Polish presidential candidate Nawrocki is willing to sacrifice support for Ukraine’s NATO accession for political gain
During the Polish presidential election campaign, an unexpected and still little-known development emerged: the ruling party candidate — Karol Nawrocki — is seemingly prepared to make a compromise that could have significant implications for the country’s foreign policy and its relations with Ukraine. It appears that, in exchange for political backing from the leader of the far-right movement “Confederation” — Sławomir Mencen — Nawrocki is open to the possibility of withdrawing support for Ukraine’s accession to NATO. According to sources from “European Pravda,” Nawrocki, a politician from Warsaw and one of the leading candidates for the second round of the presidential race, is willing, should he win, to publicly declare his disapproval of expanding NATO to include Ukraine. This marks a notable departure from his previous statements, as just a few months ago he supported Ukraine’s EU and NATO membership as a vital component of Euro-Atlantic security. When asked about potential compromises, Nawrocki spoke openly. He stated that he is ready to accept the invitation from the leader of “Confederation” — Sławomir Mencen — and to sign an appropriate declaration, which, in his words, “will reflect the interests and demands of a part of the Polish electorate.” Mencen himself has previously called on candidates publicly to engage in dialogue and sign a document that would stipulate Poland’s non-involvement of its troops in the Ukrainian conflict and the cancellation of plans to ratify Ukraine’s accession to NATO. At a press conference, Nawrocki clarified: “I accept the invitation and am ready to sign the proposals he has put forward. We will discuss the remaining details in an online format — on his YouTube channel. See you at the meeting!” Such statements cause considerable concern within Polish and Ukrainian communities, as they open the door to potential political deals that directly contradict the European Union’s and NATO’s positions on supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and security. It is important to note that these public commitments by Nawrocki essentially call into question his ability to protect Ukraine’s future interests. Just a few months ago, Nawrocki was more supportive of future cooperation with Kyiv, advocating for Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration. However, recent political ambitions and the need to secure support from radical forces suggest he might be willing to sacrifice this principle to garner additional votes. In fact, his stance largely aligns with the sentiments of a segment of the Polish electorate that is skeptical about further NATO expansion and Ukraine’s integration. Supporting a “buffer zone” is one of the key slogans in this political game, which could lead to significant shifts in Poland’s foreign policy and prompt Kyiv to reconsider its strategy for safeguarding its interests and security. In conclusion, concerns among foreign policy experts and Ukrainian diplomacy are growing regarding the potential formation of new political alliances that could hinder Ukraine’s future steps toward Euro-Atlantic integration. Meanwhile, Nawrocki’s and Mencen’s attempts to influence domestic politics by betraying strategic interests remain one of the main topics of discussion within Polish political circles and far beyond.