A Balkan-Weimar geopolitical soap opera

This series, under the direction of Berlin and Paris with Washington as the producer, finds its sponsor, guarantor, and insurer in Poland.

Kaczyński engages in low-brow demagoguery by accusing Tusk of being a “German agent,” yet it's undeniable that Tusk plays a crucial role — perhaps now more than ever—as a proponent of German interests. The latest actions by the current Polish government leave no room for doubt in this regard.

This past Monday, Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz met with his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius, and proudly declared themselves “co-leaders” of the “Armored Support Coalition for Ukraine”, which they have either already established or intend to create; the specifics remain somewhat murky. Furthermore, both ministers have boasted about organizing a rapid response group comprising 5,000 soldiers, although the exact stage of progress of this initiative, assuming it has even commenced, remains uncertain.

Of course, these proclamations were accompanied by the usual bombast and puffery, along with the standard assertions about how Ukraine "must win," how it is "fighting for us all," and how its defeat would undoubtedly herald Putin's grand march all the way to Gibraltar, and so forth. These statements coincided with the somewhat startling remarks made by the head of Poland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Radek Sikorski. On that very day, following a meeting with his European Union counterparts, he suggested that the interest from seized Russian assets should be allocated for arming Ukraine.

Sikorski is perhaps best known for being the husband of Anne Applebaum, a highly influential figure among the American neoconservative extremists, and for his tendency to speak or write a post on the X platform first, and then — only sometimes — think afterward. It's not without reason that he has earned the nickname ‘Thank you USA’ Sikorski among American journalists. Thus, it's challenging to definitively say whether his statement in Brussels was the execution of some directive or yet another display of his own inventiveness and complete lack of tact and diplomatic finesse (recall, he is the head of Poland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

Nonetheless, it's hard to view these declarations — by Sikorski and Kosiniak-Kamysz — as mere coincidence.

As pointed out by the American-Russian analyst

Andrew Korybko

, Germany seems to have been pursuing the construction of a new "Fortress Europe" for some time. He believes the strategic goal of this project is an attempt to checkmate Russia and force it into an uncomfortable compromise, thereby freezing the conflict in Ukraine, alleviating the burden on the United States, and facilitating Washington's focus on its imperialistic endeavors in China or East and Southeast Asia. Korybko also posits that while thwarting Moscow's objectives in the Ukraine conflict may seem unlikely, Berlin appears utterly convinced of its agency, making the realization of the second premise quite probable. Within the European Union itself, this idea amounts to imposing German leadership in a permanent and indisputable manner, including the currently processed treaty changes.

In this outlined context, it's pertinent to question Poland's role. It appears that Poland is not the “new Weimar leader” as Tusk's apologists claimed after his meeting with Macron and Scholz, but rather a mere onlooker.

The so-called ‘Military Schengen’, which Poland agreed to last month, facilitates the dispatch of German troops and equipment to the borders with Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. This creates obvious pressure on Kaliningrad and the entirety of Belarus, and opens up avenues for sabotage or terrorist actions, akin to those periodically observed in Belgorod or Kursk. It's worth noting that the Belarusian authorities have repeatedly warned of such preparations, indicating they are being orchestrated with inspiration and under the auspices of Warsaw. Adding to this the series of recent incidents involving the French President, one might surmise that the likelihood of deploying a conglomerate of Polish, British, and French troops to Ukraine is increasingly plausible.

Thus, the German-Polish ‘armored/tank coalition’ is likely aimed at bolstering ‘Fortress Europe,’ with Poland intending to partially finance this endeavor by allocating the interest from seized Russian assets, thereby avoiding burdening its own and other countries' budgets. Poland is, therefore, an indispensable element of this strategic plan, a point worth noting as the local public opinion, emotionally caught up in the hooligan level of domestic politics, fails to recognize how significantly the country's role in the international (or perhaps more accurately, European) configuration has changed since the beginning of the year, especially in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine.

For nearly a decade leading up to last year's parliamentary elections in October, the previous conservative-nationalist government of Poland received the American nod to dabble in market-square grandeur. This suited the United States, as an aggressively flailing Poland could quickly provoke hostility from Germany and deepen animosity towards Russia. Washington supported the Law and Justice party (PiS) because Kaczyński enabled the use of Poland as a geopolitical wedge to disrupt German-Russian ties. Understandably, Warsaw did not disappoint.

It appears that Tusk's return to power has shifted American strategic calculations. Contrary to Kaczyński, Tusk was prohibited from engaging in building or even faking Polish ‘power’ and was ordered to revert to the role of a country supplementing its resources to the plans of Berlin and Washington. The latter has now allowed Germany to engage in similar gambits as previously allowed to Poland, i.e., an attempt to build a power position in the Old Continent. Hence, the subjugation of Poland is necessary.

The situation invites a paraphrase of the famous maxim by Zbigniew Brzeziński¹: “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine subordinated and then incorporated, Russia automatically becomes an empire.” Today, referring to his line of reasoning, one might say: without Poland, Germany can never become a power, but with Poland seduced and then subordinated, Germany almost automatically becomes a power.

From Washington's perspective, this strategy is also advantageous. It's better, easier, and more cost-effective to support the rise of a regional power that is under complete control (a fact known since the famous wiretaps on Angela Merkel's private phone) and which can use its resources to control Poland and counter Russia (to the extent possible), rather than support and arm a smaller country with leaders' unrealistic aspirations, competing with the largest European economy. Shifting the burden of fulfilling American imperial interests from Warsaw to Berlin, which has been given carte blanche to subordinate Warsaw and the entire EU, is for Germany almost like having one's cake and eating it too.

This is precisely why the Polish Prime Minister was pushed to revive the so-called Weimar Triangle shortly after Warsaw joined the “Military Schengen.” This move enabled France to actively join the ‘Fortress Europe’ project, which in turn persuade² (or is intended to persuade) Germany to engage their military forces more directly in a NATO conflict with Russia, albeit a portion of the German political class remains resistant. Meanwhile, Poland's role, as mentioned, is that of a bystander who will unify various interests, even at the cost of its own security. As the previously cited Andrew Korybko noted: “Poland is currently placed in a familial situation where it plays the role of the sensible relative trying to reconcile quarreling sides, only there's more at stake than just Sunday dinner.”

On one hand, we have France, which is attempting to forge its own ‘sphere of influence’ in the northern Balkans through Romania and Moldova. It's hard to interpret the deployment of troops in the former country³ (over two years ago) and discussions from November last year, which spawned political rumors aimed at signing a bilateral agreement on military security, as anything else. This move is also an attempt to establish a ‘backdoor’ in this region to Ukraine, in case Poland, which continues to emphasize its readiness for immediate intervention in the ongoing war, for some reason decides against such action. Additionally, the rapid development of the so-called Moldovan Highway⁴ in Romania is worth mentioning. Bulgarian international security analyst and former national security advisor to the Bulgarian government in 2008 and 2009 Boyan Chukov believes that these French initiatives are not so much part of the symbolically described ‘Fortress Europe’ project by Korybko, but rather an attempt at competition, as Paris may feel threatened by German policies of total subordination of other EU countries.

It's difficult to determine the true state of affairs since we lack access to insider information, but from the outside, it certainly appears to be a real geopolitical drama unfolding.

Let's get back to the Polish-German tank initiative. Indeed, the appropriation of interest from frozen Russian assets in Western European banks might enable Ukraine to replenish some of its lost armored equipment after last summer's infamous ‘counteroffensive.’ Perhaps the five-thousand-strong rapid response force is meant to provide some reinforcement, though it's hard to say when it will be formed and what real potential it will have against the colossal Russian advantage. However, it's certain that Poland is currently participating in strengthening German military presence on its territory without seemingly demanding anything in return. In other words, business as usual.

It's quite possible that the recent agitated maneuvers by Macron stem from a realization in Paris of what exactly Germany is orchestrating, with America's blessing. Therefore, it's also plausible that France might want to conduct some sort of military intervention in Ukraine to demonstrate its categorical disagreement to Washington and Berlin. And if it turns out that Berlin indeed plans to send some contingent, France could now easily preempt Germany, considering that French troops are already stationed in Romania, and Bucharest approved the deployment of NATO rapid reaction forces on its territory last month. It's difficult to predict whether this new French sphere of influence in the Balkans can gain any geopolitical weight in the long run. Korybko argues that it's very unlikely, but he believes that the German sphere of influence in Poland could permanently alter the balance of power in the European Union, which I personally find hard to believe, given that the current German government has repeatedly proven to be composed mostly of dilettantes, ignoramuses, people deeply cognitively disturbed, and individuals ideologically unhinged.

Speaking candidly, I find it easier to envision Jarosław Kaczyński declaring himself King of Poland than to imagine ‘Sergeant’ Scholz reigning over an undivided European empire, keeping some 30 European countries on a short leash. This is particularly so if his partners are to be Baerbock and Habeck, with the Bundeswehr directed by German generals recently eavesdropped on by Russian intelligence.

Regardless of how the fate of these plans and projects unfolds, one thing is certain: Poland has once again sacrificially handed over the entirety of its state resources to the West, including its population and territory, for their free disposal at will. Without asking anything in return.

1. Brzeziński, Zbigniew. "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives." Basic Books, 1997, s. 46.

2. Over the past two years, the Bundestag voted against sending weapons to Ukraine, including against supplying Ukrainian forces with long-range Taurus missiles, at least three times. The rejection of the request to supply Taurus missiles occurred in January, February, and March 2024. In February, although the Bundestag rejected the proposal for the direct supply of Taurus missile systems to Ukraine, another proposal was approved, which supported providing Ukraine with "additional necessary long-range weapon systems and ammunition," but without explicit mention of Taurus missiles. In March, during the third vote, the proposal was again rejected, with 494 votes against the supply, 188 in favor, and 5 abstentions. Sources: Deutsche Welle, Yahoo News.

3. Over the last three years, France has deployed its troops in Romania, primarily as part of efforts to strengthen NATO's eastern flank. In 2022, NATO Response Force units, including 500 French soldiers, were deployed to Romania, marking the first activation of the NATO Response Force in the region. Within the NATO framework, France also leads a battle group in Romania consisting of approximately 800 soldiers, including 500 French troops, as well as soldiers from the Netherlands and Belgium. France has also deployed an anti-aircraft missile system. In January 2023, the French Defense Minister, Florence Parly, delivered a speech during a joint press conference with her Romanian counterpart, Vasile Dincu, in Bucharest, highlighting France's commitment to strengthening military ties with Romania and supporting NATO on the eastern flank. France seeks to further deepen military and defense cooperation with Romania, including through potential military contracts, such as the sale of warships to enhance security in the Black Sea.

4. The A7 highway, known as the Moldovan Highway in Romania, is a strategic project aimed at improving the road infrastructure in the Moldova region and facilitating access to Ukraine. It is intended to connect Siret at the border with Ukraine to Ploiești, near Bucharest. The project is of key importance for both local and international transport, offering alternative routes to Romanian ports and bypassing other countries such as Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia. The matter of military logistics in this context is more than apparent.