatively not see.
While Polish democrats are clinging to participation in European defence alliances, it is hard to imagine that the Polish right does not choose the "Council of Peace" and the alliance with the US based solely on transactions. The authoritarian nature of most states of this council will not hinder political forces, which in fact besides want to introduce any form of authoritarianism in Poland. Any cooperation with Russia in the "Council of Peace" will be sold to voters as a fresh thought for national security, as a kind of Moscow appeasement under the umbrella of Washington. Finally, the full “doctrine” of the safety of the Polish right-wing since 1989 has not known any another reflection, no another impulse and no another spark of thought, but “as the strictest alliance with the US”, so it is hard to anticipate from these environments a abrupt fundamental intellectual revolution, equivalent to the denial of a part of its own ideological identity. Jarosław Kaczyński so requests the government to deposit this billion dollars into Trump's account and to enter Poland into the “Council of Peace” in public. If, in 2027, his organization took over, he would surely take that step.
So in Poland we will not have a consensus on the very fundamental issues of national safety strategy. As it is not hard to guess, our country will be in a very hard position, due to the fact that the revolution in this area and changing alliances all 4 years, the tact of elections and possible transfers of power, is not an option. We are entering an era in which Poland's safety will be based either on a limited anticipation of deterring the alliance of Europe and Canada, or on a sly promise of 1 man, who is known for his frequent change of mind, tendency to lies and fraud, and for his full deficiency of any individual morality.
When, over the last 4 years, we have been anxiously addressing attempts to plan possible post-war scenarios in east Europe, Ukraine was constantly at the centre of our interest and the question whether it would receive from its allies a form of fair and unchangeable peace. This problem, of course, remains valid. But we request to start worrying about the conditions of post-war war in the context of our own Polish fate.
