In the first extended interview after a diplomatic feud with the talker of the Sejm Vladimir Czarzatym U.S. Ambassador to Poland, Thomas Rose makes 2 hard declarations: the American military presence on the Vistula River is to hold, and Washington, as he put it, will not "accept or tolerate scandalous insults towards" president Donald Trump. The conversation published on 10 February 2026 in “Rzeczpospolita” rapidly became a fuel for national politics, as Rose besides enters the electoral subject and simply signals that a possible government with the participation of Grzegorz Braun would be a “serious problem for the States”.
Thomas Rose Fig. White House, Public Domain, commons.wikimedia.org
The interview is in an effort to cut off what has grown around the embassy in fresh days: speculation about the future of American troops, questions about limits of diplomatic interference and accusations that a dispute with 1 of the most crucial officials of the Polish state undermines the credibility of the alliance. Rose does not run distant from the speech of a hard repost, but at the same time builds a broader framework: she talks about "great geopolitical changes", about the US's interest in strong cooperation with Poland and about the fact that the alliance, in his opinion, will not change.
US troops in Poland: “Our troops will remain”
The military subject is in the conversation the most unambiguous. The Ambassador declares that "our troops will stay in Poland" and indicates that the script of retreat is not on the table. In summary messages, the interview besides returns to his ironically sharp remark that the change could only happen if it was Poland for any "unbelievably stupid reason" that he did not want American soldiers. This passage, quoted widely by the media, sounds like an effort to cut gossip and at the same time a reminder that military presence is part of a common arrangement of interests, alternatively than a unilateral ‘present’.
A dispute with Vladimir Black and a reaction of the US Ambassador
The most politically inflamed, however, Blacksmith dispute. Rose was questioned whether breaking contacts with the talker of the Sejm – that is, constitutionally 1 of the key representatives of the state – is not, in fact, a individual disturbance that strikes state relations. He responds to the counter-question, "Do you think I should not respond to his attacks on the President?" Then he goes 1 step further and strengthens the message: “I have broken my message. We will not accept or tolerate scandalous insults against our President! Of course, all Pole has the right to share his opinions. But we besides have the right to respond to these opinions or assessments." This is the core of his defence line: freedom of criticism in Poland recognizes, but at the same time puts the border, after which – in the American opinion – an unacceptable insult begins, and the ambassador is to respond to it.
The problem is that the conversation avoids clarification, which the marshal specifically considers to be a "personal attack" on Trump. “ That’s not all he said, ” he says. Anyone can read it again. I don't gotta repeat it" – and erstwhile a writer questions which opinion would prejudge the qualifications of “rebellion”, Rose answers in spirit: you can ask many times and the answer will not change. This maneuver is clear: to keep a maximum tough assessment, but not to get active in quoting specifics that would immediately become part of the dispute in Poland and in the US.
Elections 2027 and Grzegorz Braun: political signal from Washington
In the same interview Rose touches another axis, which in Polish politics returns like a boomerang: whether American diplomacy tries to arrange the political scene in Warsaw under its own preferences. erstwhile asked about the possible of the parliamentary elections in 2027 and about the increasing function of Grzegorz Braun, he answers cautiously that it is not his function to find the result of the election, but besides adds a informing which is hard not to read as a political signal: Braun is “very anti-American” and “it would be hard for us to accept something similar”. In practice, it is simply a proposition that the entry of his environment into the government could weigh on relations with Washington – even if Rose does not talk it straight in terms of “conditions” or “ultimatum”.
U.S. reliability polls and ambassador's response
The interview besides has an image dimension. Rose comments on the Rzeczpospolita poll, which shows that 53.2% of respondents consider the US to be an unreliable ally and 29.9% to be credible. The Ambassador says that if these results reflect moods, it is "deplorable" and "more for Poland than for America", and then adds a conviction that sounds like a declaration of strategical stability: despite the polls, "we are partners and allies. And that will not change.” It is besides a defence against the charge that emotional escalation with the talker of the Sejm may have hard consequences – in the military, in contracts, in safety policy.
Relations with Nawrock and identity thread
In the background of the conversation, there is another episode which in the Polish debate caused emotions: Rose defends the relation with president Karol Nawrocki and repudiates the interpretations that he regretted decisions and symbolic gestures from the run and the first months of the presidency. It is raining a individual fragment due to the fact that the ambassador speaks of his identity and tries to cut off the media “twisting” conflict: “I am Jewish, even very. But I will repeat: Karol Nawrocki is our large friend.” In this sense Rose proposes a simple thesis: American-Polish relations are to be conducted widely, include the main political forces, and current disputes – even loud – should not obscure the strategical interest of both parties.
What next for the US-Poland relationship: a dispute over words and tough geopolitics
What happens after publication, however, shows that the interview does not close the subject, it opens it up again. For any Rose defends the dignity of the office and the country which represents, for others, the limits of diplomatic interference in Polish politics, especially erstwhile mention is made to circumstantial names and future government configurations. In practice, not only is the dispute over the word Czarzasty, but besides the question of whether the ambassador can publically “publish” the Marshal of the Sejm with a regulation of contact and at the same time keep that it is not an impact on state relations. Rose chose the hardline, but his refusal to go into item makes the conflict stay in the sphere of explanation alternatively than closed facts.
One thing is certain today: the American website consciously combines 2 messages into 1 package. The first is to calm public opinion and safety institutions – US troops in Poland remain. The second is to set a political framework for discussion – the criticism of the US is acceptable, but the "rebellion" of Trump is to meet with a reaction, and the entry of openly anti-American forces into the government would be a problem for Washington. In Polish realities it is simply a mixture that will live long, due to the fact that it touches emotions and hard geopolitics.
SEO (thefad.pl) Title SEO: Thomas Rose in “Rzeczpospolita”: US troops stay in Poland Meta description: U.S. Ambassador Thomas Rose comments on the dispute with Czarzasty, the presence of US troops and warns against the government involving Grzegorz Braun. Key phrase: Thomas Rose interview Rzeczpospolita Tags: USA–Poland, diplomacy, US troops in Poland, Donald Trump, Włodzimierz Czarzasty
DF, thefad.pl / Source: Rzeczpospolita (10.02.2026)
