Poland – Marionette dilemmas
Jerzy Karwelis/Polish-dylemate-marionettes/
January 10, entry No 1390
Europe inactive thinks of itself as important. The first point in this message that needs clarification is: Europe, which is who? Well, I'm certain the union establishment thinks so. There are superior delusions on the psychiatric level. The mania of superiority comes from the belief in the eternal endurance of the European primacy. The Old Continent of civilization was born into the world, but it's the past. And, strangely enough, these progressive elites of the EU, the left-wing prophets of the future take their sense of superiority from the past function which de facto They protest. The strength of Europe, this yet the peninsula of Eurasia, was taken from incredible energy to conquer the world, subjugating it according to the patterns of its own model, which proved – at the time – powerfully dominant, aggressive, but besides effective. These days are over, but we won't be talking about the causes of this trial here. Let's focus on the first proposal – European leaders are inactive reviewing their importance, which has late been subjected to a devastating effort by Trump. With devastating effects.
As part of the "propaganda of success" of the EU project, the European people besides believed in the superior aspirations. This besides has a sense of superiority over another continents. It slow becomes, like the Messianic ideology of Poland, the depositary of values in a planet filled with other examples of force effectiveness. It dispels the facts, it's a compensating reaction to losing. It's a field of illusion, but for communicative use. We are to see only a beautiful swan of value, floating on an axiological lake, while under its surface black paws of corporateism grind corrupt water. So this is simply a show. The people are to believe that it's levels up from stupid Yankees, not until any exotic slant-eyed. And he does.
The net is full of contemptible comparisons indicating the superiority of the European model – Europeans have a better life, they work less, they have better social and wellness care than fucking Americans. Only that these figures are besides seen by Americans and Trump asked the question – who pays for it? It turned out that the US is paying for this lab, at least in Europe's safety costs. Europeans spend their savings on social nipples, bribing their voters to vote for this lazy, for at another people's expense, model. But at the end of this bill, there are busy Americans, so it's no wonder Trump is drawing the consequences. Biden didn't do it due to the fact that it was a transatlantic globalist task at the time, but since Trump decoupled him, the full case has shown up in the light of the facts in a demasking way.
However, there is simply a single reservation for earlier considerations – this is not the case in Europe. de facto ‘pure’ EU leadership. Since the start of the war games in Ukraine, it has turned out that Britain and the United Kingdom have participated in the EU action, which proves the rightness to say that The UK is easier to leave the Union than the UK. The point is that the globalistic urges of the European elite are not full linked to the EU project. Despite the British decision in the referendum to leave the Union, and so the UK goes hand in hand with Brussels. They are connected by 1 – a globalist task which is implemented regardless of whether 1 belongs to the Union or not.
Europe is so governed by a more globalist project, which, as you can see, is the Union as such. After all, he was not a associate of the Union – British Prime Minister Boris Johnson – to convince the Ukrainians to reject the anticipation of peace immediately after Russia lost in the first phase of the war. He did so in Biden's time and in his globalistic name, but then the globalist task included both the US and Europe. Now, after Trump's anti-globalist reset, Europe was left alone with this globalism, like Himilsbach with English. This is Europe's starting point, which was even more highlighted after 2 reports on the US strategy were made public.
Does Europe request America?
Yes – is Europe even needed by America? The state of US strategical interests outlined in both papers may indicate that not so much. The Old Continent goes to the third-rate strategical interests of the States. crucial is the Chinese, mediate Eastern, late even African direction. The issue of American dominance in the western hemisphere has been practically defined from the beginning, as evidenced by fresh events in Venezuela.
A declared revolutionary turn in relations with Russia from an eternal enemy to a possible partner overturns the full strategy of preventive interest in the United States to defend Europe and guarantee its security. This is not Trump's "revenge" on the ignored European elite, but the logical consequence of the change in American strategy. It is not adequate that Trump would pay for this dubious interest – doubtful due to the fact that Europe takes his help, but it does not bloom with his support for America, on the contrary – it is his calculations of rapprochement with Putin to draw him distant from China that are contrary to the European instigation of war that could lead to the collapse of his subtle calculations.
Trump warns that no European brawl can be drawn against Russia, Europe will be alone. She's giving her a atomic umbrella, but that's it. This is expected to sober up Europeans so they don't mess around, due to the fact that that means that in the event of a W they will face a conventional war without America, and Europe is helpless in these blocks. For example, plans to increase the German army to 2026 are to increase its composition by 1750 soldiers.
Trump in his strategy declared a considerable hostility not towards Europe as a continent, but towards an EU task for Europe. This institution is simply a reason for weakening Europe. Not that Trump cares about the destiny of Europe there so much to build her strength, but specified a brawl as the EU creates from Europe an area capable of expanding China's influence, which is strategically not along the way of America in its rivalry with its decedent enemy No. 1. It is so understandable that America is not able to quit control of Europe. But it will not be a repeat of entertainment, that Americans will be stationed in Germany, for example, or unfortunately in Poland – no. The military or, in fact, the "conventional" presence in Europe Trump can let go. He'll most likely leave any kind of castel, but political. He himself declared that it would be Hungary, Italy, Austria and... Poland. Their far-reaching goal would be the interior dismantling of the Union, not any military Intermarine, due to the fact that these would be directed against Russia, and this was declared by the United States as a possible partner.
What about Poland?
This position of US partners in Europe requires 1 thing – in these countries, leaders are to regulation in favour of this project. We've known for a long time that we've been surviving in a time erstwhile powers have a bearing on the provincial elections. This works both ways – the Romanian example is not just a domain of European influence. The U.S. besides influences different choices so that it can win in the "democracy" what is needed. If you can't do that, you send commandos there and kidnap the chosen democracy, which just didn't realize the wisdom of the phase and chose poorly. (Of course, provided that, for example, specified a kidnapped Venezuelan president had nothing to do with democracy, but he was inactive late recognized by the US, but to be recognized abruptly ceased).
In these 4 European countries, we have not so much pro-American leaders as anti-establishment leaders in relation to the EU task – more independent, pursuing national interests than globalist ones. A calculation like the American 1 assumes that this condition will continue, and the Americans should make certain it does. We will have the first effort in the April elections in Hungary. Only in this 4 there is 1 exception – Poland.
On the Vistula River, by the will of the people is ruled by a faithful student of the EU project, in addition, with a powerful leverage not so much for EU interests as for German interests – Tusk. This U.S. plan of Polish castelania is impossible to implement in the current power. The question is, what will the Americans do? They'll wait 2 years or they'll do something sooner. Or do they just ignore Poland? And if they wait 2 years, who will they bet on? Or who are they gonna build in the meantime? Let us look at the current political scene in this respect: who would be there for Americans to replace?
Tuski – you know, there's nothing to look this way. Satellites – it is not even known if they will enter the Sejm in the dimension of anything decisive. Ideologically and strategically – useless. So let's look right. The PiS – this 1 went rogue due to the fact that it did not foresee that putting on Americans and preaching at the same time hostility towards Russia could be an impossible contradiction for Trump. That's why PiS is in the corner now, due to the fact that he doesn't know what to do. This would require a complete change of the Kaczyński Party's strategy, removing anti-Russian dogmas. And it's hard, especially for a hard organization electorate, and that's the only 1 that's slow left to PiS. So this is gonna be hard.
Confederacy – not easy either. Bosak's fresh enunciations on criticism of American action in Venezuela show that there is besides a deficiency of knowing of the era of the end of global law that gives way to the primacy of force. Bosak is axiologically right, but again – we land in axiology, not in the pragmatism of today.
So that leaves Braun, but it's an uncertain business for Americans, too. And it's not due to the fact that he might not go through the election screen. Even if it passes modestly, it can play the function of a ‘language in weight’, but that it is controversial adequate that the rest, this time the Polish political establishment, will not want to go to the coalition with it. But that's not the most crucial thing in this calculation about the Crown. In total, Braun's postulates coincide with the intentions of the US, but they have 1 flaw – an impenetrable charge of anti-Semitism for Americans. There's no place to discuss whether or not it's true. Is it open hostility or – as Braun calls it – judorealism? The crucial thing is that this is simply a lethal argument against the possible for cooperation. It is born in the United States, but it is not, at least for now, a origin that this dogma of unconditional lending to Israel – politically and financially – will be able to change by the United States in the close future. So it will be hard with Braun, due to the fact that he is the 1 who makes it seem that 2 sides will agree – European and American. So who can the Americans number on in Poland?
Going beyond the paradigm?
Of course, if the Americans "hold out" these 2 years until the election, there is simply quite a few time to construct a fresh entity. It will happen anyway, due to the fact that we saw it practically at all Polish election in the 21st century. I wrote and said It's a phenomenon many times. Something fresh is emerging that incorporates hope for change, it brings in naive believers there, voting against the strategy de facto They strengthen it, due to the fact that the fresh elector immediately enters the old tribal layout as an appetizer and further hopes for change fall.
And we request to know that the full strategy III of the Polish Republic works to lower the level of hope for change, so any number on specified is to pacify systematically. And that's how – he does it systematically. We have full lines – Palikoty, Biedron, Petru, Kukizy, lately Poland 2050. We have seasonal parties that are about to dissolve in the tribes. And the social tension, after the detonation in the election act, fades, and the hope of change falls, petrifying the energy of successive generations of voters. This model is inactive to be played and we will see here not yet one, only the question whether the American performance, as we have proved above, the possible is tiny in the existing class of Polish politics.
There is 1 more question. That's all the Americans can do... president Nawrocki. He's popular, he's growing, he's pro-American, he's carrying any kind of possible for novelty. Nawrocki at the Palace could make the center of a fresh political movement, but that would be a large difficulty, due to the fact that he would gotta cut off indirectly from the connection with the PiS. But Nawrocki's popularity is greater than the PiS, so there is possible here, but the composition of the President's office itself indicates the large influence of Kaczyński in his surroundings. However, Nawrocki has 1 basic disadvantage for Americans – in the issue of anti-Russianism she represents a suicidal attitude of non-continence towards Russia. These declarations that Poland should not have a relation with Russia (a question, what is the Polish embassy doing in Warsaw?), canceling the gathering with Orban, due to the fact that this 1 gave his hand to Putin, origin a large grievance and profession in Washington.
Again – for Poles a lot can be done, with Poles – nothing. It would have been so close.
So it is very likely that the Americans will bet on Nawrocki, and that is why he is invited to Washington, where he will be patiently explained to him that he should let go of this PiS and Russia. It will be magnetized by another version of “the wisdom of the stage” so that it understands the position of America. Braun's program in the President's mouth, minus “anti-Semitism”, of course, would be digestible to Washington, due to the fact that Braun's proceeding nothing against the US, but the voices critical of judaic influence in Washington dominate. The final issue is how to make a majority in the Sejm from this chaos, but – as in politics – you gotta fight for your tickets and then arrange a possible puzzle with it.
Times
I know what I wrote here is terrible, due to the fact that it shows the cynicalness of today's dominance of force. Elections are organized by another state, kidnaps its leaders, the subjectivity of states is notoriously vassalized. But it is, and it must be taken into account. I don't compose to accept it unconditionally, but I surely don't pretend to be. Even if you want to fight it, it inactive requires a pragmatic diagnosis, even, and most of all, if it is shockingly sad. Then you can foretell your optimal function in this arrangement. And effort to enforce it. Without this, we will be “in the field of illusion, where the zeal does miracles and in the hope of golden paintings.” And next door will be a simple, pragmatic life that always wins with dreams. And specified a fall, with specified a tallness of illusions, hurts more and more. Especially if he doesn't teach you anything for the future.
In our history, we owe our time to national pragmatism in strong leadership, present we are ruled by the locoic shrewds who have been raised to their positions by the pathological strategy of democracy. We are not a power, but we have a possible far greater than the 1 we use. If we approach this pragmatically, it'll be something. We can usage it, but our interior system, which we were given here years ago, is dysfunctional adequate to be incapable to choose effective leadership from itself.
So let's not be amazed that individual else might want to, from outside, even for their own benefit. If there's no another way, I think it'd be good to usage it erstwhile we can play something. We have fallen so low, but this is the bottom that has the advantage that we can bounce from it, flowing to the surface of our own subjectivity.
He wrote and read Jerzy Karwelis
All entries on my blog "The diary of the plague".
