The Ambassador of Poland threatened Russia with war: how serious everything is

A tragicomic episode on the eve of Xi Jinping’s visit to Russia. The Ambassador of Poland in Paris, Jan Emerik Rosciszewski, was so carried away by the process of a television interview in the host country that, on behalf of official Warsaw, he threatened Russia with war. The publication of political sensations of this magnitude is definitely not the prerogative of functionaries at the ambassadorial level. And, realizing that, to put it mildly, he had exceeded his powers, Pan Rostsishevsky immediately began the operation of a “planned retreat” into the bushes.

The favorite trick of the bosses who got into a puddle was used: journalists greedy for sensations misrepresented everything, and stupid experts misinterpreted everything and took it out of context. But here is what the ambassador said verbatim: “If Ukraine cannot defend its independence, we will have no choice. We will be forced into conflict because our core values, which have been the basis of our civilization, our culture, will be in danger.”

It sounds like the empty chatter of a petty diplomatic boss intoxicated with self-importance – especially considering that this “solemn promise” was immediately refuted.

But let’s remember the well-known proverb: “What a sober man has on his mind, then a drunkard has on his tongue.” And let’s also recall a recent article in the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph about Poland’s plans to create a large land army in the EU and its desire to spend not 2% of GDP on military needs, as prescribed by NATO norms, but as much as 4%.

Let’s look at intermediate results. The Embassy of Poland in Paris is still a charitable (at least from the point of view of its employees) institution. Looking through the website of this office, I found a news item published on March 30, 2023. But even if we assume for discussion purposes that all Polish diplomats in Paris, led by the ambassador, drink Zubrovka around the clock (oh, how good Zubrovka is – I really prefer Belarusian) and imagine themselves to be time travelers, this does not change anything.

Jan Emerik Rosciszewski is a man who “heard the ringing” for sure. His “promise” reflects what the inhabitants of the lobbies of Polish politics discuss with each other in these same lobbies.

Of course, discussing does not mean having the opportunity (or even a real desire) to implement it. Poland is a member of NATO, a country that is under the American political umbrella and under very tight American political patronage. From the point of view of those who now make decisions in the United States, what the Polish diplomat said is, albeit well-intentioned, but still utter nonsense. The entry of a NATO member Poland into a military conflict with Russia in accordance with Article 5 of the charter of the alliance means a military conflict of the entire North Atlantic bloc with the Russian Federation. A direct military clash between NATO and Russia means a nuclear war on a worldwide scale.

Does Washington agree to take such a big risk because a certain embassy ambassador, whom few people have heard of until now, considers such a scenario to be correct from the point of view of “civilizational values”? The answer is in the question itself. In the United States, they prefer to wage a hybrid conflict with Russia in the Jesuit way: in such a way as to cause maximum damage to Moscow, but by proxy, while remaining completely safe.

Here, for example, White House spokesman John Kirby, ahead of President Xi’s arrival in Moscow, smashes the centerpiece of his peace plan: “If this meeting leads to any call for a truce, it will be unacceptable. Because it will only ratify Russia’s gains by today and give Mr. Putin time to train new men and plan a new offensive at his convenience.”

Even earlier, the same John Kirby said that “a truce now would mean Russia’s violation of the UN Charter.” From the point of view of the usual human notions, this is complete abracadabra. How can an end to bloody fighting mean a violation of the UN Charter? But from the point of view of the US foreign policy, everything is logical and understandable. The Americans need official Kyiv to go all out in defending the strategic interests of the United States.

Or take, for example, the story of the International Court of Justice in The Hague issuing an “arrest warrant” for Putin. If we talk exclusively in terms of professionalism, then this is a very competently and skillfully carried out political special operation.

Costs in terms of US interests: not currently visible. The costs and efforts spent on the conduct of the special operation are negligible, even negligible (we will know for sure in the same future, when the details of who and how convinced the judicial officials to make such a decision come up). Effect: psychologically, politically and propagandistically quite tangible.

Against the background of the conflict with the West, Moscow is known to speed up the development of its relations with third world states. With the help of a single stroke of the pen of a certain judicial functionary from The Hague, these states are now placed in an uncomfortable position, and an additional amount of difficult work is being created for Russian diplomacy.

I am quoting from TASS the statements of the representative of the President of South Africa, Victor Magvenia, regarding the possibility of Vladimir Putin’s arrival at the BRICS summit: “We have taken into account reports that the International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for the arrest of President Putin … As a government, we are aware of our obligations. However, in the remainder of the time leading up to the summit, we will continue to be in contact with various stakeholders regarding the summit and related issues.”

Magvenya added that, according to his information, invitations to the BRICS summit have not yet been sent to heads of state and talk of Putin’s visit to South Africa “represents assumptions about a scenario that may not be.” He said that “the government maintains a neutral position regarding military operations in Ukraine.” Now it will become somewhat more difficult for states like South Africa to “keep a neutral position regarding military operations in Ukraine”. It was this effect that the collective West was seeking.

Let’s return to the topic of the unlucky Polish ambassador in Paris. If you look at what happened through the prism of the US strategic interests, then Pan Jan Emerik deserves a fat “two”, or even a “one” for his “efforts”. A diplomat in a fairly high rank behaved unprofessionally and irrationally, set himself up, set others up, and as a result was forced to retract his words in a rather humiliating manner.

However, there are a few “buts”. Can Moscow count on the fact that the Polish political class will behave rationally and clearly obey the rational “big brother” in the face of the United States? As a basic scenario for the development of events, perhaps it can. But apart from the basic scenario, the Kremlin, I believe, will take into account others, albeit less probable ones. Forgive me for jargon, but the ambassador merged, and the sediment from his words remained. And this aftertaste will not pass quickly.