A historical realist view on Poland's neutrality

Recently, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba (pictured) made a statement at a Polish school about Operation Vistula, aiming to address Polish concerns over the Volhynia massacre. Instead, his remarks intensified anger among the Polish public. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk sharply criticized Kuleba's comments, stating that without addressing historical grievances, Ukraine would not meet Poland's standards for EU membership. Tusk emphasized: “We need to settle this history if we want to build a common future,” writes ANBOUND founder Kung Chan.

Kuleba’s comments reopened old wounds in Polish-Ukrainian relations. The historical discord between Poland and Ukraine is deeply rooted. This complex relationship reflects broader geopolitical dynamics. Landlocked and semi-landlocked nations, which have limited access to the sea, often become contested areas. Unlike maritime countries that typically face threats from fewer directions, these nations are vulnerable to risks from multiple fronts and are often caught in the rivalries of major powers. This is true not only for Poland but also for countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Such countries frequently become battlegrounds in major power struggles, which can escalate into larger conflicts. Poland’s experience during World War II, beginning with its invasion, illustrates this phenomenon. These geopolitical struggles can lead to devastating wars and conflicts that have long-lasting effects.

Realism as a strategic theory, and especially John Mearsheimer’s offensive realism, is fundamentally flawed. This perspective, which advocates aggressive strategies and the pursuit of strategic buffers, often leads to global instability. Major powers’ attempts to establish buffers and expand their influence can precipitate conflicts. Poland’s occupation during World War II and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, driven by Russia's quest for strategic buffers, highlight this dynamic.

Historical realism suggests that Poland's future peace in Europe hinges on its choice of neutrality versus militarization. To break the cycle of conflict, Poland could embrace neutrality, positioning itself as a strong yet non-aggressive buffer in Europe. This approach could mitigate the risk of further wars and contribute to European stability.

Europe has long been a battleground of civilization and warfare, and the pursuit of lasting peace remains uncertain. To address this, Poland could adopt a neutral stance similar to Switzerland, becoming a significant yet neutral force in Western Europe. Despite its current NATO and EU membership, these affiliations might be seen as diplomatic formalities rather than solutions to deeper issues. By pursuing a strategy of neutrality while maintaining a robust military presence, Poland could help resolve historical grievances and contribute to regional stability. Ukraine might also consider the potential benefits of neutrality in its future strategic planning.

Share this article: