Polish Ambassador to the United States Magierowski warned of cracks in NATO and the EU due to Putin's actionsPutin is a very smart politician, Polish Ambassador to the United States Magierowski said in an interview with Newsweek.
According to him, the West is already beginning to get tired of the Ukrainian conflict. This winter will be a test of the unity of America and Europe, the diplomat stressed.
Tom O'ConnorAs the price of Western support for Ukraine in the conflict with Russia, which began more than nine months ago, is growing, in a large exclusive interview with Newsweek columnist Tom O'Connor, Polish Ambassador to the United States Marek Magierowski justified the need to help a neighboring country, even if the further path of the conflict remains uncertain.
Before entering the world of diplomacy, Magierowski worked as a journalist and held responsible editorial positions in a number of publications, including Newsweek Polska. After that, he moved into public service, working as the Polish ambassador to Israel before being appointed ambassador to the United States last year.
In this new capacity, he discussed with Newsweek the role of his country on the border of the former Soviet bloc and his experience of life under both communism and capitalism. He claimed that this collective history helped define Poland's current approach to the Russian Federation, and compared the current enmity between the West and Moscow to a "clash of civilizations."
Poland's position as a front-line power in this rivalry became quite obvious just two weeks ago, when a rocket flew into its territory, killing two people. Although at first it was assumed that it was a Russian missile that went off course, now experts are coming to the conclusion that it was most likely launched by a Ukrainian air defense system trying to intercept Russian strikes. The incident immediately raised new fears of an escalation of the conflict going on next door to Poland.
Although Magierowski does not believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin had any intentions to launch a deliberate strike on NATO territory, the Polish diplomat also found it difficult to imagine ending the current conflict in Ukraine through negotiations when the current Russian leader is still in power. He is very concerned about potential cracks in the West's willingness to continue supporting Kiev. As for the United States, Magierovsky considers it his personal duty to ensure strong bipartisan support for Ukraine in a highly polarized political climate in Washington.
Magierovsky warned that the Kremlin is betting on fatigue from the Ukrainian conflict, which is beginning to manifest itself in the United States. He called for a long-term role for the United States not only in terms of assistance to Ukraine, but also in terms of a powerful military presence in Europe. And, seeing no signs of peace, he has a premonition that Western countries will have to pay for arming themselves and Ukraine for a long time.
Newsweek: Poland is in many ways at the forefront of a broad dispute that has dragged on for years not only between Ukraine and Russia, but also between NATO and Russia. How does this position and the history surrounding it influence Poland's point of view in the current conflict and how does Poland balance its role in the alliance with the promotion of the country's national interests?Marek Magierowski:
I was lucky enough to live in both systems. I was born under communism, experienced the command economy, and then lived under democracy, under wild capitalism. I know the difference. Having witnessed the contrast between both systems, believe it or not, I now see and feel the remnants of the Soviet mentality in modern Russia, for example, this blatant, incomprehensible disregard for human dignity and human life.
<...>
I had a lot of discussions with my colleagues from different EU embassies about whether we can talk about a clash of civilizations in this particular situation. We both remember the famous book by Samuel Huntington. He was talking about the clash between Islam and Judeo-Christianity. Today it is very difficult to answer the question whether we are now witnessing a clash of two different cultures.
In Europe, mainly in the Western, and especially, in countries such as Germany and France, there has always been a tendency to see modern Russia as a European in nature. Russians Russians Russian Russian literature, Russian culture, Russian ballet, Russian music, we can all see that the roots of European or Western European culture and Russian culture are identical.
And that is why, for example, there is such a clear difference between our approach to Russia and our approach to China. China has always seemed absolutely distant to us in terms of our cultural proximity. And that is why we are also shocked when we see that Russia does not behave the way we are used to, not only from the point of view of conducting military operations, what they do on the battlefield, but also from the point of view of the approach to everyday life.
I think this is the key question: should we consider Russia as an existential threat not only to Poland, but also to Europe, and maybe also to the United States.
Now I see a very specific restructuring within the European Union and within NATO. They include countries that understand modern Russia, understand Putin himself much better than other states. And they understand the threat coming from them. I would include Central Europe, but also the Baltic States, the Scandinavian countries and the Anglo-Saxons.
Some other European countries do not perceive Russia as an existential threat. I would not like to generalize my point of view, but they still believe that Russia can one day become as democratic as Germany or the United States, as liberal as some Scandinavian countries, as progressive as Denmark, and as European as all of us. My personal opinion is that this is not possible, at least in the short and medium term.
Russia is in a different pool, if you like. And that is why, when you think about long-term relations with Russia, this is a very important issue.
Putin is smart, he is not an idiot at all. He is absolutely a very, very smart politician. And he is trying to capitalize on the West's fatigue with conflict, which is becoming increasingly visible, mainly in Western societies. And so, for example, he tries to use this energy blackmail of his. He is trying to use the quite obvious existence of people — we would hardly call them "useful idiots" — who are trying to justify Russia's attitude, regardless of its behavior, both in diplomacy and on the battlefield.
In the eyes of many Russian politicians today, diplomacy remains a zero-sum game, that is, someone must win in order for someone to be defeated. For us, diplomacy is about trying to negotiate and trying to find the right balance, even in negotiations with the most controversial, most unsightly regimes in the world, like the Ayatollah in Iran, the Communists in China, and so on and so forth. For Russia, it is always a zero-sum game.
Now, if you ask me about Poland's role in this particular equation, then I am sure that we can contribute to the West's understanding of today's Russia. We have experience of living in both systems, we understand Russia much better than probably some other European countries.
— If we talk about this difference between the different experiences of European countries in relations with Russia, as well as differences in approaches to how they seek to support Ukraine, do you have confidence that these countries will be able to maintain their unity and overcome this fatigue, and that the peoples of these countries can withstand the growing costs of Ukraine?— We are talking about two different political entities:
NATO and the European Union. They are completely different and have always been so from the very beginning. Now I am more than confident in the role of NATO and in the unity of NATO, despite the reorganization that I mentioned at the beginning of our conversation. I really believe that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is sacred, and I can only repeat the words of President Biden, who has repeatedly stressed that "we are ready to defend every inch of NATO territory."
Speaking about the role of Poland, I would like to note the determination of my Government to defend not only Warsaw, Krakow and Poznan, but also our allies in the Baltic States, as well as Prague, Bucharest, Berlin and Paris. This is our common responsibility. This is not only a formality, I think it is very deeply ingrained in our mentality. This is the backbone of NATO, it is very important for us to be ready to defend other countries. In recent months, Poland has moved from the role of a pure "consumer" of security to the role of its supplier. We provide security to other countries, not physically, of course, because we are not at war with Russia, and we would like to avoid such a confrontation at any cost.
We are currently on a "military shopping trip", buying weapons not only from American defense companies, but also, for example, from South Korea. What we are doing now, trying to strengthen our military potential, is not due to the fact that we do not believe in the reliability of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. We believe in it.
But we also believe that Poland has a special role to play in this geopolitical equation. We are a frontline state, as you correctly noted, on the eastern flank. However, we are also a large country with a population of 38 million and with considerable resources that we must spend wisely in order to strengthen not only our military influence, but also to offer something to our allies. To offer not only from the point of view of our political and diplomatic experience in relations with Russia for a number of decades after the Second World War, but also physically to provide security to other countries that have not spent enough on defense in recent years.
As a diplomat, of course, I am not authorized to name any states specifically, but you can imagine who I am talking about.
I think that today we have learned a painful lesson for all NATO members, because now we can clearly see how reckless it has been over the past couple of years not to spend enough money on the army, and that it is very, very naive to think of Europe as a safe region. But we, Europe, did not learn the lesson after Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. We didn't learn the lesson after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, and then we all woke up in a completely different situation on February 24, when Russia physically entered Ukraine during its special operation.
There is also a clear difference in our approach to energy security management from some other European countries. We have always been prudent in terms of our energy needs and in terms of the need to separate our energy security from natural gas imports, as well as from some other goods from Russia. A few years ago we opened the first LNG terminal. This year we decided not to renew the long-term contract with Gazprom. And at the same time, we opened the so-called "Baltic Pipe", through which gas from Norway is pumped through Denmark to the Polish coast of the Baltic Sea.
So now we are completely independent of Russian gas imports. However, oil is a completely different matter. And coal, too. But in terms of gas supplies, we are completely independent. Now, of course, we import it from other countries, but when I say that we are independent, I mean that we do not depend on the whims of Mr. Putin.
From the point of view of geopolitics, there is another hard lesson, another painful process that we have to go through. This is the upcoming winter, which will be very important from the point of view of all our current approaches. Here we must be honest about the cracks that have recently appeared among NATO and EU allies. And this winter in this regard will be a litmus test for all of us.
We in Poland, apparently, are a little better prepared for a possible harsh winter than, for example, Germany, France and Austria. All our underground gas storage facilities are now literally 100% full, which does not mean that we are completely safe, because a lot depends on the climate and temperatures. We'll see. This will be another test of the unity and cohesion of all EU countries, and Europe in general. America, of course, has its own problems, but this will be one of the reasons why we should be very careful about disinformation campaigns, which Russia has so masterfully specialized in in recent years.
They have created an atmosphere of fear, and unfortunately, we, as Western societies, are much less resistant than the Russians. It's probably in our genes somehow. It's quite funny to hear how some Western politicians are so worried that voters will have to lower the temperature of swimming pools by one degree Celsius in December and January due to gas shortages, due to the need to save energy. But that's the reality we're all facing right now. So I am very afraid that there will be more and more cracks between us, and the split will become even deeper.
<...>
But I still think that, despite all the doubts, all the fears of Western societies, the Western ruling elite that could have developed over the past three decades after the collapse of communism in relation to modern Russia, now we absolutely do not believe that a return to normal life in our political and economic relations with Moscow is possible. No, it's not.
— As for those vulnerable places in Western societies and politics that you mentioned as Ambassador to the United States, of course, you follow the political situation in America. Given that the midterm elections have changed the political equation in Washington, are you concerned that the greater influence of Republicans in Congress may affect the support of Ukraine from the United States?— I understand the concern of some Republican circles about how American taxpayers' money intended for the military needs of Ukraine is being spent.
It is absolutely clear that you need to know how all these finances are used, especially in the long term.
On the other hand, my personal priority as the Polish ambassador to the United States, as well as my embassy, is to hold meetings and have very serious conversations, especially with those legislators, mainly from the Republican camp, who have expressed such concerns in recent months, especially at the peak of the election campaign. I think some of these political slogans were used for political purposes. And this does not automatically mean that all those packages that until recently enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress will be cut in some way. I don't believe it.
I believe that both Republicans and Democrats are reasonable enough to understand that Ukraine still needs our financial and military support, because it is fighting not only for its freedom, but for the freedom of all of us. We can go back to the beginning of our conversation about this clash of civilizations. When I talk about this conflict and this confrontation, which, fortunately, is not yet kinetic and physical between the West and Russia, I prefer not to call the Russian special operation the "conflict in Ukraine."
This is a real and very tangible confrontation between the free world and Russia, which will undoubtedly have long-term consequences for the world order. And, as I have already said, it is also my priority to continue to convince both Republicans and Democrats that we need to make long—term efforts, joint efforts with the free world to support Ukraine, regardless of political affiliation, regardless of the economic problems that America is facing.
It is quite clear that for the average American voter, gasoline prices are more important than what is happening in Mariupol, Kharkiv, and so on. There are very few people in both America and Europe who use the term "hegemon" when talking about America's role in the world. Well, it is a nuclear superpower, like China, like Russia, but it is somehow politically incorrect to use the term hegemony.
Given the history of Poland, some fascination of our country with the United States, which lasted for decades, you understand that we would prefer America to remain in this place, to remain the only hegemon on the world stage, which is not a derogatory term for us. And we believe that America has been, is and will remain the most important pillar of our collective security.
But we would like Germany, France and other countries to spend more money on the armed forces. However, we also believe that America's role in Europe is vital in terms of collective security. We have always stressed — this is our priority — that we support the presence of US troops on the territory of Poland and other countries on the Eastern Flank. The American presence in Europe remains the most important guarantee of our security in NATO and the European Union.
— As for Washington's approach to NATO and the EU, we are also witnessing a concerted effort by the United States to force these institutions to do more to solve the problem of challenges from China, another major power that you have mentioned several times. And these American efforts also seem to be causing discord among European countries, not least because of Beijing's economic ties with the continent. How do you see China's relations with Poland and other European countries in this context?— Poland has always tried to find the right balance between maintaining good relations with the United States and our allies and partners in both the EU and NATO, and our relations with one of the most important and influential countries in the world, China.
Our trade relations with this country are very important. In fact, Chinese investments in Poland have been insignificant in recent years, because China prefers to invest in countries outside the European Union, because of all those rules that do not exist in countries such as Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, Pakistan or Bangladesh. It is easier for Chinese investors to spend money on the construction of roads, dams and seaports. I am not saying that China is not present in Poland at all in terms of their economic expansion, but it does not manifest itself in our country as aggressively and energetically as in other countries.
Of course, we are trying to coordinate actions in terms of relations with China with our American partners. For example, with regard to Huawei's investments in Poland, we are well aware of the danger that money from such companies can entail, especially in the long term. We also see that the approach of different EU countries to China is different. If you look, for example, at Lithuania and the visit of German Chancellor Scholz, which took place just a few weeks ago, you will see a striking contrast between the approach of these two countries to China.
This is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to develop a unified position of all EU member states. The common foreign policy of the European Union remains a pipe dream, despite the fact that some countries would prefer this common foreign policy to be tougher, including in relations with China.
On the other hand, it would actually be much more difficult to develop a common position towards China if we had a common foreign policy. It's all about some other countries outside the EU, which are much stronger both politically and economically, and would probably prefer to impose their position, their interests and their relations with China on other countries. So I think this diversity, if you will, is even more useful in terms of our long-term relations with Beijing.
We have yet to see what consequences the ongoing conflict over Ukraine will have for China's relations with the United States and Europe. At first, I think the Chinese leadership was a little surprised that Ukraine was not conquered in 72 hours. But now they see that the longer the military phase of the conflict continues, the more harmful its economic consequences will be, including for China.
What Beijing prefers and counts on is economic stability, especially around its mega-project "One Belt, One Road". This is something they have always been adamant about: regardless of what they think about Taiwan's sovereignty, regardless of China's long-term interests in relations with Europe and the United States, economic stability is crucial for them.
The Russian special operation in Ukraine has to some extent undermined economic stability around the world. And this is happening just a few months after we started breathing a little deeper after the pandemic. This is a bad signal for China. So it will be very interesting to see how China's attitude towards Russia will or will not change in the coming months.
— Speaking about how the conflict in Ukraine affected your borders, I would like to look back a couple of weeks ago at how Poland's position as a frontline state was clearly highlighted to the international community when a missile strike was launched on its territory. It has since been determined that it was probably a Ukrainian missile defense system. But were you concerned at those initial moments of a potential new phase of this conflict and could such a Russian strike trigger Article 5, which, as you said, is sacred?— Well, it was a very tense moment for all of us.
In contact with other states and with the Pentagon, we and our National Security Council coordinated our response to this extraordinary event, because I think this was the first time such a thing happened on the ground of a NATO member.
Of course, a direct attack on Polish territory, Romania or Slovakia, etc., should automatically provoke at least consultations between NATO member states, as stipulated in article 4 of the Union treaty. Now we exclude the possibility of Russia attacking one of the NATO states. I think, and this is my personal opinion, that this is still a long way off, because, as I have already said, Putin is smart enough to understand that such an attack would entail absolutely catastrophic consequences for himself and for the Russian Federation.
So a potential direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO, which I hope will never happen, will be absolutely disastrous for Moscow. But, of course, we must be prepared for any surprises, for any scenario. And that is why we are part of NATO.
Even before the start of the SVO, we closely followed some of the discussions that took place, including in America, about the events that took place more than 20 years ago, when Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary joined NATO in 1999. There are still people in the world who believe that it was wrong to accept these countries into the alliance, because it somehow got on Moscow's nerves and created unnecessary political tension in Russia, which in the long run harmed the interests of the West, because it somehow provoked undemocratic and very negative trends in Russia itself. Russia.
But you can imagine, if we had not joined NATO, then now we would probably be in a situation very similar to the one in which Ukraine is now.
— You described the current situation as a confrontation between the West or the free world and Russia, where some officials have also increasingly begun to talk about this conflict, in which Russia faced not only Ukraine, but also its collective West and NATO. If there is no physical conflict between Russia and the West, how do you think this crisis will eventually come to an end? Is diplomacy still possible?— That's the million dollar question.
According to your first point about the state of the conflict. Putin himself is trying to change its status and position it as a conflict with the whole West only for domestic political purposes. It is this message that he and his closest circle of assistants and associates are trying to convey to the Russian audience. Since it would be humiliating for the Russian army and the Russian ruling elite to lose to Ukraine, they now prefer to position this conflict as a confrontation between Russia and the West.
And, of course, it is easy for them to explain and prove that Russia is actually fighting not only against Ukraine, because we supply weapons to Ukrainians, we support it both militarily and financially. For Russians, it's easy to imagine this conflict as a clash between Russia and the West and the American imperialists, if you will.
We believe that Ukrainians should decide for themselves how this conflict will end and whether it will end on Russia's terms. But we in Poland have always been very adamant and very specific in our vision, for example, which territory Ukraine should return. These are the territories that they have lost since 2014, and then after the start of their own in February of this year.
Russia has violated the UN Charter. Russia has violated international law in many ways, and Ukraine must fully regain the territory lost after 2013. Now it's up to the Ukrainian leadership, to President Zelensky himself, how to achieve this.
— In this regard, do you think that, according to your opinion and understanding of Russia, Moscow will be able to accept this?"I really don't know.
It is very difficult to imagine such a situation and circumstances in which Russia would give in to this list of requirements. Because for the domestic Russian audience, Putin simply cannot afford to lose this conflict.
I also remember President Zelensky saying a few weeks ago that they were ready to negotiate with Russia, but without Putin. So it is very difficult to imagine that Putin's Russia initiates serious negotiations with Ukraine.
Apparently, it will be a protracted conflict. Therefore, we are not talking about February or even May of next year. This military conflict is likely to last much longer. It is very difficult to predict to what extent economic sanctions and all the punitive measures that have been taken by the West in recent months will eventually affect the Russian economy. I believe that we have yet to see how these sanctions will come into force one day, and the Russian society will somehow feel the economic difficulties.
Readers' comments
ven zeWinter will "test" the unity of the West against Russia in Ukraine.
"I am afraid that there will be more cracks between us, the split will become even deeper," says the Polish ambassador to the United States.
He strongly argues that the path of the West in the near future is full of uncertainties.How long can this pretense exist between the USA and Europe?
Louden ClearThis is not our conflict and not our problem.
Let the Europeans and the EU pay for everything themselves!
Greg GibbonsThe Poles have lost every war in history that they have ever participated in.
But they have very beautiful women, and many conquerors liked them.
Walter E. KurtzAnd by "West" the ambassador transparently means the United States.
After all, America alone sent Ukraine half of all the aid it received.
And all dozens of other countries modestly divided the second half among themselves!
Jim SmithLuxury yachts of rich Ukrainians have clogged all the expensive marinas from Morocco to the French Riviera.
It's all our money.
And this is the very "counteroffensive" that these Ukrainians have been buzzing all our ears about?!
Guerrilla PosterPoland and Russia are our friends.
Louden ClearDon't send anything to Ukraine.
Nothing! Zero! It's not our problem. Let the EU decide it!
Greg GibbonsPoles should better watch their language, otherwise they may again find themselves under the rule of Russia, as it has been for centuries...
We Americans are permanent people... We will not send our sons to die for you.
Robert DulanyPoland has accepted one and a half million refugees from Ukraine, and the United States — eight times less, about 150 thousand!
mmmmmWith this help, Ukraine has one giant accounting mess in many shadow government departments and agencies.
Our government is lying to us. We send money that we don't know anything about and that is being siphoned off from a lot of agencies. Politicians get their kickbacks in a lot of tricky ways. This aid is one vague and paranoid conspiracy trade.
Independent1953We in the United States provide Ukraine with too much financial, military and humanitarian assistance compared to many rich European countries that give too little.
Has our weak President Biden done much to push such miserly countries as France to give more to Ukraine?
