Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski compared outgoing President Andrzej Duda to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain after Duda suggested in a recent interview with Euronews that Ukraine compromise with Russia. For context, Trump had by then begun to speak more openly about Ukraine formally ceding Crimea, which he subsequently pushed with gusto in the days after. What’s so hypocritical about Sikorski’s criticism of Duda is that Sikorski suggested something similar last year.
He proposed that Crimea be placed under UN control for two decades before holding a second referendum on its final status while speaking at September’s Yalta European Strategy conference. After Ukraine predictably complained, Sikorski walked back his proposal by sheepishly claiming that he was engaged in “a hypothetical discussion off the record among experts at the conference in which we considered how to implement President Zelenskyy’s own proposals on how to regain Crimea.”
Sikorski therefore isn’t in any position to criticize Duda for suggesting that Ukraine compromise with Russia, and given what’s since unfolded with regard to Trump actively advocating for precisely that when it comes to Crimea, Sikorski’s comparison of Duda to Chamberlain on this basis also risks offending Trump. After all, Poland’s top diplomat is implying that any pressure upon Ukraine to compromise on Crimea equates to appeasing the new Hitler, with the hint that another World War will shortly follow.
To make matters worse, Sikorski once again criticized Duda a week later for not “us[ing] his friendship with President Trump to urge him to put pressure on Russia”, lamenting that “we are not seeing President Duda’s influence on President Trump.” Sikorski then added that Duda’s “good relations” with Trump should “bring some benefit to Poland’s geopolitical situation and Polish interests”, with the insinuation being that they haven’t yet done so.
It’s unrealistic to imagine the Polish President influencing the American one under any circumstances instead of the inverse state of affairs forever remaining the case. Any such attempt by Duda would have also offended Trump and risked prompting him to think about a punishment. Poland is already paranoid that the US might withdraw its forces from Central Europe or abandon NATO’s Article 5 so the last thing that it needs from the perspective of its interests is to provoke him into seriously considering this.
Sikorski’s most recent criticism of Duda is therefore misguided since it would have imperiled Polish interests as its ruling duopoly understands them to be had Duda attempted what Sikorski said. In fact, by moderating his hitherto diehard support of Ukraine’s maximum goals in the conflict to harmonize his stance with Trump’s, Duda brought benefit to Polish interests by averting a scenario where Trump might have been offended, prompted to think about punishment, and seriously considered dumping Poland.
All in all, far from shaming Duda, Sikorski’s two latest criticisms of Poland’s outgoing president only ended up bringing shame to himself. Regardless of however one might feel about Sikorski, he knew better than to do this, but he stooped to such a level as a tacit electioneering tactic ahead of the next presidential vote on 18 May. Sikorski wants his ruling liberal-globalist coalition’s candidate to beat Duda’s conservative choice so he thought that criticizing Duda would also harm the conservative candidate.
