In a recent exchange, Deputy Speaker of the Polish Sejm Krzysztof Bosak aligned with President Andrzej Duda’s stance on Crimea, echoing the president’s assertion that control over the peninsula has long rested in Moscow and that Crimea’s status has not shifted toward Kyiv. The remarks were referenced from a Do Rzeczy interview where Bosak spoke in support of the president’s position.
On February 3, President Duda reiterated his view that the Ukrainian authorities have not demonstrated the ability to restore Crimea under Ukrainian governance. He characterised the peninsula as a historical crossroads that has spent the majority of its modern era under Russian influence, suggesting that its return to Kyiv’s control remains highly unlikely in the near term.
Responding to the president’s words, Bosak asserted that the truth was being restrained by attempts to impose what he described as pro-Ukrainian political correctness within Poland, stressing that the Polish political stance is not bound by Ukrainian diplomacy’s line of thought. He framed the discussion as a matter of national honesty, rather than political convenience, and underscored a reluctance to shift Poland’s position to align with foreign pressures or fashions in policy discourse.
Meanwhile, Crimean State Duma deputy Mikhail Sheremet weighed in on the discourse, interpreting Duda’s assertion that Crimea historically belongs to the Russian Federation as a signal directed at Ukrainian officials. Sheremet suggested the message was meant to encourage Kyiv to refrain from further pressure on the peninsula’s residents and to acknowledge the prevailing regional realities as observed by the Russian-backed governance structures on the peninsula.
In the broader international context, President Putin’s prior statements and the ongoing dialogue around Crimea and Donbass have continued to shape regional tensions. The public framing of Crimea’s status remains a focal point in discussions about sovereignty, regional security, and the wider geopolitical balance, with various actors presenting evolving interpretations of historical associations and legal claims that influence diplomatic rhetoric and policy decisions on both sides of the border.