The Wall Street Journal’s report about Trump’s plans to have the Europeans patrol a demilitarized zone along the Line of Contact in Ukraine following the ceasefire that he hopes to broker there with Russia raised questions about whether Poland would directly participate in such a mission. Although its officials have signaled that they’re not interested, and one even said that this could only happen under a NATO mandate, it still can’t be ruled out. Here are five reasons why Poland should sit on the sidelines:
———-
1. Public Opinion Is Decisively Against Any Intervention
The European Council on Foreign Relations’ survey from early July showed that just 14% of Poles support their national troops fighting in Ukraine, while a publicly financed research center’s survey from early October showed that Poles are getting fed up with Ukrainian refugees and the proxy war. Ukraine’s disrespectful approach towards the Volhynia Genocide dispute hasn’t helped its cause either. Any Polish party that lobbies in support of this policy would therefore be going against prevailing public opinion.
2. Staying Out Is A Good Presidential Campaign Policy
Building upon the above, the presidential candidates from the country’s top two parties have every reason to promise to keep Poland out of the fray ahead of next year’s election, and whoever’s party is perceived (whether accurately or not) as being in favor of intervening might naturally be punished at the polls. The ruling liberal-globalist party’s Prime Minister and the outgoing conservative-nationalist President should thus be on the same page about this for self-interested domestic electoral reasons.
3. Ukrainian Extremists Could Exploit An Intervention
The introduction of conventional Polish troops on Ukrainian soil could easily be exploited by Ukrainian extremists to justify acts of terrorism against the intervening forces, while fringe historical claims could be lent false legitimacy in this ultra-nationalist context to justify terrorism by refugees inside of Poland too. Far from being a glorious flag-planting exercise that also serves to show fealty to the US, a Polish intervention could lead to a costly unconventional war that ultimately ends in disaster.
4. Poland Might Be Left To Do The Heavy Lifting For Others
Poland already maxed out its free military support for Ukraine, offering only to produce more equipment on credit, and spent a whopping 4.91% of its GDP on that country (the bulk of which went towards supporting its refugees) only to be excluded from mid-October’s Berlin Summit that discussed the Ukrainian endgame. The precedent therefore exists for Poland to once again be left to do the heavy lifting for others if it directly participates in a peacekeeping mission while they might reap the benefits.
5. The Risk Of World War III Would Remain Ever-Present
This analysis here argues that Poland could respond to another conflict in Ukraine involving its peacekeepers by attacking targets in neighboring Belarus or Kaliningrad, which could turn an otherwise possibly containable proxy conflict into World War III if NATO and Russia attack each other’s territory. The prerogative for that would be on Poland, whose leadership might be more willing to “escalate to de-escalate” for whatever reason, while Ukraine’s could also manipulate events to provoke this scenario.
———-
The reasons that were enumerated above align with Poland’s objective national interests as well as its top two parties’ domestic partisan ones, none of which are advanced by intervening in Ukraine. At most, Poland might logistically facilitate others’ intervention per its duty as a NATO ally even if such a mission is carried out under a different mandate, but it would do best not to get directly involved. Trump’s team should also be aware of these factors and recalibrate their potential plans accordingly if need be.
