The president’s veto on SAFE is a breakthrough for Poland’s sovereignty. It is a clear signal to all of Europe that there is no Polish consent to a German Europe. This may be a turning point that will stop Berlin’s adventurism.
The Polish president’s decision caused fury in Chancellor Merz, enormous frustration in Berlin, and frantic phone calls to Donald Tusk. He received a green light to reach for radical methods. But the United States’ reaction was equally firm. Earlier, Washington had clearly signaled that SAFE is perceived as a German instrument directed against the United States.
Tusk’s Extreme Legal Banditry
What caused Chancellor Merz’s fury? Not only the presidential veto on SAFE, but also the simultaneous presentation by Karol Nawrocki of a very attractive alternative solution for our country – the “Polish SEJF 0 percent.”
The president, addressing citizens, stated: “History teaches us a simple truth: a nation that does not want to pay for its own army will sooner or later have to pay for a foreign army. Therefore, investments in defense are necessary. But they must be conducted wisely, responsibly, and in a way that does not limit the sovereignty of the state. I have therefore presented a real alternative to the SAFE euro-credit. It is the ‘Polish SEJF 0 percent’, that is, the concept of a Polish Defense Investment Fund. This bill is already in the Sejm. It should be processed as soon as possible. Party zeal and delaying the debate on this good proposal harm the Polish army and Polish security. Recently, the National Bank of Poland has generated for Poland over 185 billion zlotys, among others, thanks to increasing gold reserves and sound investment decisions. This is enormous capital. Capital that can work for Polish security. Thanks to this, we do not have to incur uncertain foreign loans for generations. The fund is to operate under full control of the Polish state and parliament, in cross-party cooperation, with full transparency of spending. This solution gives us full freedom of decision. Poland will choose what equipment it buys, from whom it buys, and how it develops its defense industry.”
SAFE, in the form pushed by Berlin, is in fact a deadly trap. A great manipulation by Tusk is presenting this project as a gigantic financial gift from the good EU for Poland, to strengthen our security and our sovereignty. In reality, the price for this loan of 43.7 billion euros is to be handed over to Brussels and Berlin, key elements of our independence. President Karol Nawrocki proposed an alternative solution prepared by a team of outstanding experts under the leadership of Prof. Adam Glapiński. A mechanism for financing the modernization of the armed forces that will be based on our capital and at every stage will be under full control of Poland. Tusk, therefore, committed extreme deception, presenting himself as a great patriot; he wanted to force the president to accept actions that were to radically limit our sovereignty concerning security.
SAFE as a Legal Fraud
The point is that SAFE itself, in its construction, is a legal fraud. It was introduced by a regulation of the EU Council of 27 May 2025 and refers to Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. But this is a trap, because Article 122 does not concern defense and the arms industry. Moreover, Article 4(2) of the EU Treaty states clearly that national security remains the exclusive responsibility of each member state. SAFE is therefore a kind of attack by the Council and Tusk on one of the pillars of the Union.
The Prime Minister of Poland calls for breaking EU law and unlawfully transferring control over Polish security to the EU. Through his actions, he also acts against the European Parliament, which already in August challenged SAFE before the Court of Justice of the EU due to its illegality under EU law. Tusk therefore acts not only against the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, but also against the EU Treaty. This is already extreme legal banditry.
Paradoxically, President Nawrocki, by signing the SAFE law of the 13 December camp, would not only have broken the Polish constitution, but also undermined the EU Treaty. When he began his term, in his inaugural speech, he stated: “I will therefore be the voice of those who want a sovereign Poland, a Poland that is in the European Union, but a Poland that is not the European Union, but is Poland, and will remain Poland. Both in discussions with the Polish government, in my decisions, and in the international arena, in a diplomatic way, I will, of course, support relations within the European Union, but I will never agree that the European Union takes competencies from Poland, especially in matters that have not been written into the European treaties, and these should not change. Yes, I will be the voice of citizens who want sovereignty.”
Tusk Failed Berlin
“History will judge the president’s decision, and very quickly, in a dramatically bad way for him,” Tusk said in a crying, breaking voice just before the extraordinary meeting of the government on the vetoing of the SAFE program by the president. This is almost an open threat of a coup. And yet the head of state could point out that he did the same as Germany. Ambassador Miguel Berger, who directly supervised the vote on SAFE in the Sejm, explained that Germany does not use this “wonderful” loan because it can afford to take loans directly on financial markets on very good terms thanks to its highest AAA credit rating. President Nawrocki showed Poland’s strength and agency.
Before Tusk became prime minister, the Republic of Poland, using its own funds and at an impressive pace, modernized the army. We were an example to all NATO states, including Germany, which did not like Poland’s momentum. And the modernized army was also becoming a factor, strengthening our political position in Europe. Germany’s frustration did not decrease. It was publicly expressed even by the former German ambassador to Poland, Rolf Nikel. In 2023, he assessed the actions of the United Right government as follows:
“At a moment when the Federal Republic suffered a decisive defeat in one of the most important matters and also led Europe down the wrong path, Poland sees a favorable opportunity to increase its own influence.”
Tusk came, and within three years, our debt exploded, hundreds of billions of PLN evaporated, and suddenly, SAFE had to be pushed through at a frantic pace to modernize the army. But Prof. Glapiński and a group of outstanding Polish economists showed that we can afford, like Germany, to finance it from our own resources.
Such a possibility outright frustrates Tusk. He is echoed by the dishonorable Minister of National Defence, Kosiniak-Kamysz, who claims that “the decision made by President Nawrocki is not against the government. It is against the security of the Polish state.” It is alarming because this is said by a man who wanted to force the president to violate the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and EU law. After all, a confidential legal analysis prepared by the German Bundestag indicates that SAFE violates the EU treaty. Moreover, according to this document, the SAFE mechanism undermines states’ sovereignty, accelerating the centralization of the Union.
A strategic choice of the Nation
The battle of Brussels cosmopolitans to push through the SAFE mechanism in the European Union and in Poland is not in reality only a technical discussion about the method of financing armaments. In the background, there is a much more serious debate about the future model of European security, about the role of nation-states in defense policy, and about whether European integration will enter an area that has so far remained the domain of state sovereignty.
The decision of Poland, and especially the president’s veto against the domestic law implementing SAFE and the proposal of an alternative model of financing army modernization, fits into this broader strategic conflict between Germany and Poland. In Berlin’s plans, SAFE is to be the first step towards creating a European army. It is to force accelerated industrial integration, with Germany at its core. The second pillar of this strategy is to be the financial integration of European security in the form of a common debt for defense purposes. Control over the flow of money, as well as over repayment of incurred debts, will be exercised by the main German banks. And all this is to lead to operational integration under German patronage.
There are already existing structures of military cooperation, such as Permanent Structured Cooperation or the Strategic Compass for Security and Defence. The latter foresees joint EU rapid reaction forces (about 5,000 soldiers) and joint operational planning. Without Poland’s participation in SAFE, the entire strategy of Berlin collapses. Tusk was supposed to arrange this for Germany.
After he was installed in Warsaw, a conviction took hold among German elites that Poles had already been outplayed and marginalized. The EU Council Regulation establishing the SAFE mechanism is full of laid traps. Importantly, in point 8 of a kind of preamble, the document indicates that the entire set of assumptions is fundamentally anti-American. It was not the outbreak of the war in 2022 that was the impulse for its creation, but the election of Trump as president.
Point 12 emphasizes that SAFE must be consistent with European security priorities. In practice, it is Germany and France that are to determine what is and is not important for Poland in the area of security. Point 15 clearly states that states which receive funds from SAFE are to carry out procurement in such a way that it meets EU priorities. There is no place here for the defense policy of individual states, but rather for their subordination to the interests of Brussels.
There is also to emerge this new network of dependencies emerging within the European arms industry, cutting the Old Continent off from the United States and based on German-French dominance. Point 16, in turn, openly states that the goal of Brussels and Berlin is to impose control over SAFE spending in order to protect their interests in the area of security and defense. In other words, point 16 is to guarantee the effective pushing out of the United States from the EU area.
Point 19 warns that, within equipment procurement, the cost of components from outside the EU may not exceed 35 percent of the cost of the final product. At the same time, the Commission itself grants itself the right to define what this means in practice and to develop precise guidelines on how to calculate those percentages.
Already in the regulation itself, Article 12 shows how enormous control at every stage of SAFE’s implementation is obtained by the Commission, and in reality, by Berlin and Paris. At any moment, submitted reports may be challenged, which results in the suspension of payments. The extensive bureaucracy concerning the constant monitoring of SAFE with regard to Berlin’s interests is alarming.
The state has no guarantees that the projects being carried out will not suddenly be blocked for non-substantive reasons, for example, when they constitute competition for the German arms industry. There are no rules. The basis is the political will of the Commission.
According to Article 9, the Commission is to borrow euro funds for SAFE on capital markets or from financial institutions. In this way, it also possesses enormous power in selecting the banks in which sovereign states would be indebted. These would mainly be German and French banks. This is also a simple mechanism for forcing countries such as Poland in the future to adopt the euro.
Moreover, the document also enforces deep insight into a given state’s defense system and indirect control over it. The Commission will have real instruments to penetrate the entire area of Poland’s security.
Article 22 is absurd, according to which common propaganda instruments are to be created, financed from SAFE, to break the resistance of opponents of this mechanism. There is also to be information displayed everywhere with the following wording: “Financed by the European Union – SAFE.” Tanks, artillery, or drones covered with such propaganda, untrue slogans will surely deter Russia more effectively.
This absurd document, created in great secrecy toward the European Parliament and at lightning speed, was signed by Adam Szłapka.
Poland is the Key
The answer to why Tusk behaved without class, publicly showing his fury after the president’s veto, should be sought in Berlin. Germany is aware that we constitute the strategic center of European security. After 2022, Poland’s importance increased radically. We became the main hub of logistical military aid for Ukraine. Transport of equipment goes through our ports, airports, railways, and roads.
Moreover, today, Ukraine possesses the largest fully European army. And Poland is emerging as the second military power among European NATO states. Other countries, compared to Poland and Ukraine, have almost symbolic defensive capabilities.
We are also the key to the security of NATO’s eastern flank. On our territory, the United States has military bases, including the forward headquarters of the V Corps, expanded warehouses of weapons and ammunition, and the base in Redzikowo.
We are implementing the largest armament program in Europe with the most modern equipment in the world, often without equivalent on the European market. This is the case with the F-35 Lightning II, M1A2 Abrams, K2 Black Panther, M142 HIMARS, as well as IBCS (Integrated Battle Command System) – a unique and revolutionary “system of systems,” developed by Northrop Grumman for the U.S. Army. Poland is the only country, alongside the United States, that has been equipped with IBCS.
We are becoming a military power, but Tusk’s team does not want to use this factor in the game for Polish interests. And yet, in American plans, we were to become a potential European center of the defense industry. This, however, clashes with German visions.
And yet it is Poland that holds the key cards to play a decisive role in shaping the geostrategic model of European security. Berlin is pushing solutions that are to give it tools for the accelerated construction of a centralized German Europe. It wants to use armaments and defense to softly impose its dominance in all areas, including political and cultural ones.
Poland of the United Right camp proposed the consolidation and expansion of a security model with a key role for NATO, supported by the strategic axis of Poland and the United States. It is based on strong state sovereignty, because only such countries are capable of effectively defending their borders.
In this battle over the future, Poland’s decision has strategic significance. As we are the largest state on the eastern border of the EU, we possess the strongest army on NATO’s eastern flank, and we are one of the largest importers of armaments. Therefore, the president’s veto has a colossal impact on the direction of EU defense integration, the Union’s relations with the United States, and the structure of the European defense industry.
Without Poland, Germany is not able to carry out its absurd plans to build a European army.
Instead of a Conclusion
The hysteria around SAFE is meant to hide obvious facts. MP Jarosław Sachajko pointed out from the parliamentary rostrum: “Tusk says every hour counts. So I ask – what were you doing for two years? If it is so dramatic, why did you not spend 30 billion from the Armed Forces Support Fund on the purchase of armaments? Where is the 40 billion from unrealized budget revenues that should work for our security? You had 70 billion that you could have spent on security. You are heading for a world record. In three years, you will add one trillion PLN to Poland’s debt, that is, you will add 60 percent of what has been accumulated over 35 years.”
The propaganda hysteria around SAFE is also meant to cover up a plundering policy toward the country’s economy. Without a strong economy, a state is not able to effectively modernize its army. And Tusk is quickly moving toward sinking the state’s finances and exceeding 3 trillion in debt.
At that point, debt servicing alone will exceed PLN 150 billion annually, namely, each year it will amount to a sum comparable to Tusk’s SAFE. Every year, we will be drained on a shocking scale. For a working person, this amounts to over PLN 8,800 annually, that is PLN 730 per month. Interest on the debt alone will consume around 14 percent of Poland’s revenues. Out of every PLN 100 in taxes, as much as 14 percent would go only to servicing the debt. This is a level comparable to the most indebted Western countries.
At the same time, every year we are dealing with an additional enormous outflow of capital from Poland. The scale of profit transfers from foreign investments in Poland is very large, around PLN 150 billion annually, which is as much as the interest on our debt will soon amount to. The vast majority of this transfer goes to the German economy. This is over 60 percent, that is PLN 90 billion. For all the remaining countries of the world, only 40 percent remain.
Tusk’s SAFE was supposed to cause an already truly plundering outflow of capital from Poland, exceeding around 120 billion per year. And yet the hunger of Germany’s ailing economy is unlimited, just as unlimited is Tusk’s readiness to fulfill Berlin’s demands.