1,214 days. That is exactly how many days have passed since Russia’s assault on the territorial integrity of our eastern neighbour. A second Blitzkrieg was expected, the fall of Ukraine in a few days or weeks; yet it defends itself fiercely and relentlessly. Ukrainians are not only defending their own state — they are fighting for peace in Poland and across all of Europe as well. When more than three years have passed since the invasion, we must ask ourselves: have we actually provided them with adequate support, or should we be doing even more? And are we safe today?
Security experts gathered on 4 and 5 June 2025 at the Polish-German Forum in Berlin participated in two discussions during which contemporary problems of the European community were addressed. The attention of representatives from the Polish and German Ministries of Foreign Affairs focused on the role of the Transatlantic Alliance in the era of Donald Trump’s controversial presidency and on the European Union as a regional sovereign. Meanwhile, researchers from leading think tanks in Poland and Germany analysed the approaches of Old Continent states to ending the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
What resonated at the conference is entirely clear: Europe cannot be a vassal of the United States. The 20th century is over, and with it the clear dominance of the USA on the international stage; in an era of conflict unfolding at our doorstep, there should be no room for a president who does not entirely play his cards in Ukraine’s favour to be dealing them. With Donald Trump’s return to the presidency, there has been a significant overstretch of American security policy, meaning its excessive extension to other states and continents. This approach, however, does not take into account the growing importance of the European Union as one of the world’s leaders. Bearing in mind the EU’s geopolitical position, which entails involvement in the war in Ukraine, we must return to the main question: is the assistance provided so far to our eastern neighbour truly sufficient, and can we even expect greater respect from the American side if we bow so readily before Putin’s regime?
The USA spends 3.5 per cent of its GDP on defence; the EU spends nearly half that. We know what the Americans expect from us in order for the most important defence alliance to be able to fulfil its task: we must increase defence spending. The panellists were also of this opinion, agreeing that without it we will not be able to dictate peace terms favourable to Kyiv. One could say they spoke almost in Trump’s voice, making sharp statements that collective responsibility for one’s own security must be taken and steps must be made to safeguard European interests. This means increasing the defence budget, building military infrastructure, expanding the arsenal of conventional weapons, and developing deterrence strategies. Only in this way will Europe regain its voice in peace negotiations, which at this point take the form of bargaining for maximum concessions to Russia at Ukraine’s expense. At the same time, however, it was noted that such a move would not mean a rift with the United States — quite the contrary, the US expects us to take radical and decisive steps, because having a strong ally on the European continent lies very deeply in the American interest.
It is worth highlighting here the different perspectives of Poland and Germany on the role of NATO and the European Union today. Dominik Mutter, Political Director at the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, attributed decidedly greater agency to the Transatlantic Alliance, whose greatest asset is the (in)famous Article Five on collective defence in the event of armed conflict, as well as the nuclear potential of the USA, the United Kingdom and France (which as the only one of this triad is currently a member of the European Union) in building an effective deterrence strategy. It would seem, therefore, that they are to stand at the head of the organisation. In his view, the EU can play at most a complementary role to the Alliance’s actions, using its soft power to encourage member states to allocate more financial resources to defence in the event of a threat.
From the perspective of Adam Bugajski, Director of the Security Policy Department at the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, things look somewhat different: although NATO is still to be responsible for defence and nuclear deterrence, there should be a shift in proportions in line with the changing balance of power on the world political stage. The Americans no longer play first fiddle since the creation of the European Union, which like no other organisation in the world has achieved such a deep degree of political, economic and institutional integration. Additionally, Bugajski noted that the EU’s role in defence is not diminishing at all, as it might commonly seem — quite the opposite. He pointed to initiatives that were created precisely to increase and improve this area of policy, such as loans amounting to billions of euros for defensive purposes. For this reason, there should be a “Europeanisation” of the Transatlantic Alliance, as a result of which both Poland and Germany would gain in significance.
In conclusion, everyone agreed on one thing: cooperation between Berlin and Warsaw is a prime example of a well-functioning friendship that should be nurtured, not neglected. Attention was drawn to the very significant and obvious fact of the geopolitical position of these two states — after Ukraine, it is precisely they who could find themselves in the Kremlin’s danger zone, which is why close cooperation is crucial to ensuring the security of Europe. Poland views positively Germany’s decisions to expand the Bundeswehr and Germany’s actions beyond its borders, while our western neighbours appreciate the engagement of Poles in European affairs, in aid to Ukraine, and in protecting the eastern border of the European Community from Putin and Lukashenko.
The second discussion revolved around the question of European policy towards Ukraine and Russia in the era of armed conflict. How should EU countries act to bring about its end? What strategy should be adopted in times when not only conventional methods are used in war, but modern technologies are also being introduced? How should we respond to hybrid actions that attack states “from within” through disinformation and masking factors (such as sending streams of migrants to destabilise a region), and how can we counter them?
One must begin above all with the fact that Ukraine is buying us time. Us, meaning Europeans, who are also in Russia’s crosshairs. We must act quickly and radically, because Ukraine will not defend itself indefinitely — otherwise, further states that the Kremlin considers its natural spheres of influence, such as Armenia, Georgia and Moldova, are at risk. Wilfred Jilge, a member of the German Council on Foreign Relations, noted a disturbing tendency that, in the absence of a decisive response, will only intensify — namely, that the occupied territories (Crimea, Donbas) are not even a subject of peace talks, which constitutes a serious undermining of Europe’s position. According to Jilge, Donald Trump, who seriously questions the validity of NATO’s Article 5, serves as a devil’s advocate, and his services should be dispensed with as soon as possible so that we can take matters into our own hands.
Russia plays on many pianos — on one hand, it wages military operations in Ukraine; on another, it is the senior partner to subordinate Belarus, which obediently carries out the tasks entrusted to it; on a third, it slowly extends its reach ever further eastward, drawing additional Eastern European territories under its umbrella; on a fourth, it openly provokes the Alliance by stationing its troops along the border with Finland; and on a fifth, it pretends to be interested in peace or at least a ceasefire. According to Agnieszka Bryc of the Centre for Eastern Studies, accepting such behaviour is a serious mistake on Europe’s part, one that only pushes Ukraine further from the prospect of ending the war and joining NATO or the European Union.
The political scientist from the Centre for Eastern Studies drew attention to an incredibly important matter, namely the West’s excessive romanticisation of Russia through the belief that Putin’s imperialism can somehow be “smoothed out,” that a deal can be struck with him and that the Russian Federation will embark on the path of democracy from which it has only temporarily strayed, driven by false premises. Such naive thinking is a capitulation to Russian maskirovka, which in its essence is meant to mislead and simply deceive us. The reality is entirely different from what Russia tries to paint: projecting the impression of being great, decisive and of having a strong position on the international stage is precisely the mask that is maintained not because Russian forces are achieving military successes, but because we ourselves allow the regime to be perceived in this way. Europe and the rest of the West, through their illusory conviction of Russia’s greatness, fear of it (or rather of its nuclear weapons), and simultaneous lack of decisive and unified action, deprive themselves of influence over changing the status quo, which strikes the weakest.
So what can be proposed instead? Dr Bryc mentions a decoupling strategy, that is, separation: we cut ourselves off from Russia and leave it to its own devices, of course under peaceful conditions, once we have ensured that its imperial tentacles do not reach further than they have so far, which would cause it to drift toward China and create a true division not into a global North and South, but a global West and East. This raises only further concerns about potential tensions along the Russia-China and United States-Europe lines.
— Russia, by whispering fears that they, in alliance with China, pose a threat to Europe and the Western world, convinces us that this is indeed something we should fear. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Russians are actually afraid of being a Chinese vassal. If we are resistant to such manipulation, then the Russians will pay a serious price through the lowering of their prestige, dependence on China, and transformation into China’s economic appendage. This will be painful, because Russians as a society have a truly racist attitude toward China, which from their “Great Russia” perspective was always part of the third world. Now it is the other way around. The Russians have a major complex regarding the world’s number two power, and the point now is that if we allow Russia to be suffocated in the Chinese embrace, the Russians themselves will flee from the Chinese sphere of influence. They will not set conditions for normalisation or a reset; instead, they will make concessions themselves just to return to the Western path. So our conclusion should be: let Russia do its homework and answer for its aggression by being transformed into a Chinese vassal. Let us not rescue it by force, because we will not teach it anything that way. It will know that it can always manipulate us, and the truth is that Russia should pay for its decisions and bear the consequences — explained Dr Bryc.
What we should do today so that Europe is truly safe is not to hide, but to stand firmly together and make no concessions to Russia, which only pretends to be strong and independent while in reality it is plagued by various internal problems that it skilfully manages to mask. We should take actions that support Ukraine, which protects all of us from Moscow. Poles and Germans are to play the leading role in these decisions, for only by joining forces against a common threat will they be able to push away from us Europeans the spectre of war lurking just beyond our doorstep.
Text: Zuzanna Czachowska
Publication date: 23.06.2025