'Poland, once the spearhead of NATO and EU enlargement, could become the country that closes the door to new members'
Exactly 36 years ago, Poland set in motion a revolutionary European cycle of enlargement and freedom. On June 4, 1989, Polish voters went to the polls with, for the first time in the Soviet bloc, a choice between the ruling Communist Party and defenders of Western liberal democracy united under the Solidarnosc (Solidarity) banner. The triumph of Polish democrats in that election shook the entire bloc. Six months later, the Berlin Wall fell. Eighteen months later, the Soviet Union collapsed.
Will Poland be the country that, paradoxically, closes that cycle? The victory on Sunday, June 1, of the nationalist conservative candidate Karol Nawrocki in the presidential election, with the backing of the far right, over centrist Rafal Trzaskowski, legitimately raises that question.
The result itself may seem insignificant: Nawrocki won by only a slim majority (50.89%) and, under Polish institutions, it is the prime minister who governs, in this case the highly experienced Donald Tusk. In theory, the center-right government retains power in Warsaw. But the president has the power to block legislation, thanks to a veto right over laws passed by parliament and certain appointments made by the government.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LeMonde
2 hours ago
- LeMonde
Russia launches major strikes in retaliation against Ukraine, Kharkiv hit by 'most powerful attack' since start of war
Russia unleashed a barrage of missiles, drones and bombs across Ukraine early Saturday, June 7, killing at least five people as it retaliated for a brazen attack by Kyiv on air bases days earlier. The Kremlin has accelerated its attacks on Ukraine in recent weeks, as direct negotiations have failed to broker an end to the three-year war or even a temporary truce. Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiga called for Kyiv's western allies to punish Russia for refusing to halt its invasion. "To put an end to Russia's killing and destruction, more pressure on Moscow is required, as are more steps to strengthen Ukraine," he said on social media. Tens of thousands have been killed since Moscow invaded in February 2022, triggering Europe's largest conflict since World War II, destroying cities and villages across eastern Ukraine and forcing millions to flee their homes. The attacks come ahead of an expected prisoner swap, set to take place this weekend – the only concrete agreement to come out of peace talks between the two sides. The Ukrainian air force said Russia had fired 206 drones and nine missiles in the overnight barrage. Ukraine's second largest city of Kharkiv came under "the most powerful attack since the beginning of the full-scale war," Mayor Igor Terekhov said. The northeastern city was home to 1.4 million people before the war and lies around 30 kilometres from the border with Russia. Unprecedented attack The Russian strikes pummelled homes and apartment blocks there, killing at least three people and wounding 17 more, the mayor said. Kharkiv region Governor Oleg Synegubov said the wounded included two children. In the southern city of Kherson, Russian shelling killed a couple and damaged two high-rise buildings, regional Governor Oleksandr Prokudin said. Attacks were also recorded on the Dnipropetrovsk, Odesa and Ternopil regions. Rescuers in the western city of Lutsk, near the Polish border, meanwhile discovered a second fatality from strikes a day earlier, describing the victim as a woman in her 20s. The aerial bombardments come days after Ukraine launched a brazen attack well beyond the frontlines, damaging nuclear-capable military planes at Russian air bases and prompting vows of revenge from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Russia's defense ministry meanwhile said Saturday that its forces had downed 36 Ukrainian drones fired at its territory. Ukraine has been pushing for an unconditional and immediate 30-day truce, issuing its latest proposal during peace talks in Istanbul on Monday. But Russia, which now controls around one-fifth of Ukraine's territory, has repeatedly rejected calls to end its three-year war. The Kremlin said Friday the Ukraine war was "existential" for Russia.
Euronews
3 hours ago
- Euronews
Can the EU lower the cap on Russian oil without the US?
The European Union is readying a new round of sanctions against Russia to pile extra pressure on the Kremlin and pressure it to agree to a 30-day unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine, a step that Western allies consider indispensable for serious peace negotiations. Ursula von der Leyen has already provided an outline of what that package, the 18th since February 2022, is supposed to target: Russia's financial sector, the "shadow fleet" and the Nord Stream pipelines, which are currently non-operational. On top of that, the president of the European Commission has pitched a downward revision of the price cap on Russian oil to further squeeze profits from worldwide sales, a crucial cash flow to sustain the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. "We need a real ceasefire, we need Russia at the negotiating table, and we need to end this war. Pressure works, as the Kremlin understands nothing else," von der Leyen said earlier this week after meeting with US Senator Lindsey Graham. But there's a catch: unlike other sanctions the bloc has imposed on Russia, such as the multiple export and import bans, the price cap has a political and practical dimension that exceeds the institutional sphere of Brussels and stretches across the ocean. More specifically, to Washington, DC. The price cap on Russian oil was introduced in December 2022 by the Group of Seven (G7) under the initiative of the Joe Biden administration. It was hailed as an ingenious, ground-breaking mechanism to mobilise the collective power of Western allies and cripple Russia's high-intensity war machine. As part of the plan, the G7, together with Australia, passed laws prohibiting their domestic companies from providing services, such as insurance, financing and flagging, to Russian tankers that sold seaborne crude oil above a predetermined price. The secret lay in market power: for decades, Western firms, particularly British ones, have dominated the sector of Protection and Indemnity (P&I), a type of insurance that gives shipowners broad protection and allows them to cover potentially huge costs from any accidental harm caused to the crew, their property or the environment. Due to the inherent risks of moving oil in high waters, P&I is today considered the norm in maritime trade and a must-have to be accepted in a foreign port. By leveraging their leading firms, the G7 intended to create an extraterritorial effect that would cap the price of Russian oil not only within their jurisdictions but all around the world. Following intense behind-the-scenes talks, the cap was set at $60 per barrel, a compromise between hard-line and cautious member states. The strategy only worked up to a point however. Although the price of Russian Urals oil gradually decreased, it consistently remained above the $60 mark, often exceeding the $70 threshold. The blatant circumvention was attributed to the "shadow fleet" that Russia deployed at high sea. These tankers are so old and poorly kept that they fall outside P&I standards and rely on alternative, obscure insurance systems that escape G7 surveillance. By the time the cap entered into force, Moscow "had spent months building a 'shadow fleet' of tankers, finding new buyers like India and China, and creating new payment systems, to the point that its oil does not need to be greatly discounted to sell," Luis Caricano, a professor at the London School of Economics, wrote in a recent analysis. "What should have been a blow became a manageable problem," Caricano said. With few sectors in the Russian economy left to sanction, Brussels has turned its sight to the cap as a means to tighten the screws on the Kremlin and secure a ceasefire in Ukraine. The Commission has reportedly pitched a revision between $50 and $45 per barrel, which the UK and Canada are believed to support. However, the US has so far refrained from endorsing a lower price cap, raising the stakes ahead of crunch talks at the G7 summit in Alberta, scheduled for mid-June. Now, a tough question emerges: Can the EU dare, and afford, to go it alone? In the strictest legalistic sense, the EU could, indeed, establish a lower price cap on its own. After all, the G7, as an organisation, lacks regulatory powers: each ally amends its laws individually to fulfil a collective mission. In this case, the EU introduced new legislation to prohibit EU companies – rather than, say, American or British companies – from servicing Russian tankers that bypassed the $60-per-barrel cap. Similarly, the bloc could now change the text to adjust that prohibition to a tighter price without waiting for other allies to reciprocate. Here appears the first roadblock: any change to sanctions must be approved by a unanimous vote among member states. It is highly unlikely that all 27 countries would choose to move forward with a lower cap without having an explicit guarantee that Washington will follow suit. Hungary, in particular, has fully aligned itself with the Trump administration and could veto any proposal opposed by the White House. Even if the bloc managed to overcome internal differences and agreed to a lower cap on its own, more formidable obstacles could impede its success. The bloc's revised cap would have to co-exist with America's existing cap. This means that one side of the Atlantic Ocean would apply a $50-per-barrel limit while the other side would apply a $60-per-barrel limit, creating a cacophony for all actors involved. "Different price caps across G7 countries could confuse maritime service providers and weaken overall enforcement," Petras Katinas, an energy analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), told Euronews. "A solo move by the EU could cause friction within the Price Cap Coalition, damaging trust and coordination, both of which are crucial for keeping pressure on Russian oil revenues," Katinas added, warning the project could be rendered "largely symbolic". The legislative chaos would immediately benefit the Kremlin, which has long sought to exploit loopholes to evade and undermine international sanctions. Moscow, though, would also face hurdles: the continued crackdown on "shadow fleet" vessels has forced the country to increase its reliance on G7 insurance, which, in theory, could make it easier for the EU to apply the revised measure. "If the EU alone decides to tighten the screws on the cap, it's an additional constraint on Russia's oil exports but not as tight as with a whole of G7 approach," said Elisabetta Cornago, a senior researcher at the Centre for European Reform (CER). Besides practical snags and legal matters, there is geopolitics to consider. One of the reasons why the G7 initiative has fallen short of expectations is that, as the name suggests, it has remained a G7-exclusive plan. Countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa have refused to play along and join the coalition. China and India openly buy Russian crude oil, sometimes to refine it and resell it under a different label. Having the EU and the US go separate ways would further destabilise the Western alliance and create the impression of a transatlantic break-up. But for many, that is already a reality: the "Coalition of the Willing", born after Donald Trump unilaterally launched negotiations with Vladimir Putin, bears testament to the political divide. "The price cap was a G7 + EU initiative, and so in its current form, I do not see any pathway in which the EU could adjust the cap without the support of the broader coalition, including the US," said Ben McWilliams, an affiliate fellow with Bruegel. "That said, the EU is free to implement whatever measures it wants on its own domestic ships and insurance companies, which it could likely encourage the UK to join," McWilliams added. "So the EU can still move ahead – it would just need to be under a different institutional format than currently exists." This week we are joined by Mika Aaltola, a Finnish MEP representing the centre-right European People's Party, Dorota Bawolek, a seasoned EU correspondent for Polish broadcaster TVP and Ian Lesser, Vice President of the German Marshall Fund, the transatlantic think tank. US President Donald Trump's renewed trade offensive has left Brussels rather stressed with sweeping tariffs hitting European steel, aluminium, and car exports — and threats of more to come. European Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič is trying to defuse the crisis, warning that retaliatory EU measures could kick in as early as July 14. MEP Mika Aaltola blasted the US approach as 'unfair treatment'. The OECD also warned this week that Trump's tariffs are dragging global growth to its weakest levels since the COVID-19 pandemic. In a very tight presidential race, Poland elected conservative Karol Nawrocki, a nationalist and eurosceptic, narrowly defeating pro-EU candidate and Warsaw mayor Rafał Trzaskowski. The result marks a blow for Prime Minister Donald Tusk who has called for a vote of confidence in his government early next week. Nawrocki's rhetoric — emphasizing national sovereignty, anti-migrant policies, and a rejection of 'Brussels diktats' — has alarmed Europhiles. However, his nationalist platform resonated with a rather divided electorate. "He's not very presidential", Dorota Bawolek told the panel adding that history shows Poles prefer an 'ordinary guy'. Finally, the panel discuss the Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez' diplomatic setback after the EU Council rejected his proposal to make Catalan, Basque, and Galician official EU languages. The move, promised to Catalan separatists in exchange for political support, was rejected by member states over fears of a domino effect involving other regional languages. Watch the full episode in the player above.
France 24
5 hours ago
- France 24
Russia launches major attack on Ukraine, killing 5
Russian forces have accelerated attacks on Ukraine in recent weeks, with the Kremlin vowing to retaliate over a brazen attack on its air bases last weekend. In Kharkiv, Mayor Igor Terekhov counted 48 Iranian-made drones, two missiles and four guided bombs before dawn in the city of some 1.4 million residents located less than 50 kilometres from the Russian border in northeastern Ukraine.. "Kharkiv is currently experiencing the most powerful attack since the beginning of the full-scale war," Terekhov posted on Telegram around 4:40 am (0140 GMT), adding that drones were still buzzing overhead. The Russian strikes pummelled homes and apartment blocks, killing at least three people and wounding 17 more, the mayor said. A woman was also pulled alive from the rubble of a high-rise building. Kharkiv region Governor Oleg Synegubov said the wounded included two children. "Medical personnel are providing the necessary assistance," he wrote. The northeastern city was already reeling from an attack on Thursday that wounded at least 18 people, including four children. In the southern port city of Kherson, Russian shelling killed a couple and damaged two high-rise buildings, regional Governor Oleksandr Prokudin said. And in Dnipro, two women, aged 45 and 88, were injured in strikes, according to local officials. Rescuers in the western city of Lutsk, near the Polish border, meanwhile discovered a second fatality from Friday's strikes, describing the victim as a woman in her 20s. The aerial bombardments come days after Ukraine launched a brazen attack well beyond the frontlines, damaging nuclear-capable military planes at Russian air bases and prompting vows of revenge from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Ukraine has been pushing for an unconditional and immediate 30-day truce, issuing its latest proposal during peace talks in Istanbul on Monday. But Russia, which now controls around one-fifth of Ukraine's territory, has repeatedly rejected such offers to end its three-year war. The Kremlin said on Friday the Ukraine war was "existential" for Russia. Ceasefire hopes dim The comments are Moscow's latest to dampen hopes for a breakthrough amid a flurry of meetings between Russian and Ukrainian delegations, as well as telephone calls between President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, aimed at stopping the fighting. "For us it is an existential issue, an issue on our national interest, safety, on our future and the future of our children, of our country," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters, responding to remarks by Trump on Thursday comparing Moscow and Kyiv to brawling children. Ahead of the talks this week in Istanbul, an audacious Ukrainian drone attack damaged nuclear-capable military planes at Russian air bases, including thousands of kilometres behind the front lines in Siberia. Putin had told Trump he would retaliate for the brazen operation, 18 months in the planning, in which Ukraine smuggled more than 100 small drones into Russia, parked them near Russian air bases and unleashed them in a coordinated attack. Putin has issued a host of sweeping demands on Ukraine if it wants to halt the fighting. They include completely pulling troops out of four regions claimed by Russia, but which its army does not fully control, an end to Western military support, and a ban on Ukraine joining NATO. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has dismissed the demands as old ultimatums, questioned the purpose of more such talks and called for a summit to be attended by him, Putin and Trump. © 2025 AFP
