“We spoke three weeks ago at Mar-a-Lago with U.S. President Donald Trump. President Trump is fully aware – and approaches the matter with this awareness – that he made a promise to Poles, including on our channel, that he would not abandon Poland in the face of what is happening,” revealed Michał Rachoń, the station’s programming director, yesterday on the TV Republika program Rewolwer.
Sunday’s meeting in Geneva focused on the 28-point peace plan for Ukraine proposed by the United States. It was attended by representatives of the informal E3 group (France, Germany, the United Kingdom), as well as the EU, the U.S., and Ukraine. The talks, described as “extremely fruitful,” continued on Monday. However, no representatives of the Polish government were present in Geneva.
While visiting Angola on Monday for the 7th European Union – African Union summit, Donald Tusk said that the German chancellor informed him “about the details of his conversation with President Trump” and shared “his assessment of Russia’s economic situation and of the negotiations held in Geneva.” Explaining his own absence from the Geneva meeting, Tusk stated that he is counting “on greater activity from President Nawrocki.”
The opposition openly points out that Poland has been marginalized in the talks concerning the peace plan. The issue of Poland’s insufficient involvement in peace negotiations related to the war in Ukraine was discussed on Rewolwer on TV Republika.
“I do not understand the president’s withdrawal”
Katarzyna Gójska, editor-in-chief of the monthly Nowe Państwo, highlighted the withdrawal of the Polish president from this matter.
“On one hand, President Karol Nawrocki may argue that he feels justified in not being there, since Sikorski repeats that he is ‘only a representative,’ he might feel he can wash his hands of it. On the other hand, responsibility for Poland should oblige him to participate in these meetings. I repeat: the war in Ukraine is not a war between Ukraine and Russia; it is a stage in the implementation of the Russian Federation’s plan, which the late President Lech Kaczyński clearly outlined in Tbilisi. (…) Being aware that this is not a ‘dispute’ over Crimea or Donbas, not some ‘special operation,’ the Polish president should understand that his presence at every meeting led by the U.S., concerning our region and its security, is his duty. I must admit, I do not understand President Karol Nawrocki’s withdrawal from this issue,” she said.
“I can explain it to myself by the limited competence of the person in his office responsible for international policy – someone with little experience. He is, to be fair, a student of an outstanding Polish diplomat responsible for President Andrzej Duda’s greatest successes, which indeed were on the international stage – but it seems he was not the most capable student. I believe this will have negative consequences for Poland. For Donald Tusk, the fact that Poland’s voice does not matter is convenient, because he is more interested in what other voices say, especially those from across the Oder, and prefers not to speak out himself. But for the Polish president, it should be a priority to stand with the U.S., regardless of how difficult these talks are. They are very difficult; sometimes some proposals are extremely dangerous for us, but precisely for that reason, the Polish voice should be present alongside the U.S., and I do not understand this withdrawal,” Gójska added.
“Trump is fully aware”
Michał Rachoń, programming director of TV Republika, recalled Donald Trump’s speech in Warsaw, which Trump and his circle consider “the speech that geopolitically shaped the way Trump conducted his first term.”
“It came about as a result of efforts by the Polish president. (…) The very concept of the Three Seas Initiative, which concerned fundamental issues, especially energy, was created by the president’s office and his team, and he convinced his partners in the U.S. of it. The central element of that speech was that Poland would not be left alone in the face of the Russian Federation’s energy blackmail,”
he added.
Rachoń noted that he had recently spoken with the U.S. president at his residence in Florida.
“We spoke three weeks ago at Mar-a-Lago with U.S. President Donald Trump. President Trump is fully aware – and approaches the matter this way – that he made a promise to Poles, including on our channel, that he would not abandon Poland in the face of what is happening – because of the entire history, that the Warsaw speech and the decisions associated with it opened the market to American gas exports to Europe, including Poland, and because he made decisions regarding the deployment of troops here. He stated, in a conversation with Karol Nawrocki, that he would increase those forces. These are tools that can be used – the personal, direct relationship Karol Nawrocki has with the U.S. president,”
Rachoń said.
“Fear of responsibility”
Jarosław Olechowski, head of programming at the station, reported that when asked about maintaining U.S. forces in Poland, Donald Trump replied that he “always keeps his promises.”
“There must be a plan behind this – back then, there was a plan. For example, what was happening around the Intermarium concept. People may criticize it, but it really was a plan. The entire foreign policy was focused on implementing each stage. Today, I do not see that plan. I see the potential in President Karol Nawrocki – he established a good rapport with the U.S. president, and he facilitated a very important visit, one that had two components (a conversation with the president and with the teams). What President Nawrocki reported – that this cooperation has been established and shifted onto an operational track – but the question remains: what next? Foreign policy is a struggle for interests,”
noted Katarzyna Gójska.
Olechowski observed that he has the impression that if the Presidential Chancellery, and the president himself, “personally lobbied to participate in these talks, it is something that could be achieved.”
“I fear the problem may be that the situation is very complex, difficult, and everyone is afraid to take responsibility,” he added.
“This situation is complex on multiple levels – internally as well. And I think, observing the political careers of the president’s associates, whom we can identify, that – let’s be honest – these are not people of the highest courage. The president pulls them forward, but it is not as if they would come forward with bold concepts on their own. And secondly, these situations are so sensitive, so difficult, that they may simply be beyond some of them, because someone lacks such experience. After all, they were only a deputy foreign minister. It is a high office, but the times are extraordinarily difficult, and this is a certain weakness of the Presidential Chancellery,”
responded Katarzyna Gójska.