Our interview. Bogucki: We cannot reflect the decision to use the Polish army in the hands of Berlin, Paris and Brussels. This is a violation of our sovereignty

“This is a confrontation with the United States that nobody serves. In particular, the Poland does not serve ” – says in an interview with the Portal Wpolity .PL PIS MP ZBIGUCKI Resolution of the EP on the EU defense policy. The politician does not agree that the decisions regarding the command of the Polish forces and the Poolse Resting were made in Berlijn, the Poolish Resting,” The Poolitaire’s purchase. ” Coming threats has been completely overlooked for years, and today we have to trust France and Germany that they will behave better. I don’t think so! ” – says our conversation partner and emphasizes that we cannot agree to give a huge fragment of our sovereignty.

Wpolityce.pl: How do you read the PE resolution about the common defense policy of the EU?

Zbigniew Bogucki, PIS MP: At first glance it seems very attractive and the rulers try to trumpet success here. In the long term we see the serious weakness of NATO, because it builds up a parallel and competition structure to the Alliance.

EU countries seem to be more independent in defense problems. Isn’t that fantasy? Or maybe there is a specific company behind it?

Such actions are associated with something that can be called European Isolationism. Breaking transatlantic relationships in safety and pushing the US from Europe. This despite the security system that has been well active since the Second World War, based on the relations of Europe with the United States.

Does this mean that following a course confrontation policy to the US?

This is a confrontation with the United States that nobody serves. It does not serve Europe, it does not serve the eastern flanka -navo and it is not particularly served by Poland. So who will serve it in the long term? This answer is clear for Poland.

Will the EU -FEMANCE DEFENSE POLICIAL Increase the military potential of European countries?

On the one hand we have a statement, a resolution that speaks about this common defense policy, but on the other hand no fundamental solutions are introduced. When you enter into individual provisions, we see that there is no certainty and dedication, the Member States to wear sufficiently high defense costs. No record with regard to the required level of GDP for reinforcement. Poland will spend 4-5 percent GDP for the army and this process was initiated by the rule of law and justice. However, other EU countries still do not have to incur such costs. Not only that, they do not wear them alone, despite the obligations arising from NATO alliance. There are no provisions in the PE resolution that talk about such an obligation. Instead, we have a transfer of a decision center in the field of defense.

So about the common EU defense policy, including purchases for the Polish army, will be determined by the strongest in the Union? Like in many other cases.

This is extremely dangerous. As a converted country, we must spend specific defense measures because we know the scale of danger. At least this was during the PIS rule. Although we warned other EU countries for the coming threat. We were the first to launch large reinforcements for the reforms of the Polish army. Nobody wanted to listen to us then. Now we learn that defense decisions will be taken “together”. This is primarily about buying equipment, but already within the European Union. In short, Brussels dignitaries will decide on the Polish military means, Polish equipment. This is a problem that absolutely threatens our safety. This is in particular to break out a huge fragment of Polish sovereignty.

Joint decisions to buy military equipment within the EU means buying from Germans and French, not in the US and South Korea.

This is something else. Although this formula is presented as a very attractive, strengthening of the attractiveness and competitiveness of the European Community countries, it is fatal to us. What does this come down to? This means the consolidation of the European arms industry, but you must realize that this industry is located. When we look at who has the largest weapons companies, we see Germany and France. Our poor is absolutely smaller. Therefore, when we talk about such consolidation, this will be a process in which Polish weapons companies will be absorbed by foreign major concerns. In this way we will lose our arms industry, which cannot be allowed. It is even about securing the interests of the largest players from Germany and France on the European Wapenmarkt. If Poland does not find in this scenario, nobody will worry about it.

Why do we need our own weapons companies?

We not only have a practical dimension here, the pace of supplying weapons, but also political, independence of the army equipment. Let us not forget that if the trade union is serious about strengthening military potential, many years are at stake. The capacities of the European arms industry are not rapid reinforcement, rapid modernization of individual armies of the European Union countries. Creating a suitable ammunition source with which you cannot fight for two for a week, but for many months. Nowadays Europe does not have such potential. You have to look for him abroad, ie in the United States or in Korea.

The adopted PE -resolution strongly limits such options?

It is actually blocked because we are first looking for equipment in Europe and combining arms companies. Once they are connected, the possibility to buy equipment may be opened somewhere else. The question is true, when and whether it will be possible at all. In this situation nothing positive results out of this resolution. We have beautiful slogans and plates, such as the East Shield, which is actually a resolution gas valve to show that something is being done.

Or maybe these beautiful submissions are being realized now?

You can’t abstract from history. And this is not the one from 1939, or with regard to the decisions made in Yalta and during other conferences. Look closer to the last decades, when the Germans hurry up with Russia over our heads on Nord Stream. When the French, despite the embargo to Russia, provided military equipment of some bypass contracts. The Polish position was completely overlooked in these activities, and today we have to trust in France and Germany that they will behave better in a different geopolitical system. I don’t think so, they will always do what always and it can’t look that way. We cannot reflect decisions with regard to the use of Polish military equipment and the use of the Polish forces in the hands of Berlin, Paris and Brussels, because it is a clear break with the principle of sovereignty. This is another attempt to brutally circumvent the treaties and to introduce the kitchen door to a principle that the treaties do not follow, ie the departure of the principle of unanimity. The rules say: nothing about us without us. And yet, when it comes to the eastern flank of NATO, Poland, as the most important country, is one of the most important dedations.

However, the success of the “resolution” has been out of trouble.

They have wonderful political slogans that they can play on X and in the news of regular media, but all this de facto brings enormous danger to our country and can cause serious difficulties. Let me remind you that we say here, among other things, with an attempt to push the United States from Europe, has long been observed. Convincing that Europe will manage without the world’s largest army, without a guarantee, that it is the US Army and without the alliance of NATO. This is a fantasy.

National Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz of PSL, however, is happy.

This is the style of the currently prevailing policy, which loves slogans, meetings, knocking on the shoulder and turning on someone’s jackets, but not necessarily hard facts. During the piss rule, we, as experts in Western Europe and the United States have built, the strongest land of Europe. We were attacked at that time. Let me remind you that the act on the defense of the home country first met a solid opposition against the then. Only the outbreak of the war in Ukraine brought some sobering. This law was ultimately voted. If we are talking about vice -president of Kosiniak Kamysz, he was one of those such as the entire total opposition who did not want territorial defense groups. These are people who have not seen any threats. After that and on the left they did not want to build a dam on the border in a situation in which Putin and Lukashenko played their script written in the Kremlin.

Have they seen these threats now?

We live in a breakthrough. Every politician must look much further than in the perspective of the next elections. And I have the impression that they still only look at the tip of their own nose, perhaps possible at their feet. They are unable to lift their heads and look a little further, I no longer speak for the horizon, but look a fairly predictable future and draw conclusions of what happened earlier. Even the issue of building the Nord Stream Gas Pipeline and the delivery of French weapons for Russia. Then you can look brave and responsibly in the future. Nowadays this daring, responsible look is not. Instead, we have an attempt to dispute the regret of the liberal elites of Brussels, to keep the memory of their helplessness, infantilism and improsibilism in the light of Russian politics.

The war has been going on for more than 3 years. Since EU countries have not made a radical return so far to increase their defense possibilities, can such an action be expected now?

They did nothing during these three years. We in Poland have armed as much as possible. What did France or Germany do? What was the position of the total opposition at that time today? They acted unlike common sense. And today these people want to convince us that the filling of the United States from Europe, the commissioning of a Polish soldier and the throwing of Polish equipment that throws away someone in Brussels or Berlin is better than those Polish generals and the president of the Republic of Poland. I don’t agree with this!

Thank you for the interview.

Read the same:

– Where was voting in the EP? What about PO-PSL amendment? And how did Pis voted? “The document de facto touches NATO”

– will the EC exclude American capital from investments in reinforcement? There is a dispute in the EU for the use of loans. “You solve NATO unilaterally”