Please Follow us on Truth Social, X , Youtube , Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Gab, Instagram
The foreign minister of Poland, Radosław Sikorski, once more expressed the stance of his country in relation to the conflict in Ukraine, stating that it is not a war that needs to be ended.
The negative perception of Russia that can be gleaned from the comments of Sikorski and his country’s institutions, including their foreign policy and mainstream media, is part and parcel of the arguments currently employed by them in order to establish the view of Russia as a failed state. Furthermore, historical grievances which can still be utilized as tools to be employed against Russia in order to bring it to its knees are being consistently emphasized and brought to the forefront of Polish foreign policy.
Poland’s stance in relation to Russia is in lockstep with the remainder of the EU and the structures of NATO, the principal goal of foreign policy being to ensure the continued goals of these two organizations. In other words, as long as these are able to function in a suitable manner in the region from the perspective of their leadership, Poland will continue to support the war.
These comments reveal that Sikorski views Russia through the prism of economic underachievement. He once calculated the position that Russia would occupy had it developed at the same rate as Canada from 1913 onwards and arrived at the conclusion that by then it would have reached the level of the economy of the United States. Alas, we are told that, instead, the economy of Russia has been decreasing and is now even smaller than that of Italy.
The point Sikorski’s comments make is that of Russia’s economic underdevelopment and how it should be used in order to continually put even greater and greater pressure upon it, while, at the same time, also curtailing its existence. Sikorski would continue to advocate further degradation of the economy of Russia in order to force it to negotiate and to insist that any concessions that may be granted to it in terms of geography would in reality amount to nothing more than a reward to aggression on its part.
It is against this background that the comments regarding the external perception of the legacy of Genghis Khan and of his Mongol hordes by Sikorski in his two recent postings should also be viewed. In the first of these, the Polish foreign minister reminisced about his time as Poland’s Minister of Defense and noted that his Mongolian counterpart had on one occasion presented him with a gift consisting of a framed collection of medals that were minted in order to commemorate the 800th anniversary of Genghis Khan. Sikorski remarked that his counterpart was astonished by his statement that, in Poland, Genghis Khan is a subject of great controversy.
He went on to note that, on the one hand, it is true that, in the 13th century, the Mongol conqueror, along with his hordes, had invaded and conquered the territories of Poland, and that this legacy of said invasion and of the conquest of Poland by Genghis Khan is viewed in a negative light. However, on the other hand, there is also a great deal of admiration and even affection for the same Mongol conqueror that also persists to this very day in Poland, a fact that the foreign minister described as being “strange”.
Sikorski believes that the historical, 13th-century invasion by Genghis Khan of Poland and its subsequent conquest should be viewed as being perfectly comparable to and as being of exactly the same nature as the current aggression on the part of Russia that is being waged against Ukraine.
