President Nawrocki's visit to the United States, Reported by European fact (sister portal “Ukrainian Truth”) has become an chance not so much for a cool analysis of Polish abroad policy, but for smuggling emotional assessments and disappointments of Ukrainian publicists.
Instead of sticking to the facts and realities of geopolitics, the authors of the text utilized a procedure already known from Ukrainian media: if Poland does not talk loudly adequate about Ukraine, it means that it "turns around". And if it does not supply political support in all situation, it is no longer a friend.
The first conviction of the article reveals the speech which, with each next paragraph, sounds more and more:
"Karol Nawrocki became the first European election winner to be openly cheered by Trump during the campaign."
As a substance of fact, a neutral message appears at the entrance: Nawrocki is "the Trump man". And although it is not hidden that the visit was symbolic – it was the first bilateral visit of the European leader to the fresh US president – the Ukrainian authors immediately effort to narrow down the importance of the event to the Polish-Trump relationship, without the European context.
In the following part of the article, authors study the flight of fighters over the White home as almost historical:
"Meeting at the White home began with a symbolic motion – 8 fighters flew over the presidents. This fact alone shows Donald Trump's peculiar attitude to both Poland and its fresh leader."
It is only a pity that this "symbol" draws over-interpreted conclusions. A show of strength and yes, but military gestures are not political guarantees yet. And they surely cannot be regarded as an automatic translation into support for the 3rd country, in this case Ukraine.
There is besides a quote by Trump, who, according to the authors, is simply a promise of future military cooperation:
"We can increase our presence in Poland if Poles want to. We never even considered withdrawing soldiers from Poland.”
In Trump's mouth, it sounds alternatively like a declaration "if you pay, we will." However, authors from Kiev seem to read it as a hard warrant of safety, and even a mention point to further expectations. Of course – not to the US. To Poland.
When Nawrocki talks about Europe and shared work at a joint conference, the commentators from Ukraine do not like it. They quote the president of Poland to point out to him that he says in general:
“I do not trust Vladimir Putin. Further packages of sanctions and support for Ukraine are not only the position of Poland, but of Europe.”
And then a cool constatation falls:
"Only that the subject of Ukraine was barely raised by Nawrocki. At least in the open part of the talks.”
This is where we come to the heart of the emotional speech of the full text. That if Poland does not talk about Ukraine in all speech, then something is wrong. And if he speaks with generals, that means that he “avoids the subject”.
But the highest of publicist disinvolvement is the final paragraph, which, without a shadow of diplomacy, states:
"Perhaps more aid than Karol Nawrocki Kiev should not number on. After all, it is hard to call him “a friend of Ukraine.”
That's not an opinion anymore. It's a sentence. There was nothing there to justify specified a strong thesis. There were no declarations of resentment, withdrawal from support, change of Poland's position towards war or Ukraine. On the contrary, Nawrocki talked about sanctions, talked about European solidarity, talked about distrust of Russia. But it is not adequate for authors who would like the name “Ukraine” to have a 3rd sentence.
Another place of the article is quoted by a Polish writer who was to ask Trump about his real actions towards Russia. According to the authors, Trump was to be “clearly annoyed”. 1 can only guess that the intention of the authors was to show that "even Poles do not believe in Trump" – although this Poland is accused of being besides close to the erstwhile president of the USA.
Here is simply a scheme: Poland is to be a Ukrainian ambassador at the same time, a loyal ally of the USA, and – best yet – a founder of endless military and political aid. And erstwhile he fails to execute all these roles simultaneously, there is disappointment, innuendos, and even open criticism.
In the meantime, Poland, like all country, has its own abroad policy. It supports Ukraine – and it does so in real terms, not only in declarations. But there is no work to pay tribute to each diplomatic message. And not all motion towards the US must be read by Kiev's interests. In this sense, the analysis of the “European Truth” reveals more about Ukraine's expectations than about the real politics of Poland. Throughout the text there is emotional disbelief that Warsaw does not place Ukrainian affairs at the centre of all conversation. And diplomacy is not a theatre of 1 subject.
Journalists from Kiev are entitled to their own assessment. But erstwhile you usage the word "difficult to call him a friend of Ukraine", you should remember what it truly means. due to the fact that if Poland (whose personification may be the head of the state) – a country that has accepted millions of refugees, has supported Ukraine since the first days of the war, has been active in the EU and NATO.
