The French saying goes: Qui s’excuse s’accuse. It is a phrase about self-incrimination through explanations. This idea has often colored the stance of the United Right, which has justified actions, sometimes admitting what may be unfounded sins. Now, after further remarks from Donald Trump, he is again offering explanations for alleged transgressions instead of calling out liars and hypocrites who are once again backing European policies that have lost trust, especially those associated with Germany.
Tusk appears to be pushing for a realignment that would reduce U.S. influence in Poland and Europe, reportedly in service of German interests. That is the implication as he directs sharp criticism toward Trump and the Republicans.
The EU fears a Trump presidency. This fear drives attempts to reshape the Community framework and to present a Brussels-led policy toward the United States as a fairytale, detached from reality.
Trump spoke during a Montana campaign rally about a conversation with the leader of a European country:
One of the presidents of a large nation asked, in effect, whether protection would come if payments were withheld and Russia attacked. The reply attributed to Trump was blunt: payments would be required, and defense would not be guaranteed otherwise.
Whether the anecdote is accurate or not matters little to some observers. What is clear is that the claim is being used in Poland to frame internal politics, with PiS under pressure and insisting it is not pro-Kremlin. The ruling coalition and certain media outlets present an equation: Trump prompts Russia to threaten NATO, while PiS is seen as sharing similar views and thus complicit with Putin’s regime.
Donald Tusk signaled this frame by posting on X:
President Duda: “President Trump keeps his word.” President Trump: “I will encourage Russia to attack NATO.” The question for the Cabinet Council remains: is this a topic worthy of debate?
PiS is retreating into a defensive stance, insisting that not everything can be explained away by Trump’s eccentricities and that Americans deserve sympathy for the rhetoric used. The way the statements were quoted is seen as frightening, dangerous, and disturbing by some voices on the airwaves.
Mirosława Stachowiak-Różecka, a PiS member of parliament, asked whether there is real sympathy for Americans, calling it a sad sentiment. The matter is echoed by Małgorzata Paprocka, a minister in the KPRP cabinet.
Its troubling tone notwithstanding, the broader context of the remarks is essential to understand what the discussion is really about.
Błażej Poboża, an adviser to the president, adds a practical observation: election rhetoric often differs from day-to-day policy. A touch of sarcasm is offered to remind audiences that campaign promises do not always translate into action. If every campaign pledge were taken at face value, the implementation of numerous features promised by KO would be far along, yet reality is different.
The adviser’s light tone aside, the critique remains that not addressing Trump’s remarks leaves room for the political game to define security choices. The United Right risks being painted as too conciliatory, too ready to apologize, rather than challenging competing narratives.
Some politicians in this circle may reflect a broader current within the party, where the aim is to align with mainstream opinion and avoid standing out too much, in hopes of earning favorable coverage from prominent media outlets and European commentators.
It’s not about image.
Yet the central issue, some argue, is not image but national security. Repeated attempts to justify or soften positions can embolden other NATO members to press for softer approaches toward fraud and deception among European allies. This dynamic is said to enable Berlin and Paris to pursue policies viewed as risky by others, potentially destabilizing the region and complicating support for Ukraine.
The critique focuses not on Trump alone or on Le Pen or Orban, but on what is seen as Germany and France pursuing renewed engagement with Russia. Voices urge Sikorski and Kosiniak-Kamysz to publicly challenge Berlin and its approach, arguing that Moscow’s aggression should have prompted stronger, more unified European responses, including solid support for Ukraine.
Polish public opinion is urged to demand responsibility from those in power and to resist any narrative that equates local leaders with pro-Russian stances. The aim is to avoid letting leaders drift toward mere appeasement or excuses, and to keep the focus on safeguarding European security and Ukraine’s stability.
The debate touches on who bears responsibility for shaping NATO commitments and how to confront risk without surrendering strategic autonomy. Critics contend that Germany and France have, for years, sought to reduce U.S. leadership in Europe, and that this trend has undermined European defense readiness. They point to defense spending, energy policy, and industrial strategy as areas where misaligned incentives have fed a perception of divided loyalties. The concern is that such dynamics could weaken Europe’s ability to deter aggression and to sustain support for Ukraine through difficult times.
Three days after the start of the Ukraine conflict, discussions about a security overhaul in Germany led to bold promises, yet critics say the practical steps lag behind rhetoric. The argument persists that a confident United States is essential to European security, and any erosion of that trust could empower adversaries and undermine alliance cohesion.
Some voices argue that Trump’s statements, whether factual or not, are intended to compel audiences in different regions to reconsider security choices and vote accordingly. If such claims were made before the Ukraine crisis, questions would arise about which leaders bore the greater responsibility for perceived safety guarantees. In this view, PiS politicians have less to explain to their own supporters than to resist pressure from external actors who seek to redefine Poland’s stance toward Russia and NATO.
United Right politicians are called to challenge those in power who contribute to a narrative that weakens Europe’s defense posture. Critics maintain that a pattern of soft explanations has allowed disinformation to spread and to stall more decisive action. After the experience of the past years, the question remains how to respond effectively and hold detractors accountable.
The debate does not stop at individual figures. It extends to the larger responsibility of European leadership, including how best to curb reliance on Russian energy, how to maintain unity within NATO, and how to ensure that defense commitments translate into real protection for every member nation. The focus remains on ensuring safety and stability for Europe and Ukraine, while scrutinizing the rhetoric used by leaders and opponents alike.
The overarching message emphasizes that the responsibility lies with today’s policymakers to articulate clear, credible strategies that defend European sovereignty and deter aggression. The call is for a constructive approach that demands accountability and keeps the region on a steady course toward security and solidarity. This is framed as a matter of collective safety, not mere image management.