The backroom conversations and classified files of Foreign Ministries and Departments of State must be a wonderland of speculations and conditionals, of grand schemes and short-term crises. But, judging by the utterances of two former Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Poland’s Ministry is up there with the best of them.
Take Radoslaw (Radek) Sikorski, Minister from 2007 to 2014. Before that he was Minister of Defence, and for a year afterwards, Speaker of Parliament. According to the Center for Strategic & International Studies,
[H]e negotiated and signed the Poland-Russia regional visa-free regime, Poland-U.S. missile defense agreement, and—together with foreign ministers of Germany and France—the accord between the pro-EU opposition and Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych in 2013.
Unfortunately, the latter accord was rendered meaningless by the Maidan coup of 2014. Before this small hiccup, Foreign Policy had ranked him in its top 100 “global thinkers” for “telling the truth even when it’s not diplomatic.” High praise indeed, and Mr Sikorski continues to live up to it. When the Nord Stream pipelines were sabotaged, and in disregard of the official narrative that “the Russians did it,” Mr Sikorski told the inconvenient truth by tweeting a photo of the gas bubbling up in the Baltic, with the caption, “Thank you, USA.” Only a week ago, Sikorski was asked during a radio interview, whether he thought that “ the government of PiS [Poland’s ruling ‘Law and Justice’ party] at some point thought about partition” of Ukraine. He responded, “I think there was a moment of hesitation in the first ten days of the war, when we all did not know how it would go, and perhaps Ukraine would collapse.” It was but a moment though, which was how long it took for the Polish Prime Minister to condemn his comments as “no different from Russian propaganda.”
The attachment of the Poles to “native Polish lands” is on display in the railway stations with recruiting posters for Leopard tank crews which mention “Polish armour in Ukraine,” unless this poster has been mistranslated.
Of more immediate interest to us, especially given the current constitutional debate, are the comments of another former Polish Minster of Foreign Affairs, Anna Fotyga. She is a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group in the European Parliament. It was founded in 2009 under the principles of the Prague Declaration, and declares itself to be a centre-right grouping. The principles make interesting and contradictory reading. Many of the principles will be applauded by readers here who consider themselves conservative or centre-right. But the Declaration is sown with mines.
• (1) Free enterprise, free and fair trade and competition, minimal regulation, lower taxation, and small government as the ultimate catalysts for individual freedom and personal and national prosperity.
• (2) Freedom of the individual, more personal responsibility and greater democratic accountability.
• (3) Sustainable, clean energy supply with an emphasis on energy security.
• (4) The importance of the family as the bedrock of society.
• (5) The sovereign integrity of the nation state, opposition to EU federalism and a renewed respect for true subsidiarity.
• (6) The overriding value of the transatlantic security relationship in a revitalised NATO, and support for young democracies across Europe.
• (7) Effectively controlled immigration and an end to abuse of asylum procedures.
• (8) Efficient and modern public services and sensitivity to the needs of both rural and urban communities.
• (9) An end to waste and excessive bureaucracy and a commitment to greater transparency and probity in the EU institutions and use of EU funds.
• (10) Respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small.
Let us turn our eyes modestly from principle (3). It could mean anything, including a reliance on nuclear power, or nothing.
Subsidiarity (5) is the principle that decisions affecting the body politic must be capable of being taken at the lowest possible level in any hierarchy of government, and must in fact be taken at that level. It is the obverse of globalism. Subsidiarity in this document seems to refer primarily to the sovereign integrity of the nation state.
The equitable treatment of (10) extends to countries new and old. What are these new countries? They would certainly include the young democracies of (6). The youngest are the ones that haven’t been created yet. Such countries are certainly on Anna Fotyga’s horizon. It is the possibility of such countries coming into being that focusses conservative and reformist minds on the “overriding value” of a “revitalised NATO.” These notions of nations are bundled up in (6).
What concrete policies might precipitate from this complex mix of requirements, one might wonder? Anna Fotyga illustrated one such policy in an address late last month, which is worth quoting from at length.
Putin and his gang of war criminals are not the cause, but the consequence of the problem, the root of which is the authoritarian and imperial essence of Moscow… [T]oday we find ourselves not in the 16th century of Ivan the Terrible or the 18th of Catherine II, but in the 21st century of international law, common organisations and shared values. The European Parliament and many other parliaments…have labelled the Russian Federation a terrorist state… This terrorist organisation, even if it is seen by many as an empire, should be dismantled…
[T]he international community…must…[support] re-federalisation of the Russian state…and the respect for the rights and desires of its nations. The victims of Russian imperialism should be able to rebuild their own statehoods, exercise their right to celebrate their heritage, and determine their own future…
There are no such things as Russian gas, oil, aluminium, coal, uranium, diamonds, grain, forests, gold, etc. All such resources are Tatar, Bashkir, Siberian, Karelian, Oirat, Circassian, Buryat, Sakha, Ural, Kuban, Nogai, etc. For most of the inhabitants of the regions — be they ethnic Russians or indigenous people — Moscow represents only war, repression, exploitation and hopelessness…
[W]e should discuss the prospects for the creation of free and independent states in the post-Russian space…The international community has the obligation to support the rights of indigenous nations…The same rights must belong to Khakas, Tuvans, Sakha or Evenks… [E]thnic Russians, while being the biggest nation of the Russian Federation, are just one of many…
The rupture of the Russian Federation will bring unquestionable benefits in the security, including energy security, and in the economy of Europe and Central Asia… [N]ew pro-Western states can emerge from within the Russian Federation…
[W]e are glad to host numerous experts, historians, journalists, politicians from both sides of Atlantic, and leaders and representatives of more than 20 nations of the Russian Federation, who will gather in Brussels in the European Parliament to discuss prospects for the decolonisation and deimperialisation of the Russian Federation.
Quite apart from the extreme Russia-hatred of Euroimperialists, generously projected onto “ethnic Russians”, the ostensible justification of this passion for destruction should be familiar to Australians; and not just Australians. It is the argument of supra-national empire against the nation-state, whether it be Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the U.K., because only the nation-state can offer effective resistance to the Borg. The tools of choice for dismembering the nation-state are the nation or nations within, with techniques being developed and refined over a number of decades now. Any nation created by colonisation or conquest is likely to be vulnerable to this approach. For example, Kim Beazley just last year in an address to the Ramsay Centre said,
So in those two acts [the First Fleet and the settlement at Albany] we supplanted with our colonies then and ultimately our nation 250 nations that at that point of time inhabited Australia.
Meanwhile, Poland looks to reinstate the full nation-state of the nation of Poland, so that the “benefits in the security, including energy security, and in the economy” will flow to all Poles when first Ukraine and then Russia are dismembered, by whatever means necessary. Europeans have long memories, but so do Russians (and so do Chinese.) Such memories motivated the best of those who originally sought to transcend long and bitter rivalries in an allegiance to a supra-national Europe.
And here we are, with the power of the EU executive held by a tiny clique; with Norway and Poland feeding on the energy-starved carcass of the once-mighty German industrial colossus; with the Poles marking out their territory on the other side of the borders; with the United States, through NATO, determining the security and hence the foreign policy of Europe; with the European centrifuge spinning up; and with only the external enemy and a proxy war holding the show together.
I wonder what Karol Wojtyla would make of it all?
10 thoughts on “No such thing as Russia…”
Both the EU and Medvedev were pissing off the Poles this week. One wonders when they will do a deal with the other Central European nations and raise the middle finger to both their east and west. If they did it right they might get Finland, the Baltic States and Sweden in also.
I like the Poles’ style: late last year they sent a bill to Germany for $1.3 trillion in reparations for WW2. Marvellous trolling! Keep it up Polish Sobieski successor people.
(I was amused that the EU high court ordered Poland a few days ago to stop digging up Gaia’s hated evil rock. Hopefully they’ll tell them to get stuffed.)
My fervent hope is that Poland cleaves closely to Hungary over against the communists of Brussels and isn’t wedged away from that heartening diad of Christendom by the US.
Wojtyla’s biggest concern about contemporary Poland would be the religious fervour of its youth and the unity of the Church. How he and Ratzinger defined “values” is very different to how Washington and the EU define them.
Putin really stuffed up big time, didn’t he.
Did he? Or is the wish father to your thought?
If you are looking for Poland to lead Europe, I suspect you’re not in for a good time.
Well, all wars are stuff-ups by definition.
But compared to what the Americans ‘achieved’ in 20 years – that is: 900,000 dead civilians and the worst military defeat in human history in Afghanistan – what Putin has achieved in one year is von Clausewitz in comparison. Crimea is Russia’s forever and it’s highly doubtful the eastern territories will ever be retrieved. As the New York Times reported last week, the isolation strategy against Russia has officially failed – most of the world’s population do not “stand with Ukraine” – and the sanctions have failed. The Ukraine War has now topped Hotel California at the top of the list of stuff that white people like. Domestically, majorities of Republicans and Democrats are now opposed to anything more than a minor role for the US. This eventually flows through to retail politics – as it has always done (cf. Vietnam and Iraq).
In the words of Harry Reid, this war is lost.
Yeah, those Polish jokes just write themselves.
The Country was only artifically constructed at Versailles in 1919, by 1930 they’d fought 6 Wars with the Soviet Union, oppressed the Galicians into a murderous rage which never abated, invaded Slovakia in 1938,
viciously oppressed the people of East Prussia, had their country destroyed by Germans, ruled from Moscow for 45 years, and are sabre rattling again?
The plan to wreck America
In America, we have an oligarch problem, and it’s much bigger than the oligarch problem that Putin faced when he became president in 2000.
The entire West is now in the grips of billionaire elites who have a stranglehold on the media, the political establishment and all of our important institutions.
In recent years we have seen these oligarchs expand their influence from markets, finance and trade to politics, social issues and even public health. The impact this group has had on these other areas of interest, has been nothing short of breathtaking.
Establishment elites and their media not only stood foursquare behind Russiagate, the Trump impeachment, the BLM riots and the January 6 fiasco, they also had a hand in the Covid hysteria and the host of repressive measures that were imposed in the name of public health. What we’d like to know is to what extent this group is actively involved in the shaping of other events that are aimed at transforming the American Republic into a more authoritarian system?
In other words, are the mandated injections, the forced lockdowns, the aggressive government-implemented censorship, the dubious presidential elections, the burning of food processing plants, the derailing of trains, the attacks on the power grid, the BLM-Antifa riots, the drag queen shows for schoolchildren, the maniacal focus on gender issues, and glitzy public show-trials merely random incidents occurring spontaneously during a period of great social change or are they, in fact, evidence of a stealthily orchestrated operation conducted by agents of the state acting on behalf of their elite benefactors?
We already know that the FBI, the DOJ and the intel agencies were directly involved in Russiagate -which was a covert attack on the sitting president of the United States.
So, the question is not “whether” these agencies are actively involved in other acts of treachery but, rather, to what extent these acts impact the lives or ordinary Americans, our politics and the country?
But before we answer that question, take a look at this quote from from a recent interview by Colonel Douglas MacGregor:
“I was reading a document that was authored by George Soros over 10 years ago in which he talks specifically about this all-out war that would ultimately come against Russia because, he said, this ‘was the last nationalist state that rests on a foundation of orthodox christian culture with Russian identity at its core. That has to be removed.
So I think that the people who are in charge in the west and the people in charge in Washington think they have successfully destroyed the identities of the European and American peoples, that we have no sense of ourselves, our borders are undefended, we present no resistance to the incoming migrants from the developing world who essentially roll over us as though we owe them a living and that our laws do not count.
Thus, far I would say that is an accurate evaluation of what we’ve been doing. And I think that’s a great victory for George Soros and the globalists, the anti-nationalists; those who want open borders what they call it an “Open Society” because you end up with nothing, an amorphous mass of people struggling to survive who are reduced to the lowest levels of subsistence … (Soros) even goes so far as to talk about how useful it would be if it was east Europeans whose lives were expended in this process and not west Europeans who simply won’t take the casualties.
This is not a minor matter. This is the kind of thinking that is so destructive and so evil, in my judgement, that that’s what we’re really dealing with in our own countries and I think Putin recognizes that.” (Douglas Macgregor – A Huge Offensive”, You Tube; 11:20 minute)
The reason I transcribed this comment from MacGregor was because it sums up the perceptions of a great many people who see things the same way.
It expresses the hatred that globalist billionaires have toward Christians and patriots, both of which they see as obstacles to their goal of a borderless one-world government.
MacGregor discusses this phenom in relation to Russia which Soros sees as “the last nationalist state that rests on a foundation of orthodox Christian culture with Russian identity at its core.”
But the same rule could be applied to the January 6 protestors, could it not? Isn’t that the real reason the protestors were rounded up and thrown into the Washington gulag. After all, everyone knows there was no “insurrection” nor were there any “white supremacists”. The protestors were locked up because they’re nationalists (patriots) which are the natural enemy of the globalists. The MacGregor quote lays it out in black and white. Elites don’t believe that nationalists can be persuaded by propaganda. They must be eradicated through incarceration or worse. Isn’t that the underlying message of January 6?
And that brings us back to our original question: How many of these oddball events (in recent years) were conjured up and implemented by agents of the deep state to advance the elitist agenda?
This seem like an impossible question since it’s hard to find a link between these dramatically diverse events. For example, what is the link between a Drag Queen Children’s Hour and, let’s say, firebombing a food processing plant in Oklahoma? Or the relentless political exploitation of gender issues and the January 6 public show trials? If there was a connection, we’d see it, right?
Not necessarily, because the link might not have anything to do with the incident itself, but instead, with its impact on the people who experience it. In other words, all of these events could be aimed at generating fear, uncertainty, anxiety, alienation and even terror. Have the intelligence agencies launched such destabilizing operations before?
Indeed, they have, many times. Here’s an excerpt from an article that will help you to see where I’m going with this. It’s from a piece at The Saker titled “Operation Gladio: NATO’s Secret War for International Fascism.” See if you notice any similarities with the way things have been unfolding in America for the last few years:
Repeat: the first phase of political activity ought to be to create the conditions favoring the installation of chaos in all of the regime’s structures… This destruction of the state must be carried out under the cover of (communist) activities…. Popular opinion must be polarized in such a way, that we are being presented as the only instrument capable of saving the nation.
In other words, the objective of the operation is to completely disrupt all social relations and interaction, cultivate feelings of uncertainty, polarization and terror, find a group that can be scapegoated for the wide societal collapse, and, then, present yourself (elites) as the best choice for restoring order.
Is this what’s going on?
It’s very possible. It could all be part of a Grand Strategy aimed at “wiping the slate clean” in order to “transition away from intergovernmental decision-making” to a system of “multi-stakeholder governance.”
That could explain why there has been such a vicious and sustained attack on our history, culture, traditions, religious beliefs, monuments, heroes, and founders. They want to replace our idealism with feelings of shame, humiliation and guilt. They want to erase our past, our collective values, our heritage, our commitment to personal freedom, and the very idea of America itself. They want to raze everything to the ground and start over. That is their basic Gameplan writ large.
The destruction of the state is being carried out behind the cover of seemingly random events that are spreading chaos, exacerbating political divisions, increasing the incidents of public mayhem, and clearing the way for a violent restructuring of the government.
They can’t build a new world order until the old one is destroyed.
“Worst defeat in human history”.
How are the Carthaginians doing today?