Trump asked Polish President Nawrocki to replace Tusk in Ukraine meeting
Nawrocki, a conservative nationalist and eurosceptic, is an ally of Trump's right-wing populist MAGA political movement and visited the White House during Poland's presidential election campaign this year. He defeated the candidate of Tusk's pro-European, centrist party in June.
"Just before midnight yesterday we received information, alongside our European partners, that the American side would prefer that Poland was represented by the president in contacts with President Trump," Tusk told a news conference.
The White House did not comment whether the U.S. requested Nawrocki rather than Tusk take part in the call.
A Polish government spokesperson said on Tuesday that Tusk, a former head of the European Council of leaders, would attend the call with Trump.
But Nawrocki foreign policy adviser Marcin Przydacz told reporters he had "no information that Prime Minister Donald Tusk had previously planned to participate."
He said Tusk's team showed it did not have good contacts with the Trump administration because it was under the impression Tusk would take part.
Government spokesman Adam Szlapka said Tusk was representing Poland in two calls on Wednesday with European leaders but not Trump. Przydacz said the offices of the president and prime minister would exchange information about the meetings.
European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy spoke to Trump ahead of the U.S. president's summit with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, stressing the need to protect Kyiv's interests.
Krzysztof Izdebski, policy director at the Batory Foundation, said having two political opponents represent Poland created a risk of mixed messages.
"This shows that, even in foreign policy, in such a key issue of security, we are simply hostage to internal politics and a certain competition between various state bodies," he said.
He said this would undermine Poland's effort to present itself as a modern country working with leading nations on international political issues.
Nawrocki and PiS are strong supporters of Ukraine in its war with invading Russian forces, as is Tusk and his government, but they differ on issues such as abortion, family values and the rule of law.
Tusk said that he respected the U.S. request to keep contacts at the presidential level, but this should not be used to "play Poles against each other".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is Britain's sluggish economy the fault of the Labour government?
The latest economic growth numbers may have been fairly unimpressive by most historical standards, but they were rather better than recent readings and surpassed market expectations. The first estimate of the size of the UK economy showed it had expanded by 0.3 per cent in the second quarter of this year, against a rise of 0.7 per cent in the first three months. Investors had 'priced in' a minimal 0.1 per cent rise. The annual increase, ie on the same period last year, is 1.2 per cent. Is this good news or bad news? What's happening? The pattern of sluggish economic growth that has prevailed in Britain, and most of the West, since the global financial crisis of 2008, is proving to be the new normal. It's not what we had come to expect. For most of the postwar period, punctuated by stop-go cycles, average economic growth was running at 2 to 2.5 per cent a year, with some endemic inflation and structural unemployment. By the 1990s this had accelerated to something like 2.7 per cent, combined with lower inflation and unemployment. In recent years, excepting the pandemic, growth has been more like 1 to 2 per cent. This is driven by low investment and a poor productivity record, exacerbated by market loss post-Brexit. Is this what Labour promised? No. It gave the impression that the very act of electing a Labour government to replace the incompetent Conservatives would lift confidence and 'kickstart' the economy, but no firm evidence of that has emerged. Expectations have not been fulfilled. For example, the Labour manifesto stated: 'Sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people. That is why it is Labour's first mission for government. It means being pro-business and pro-worker. We are the party of wealth creation.' Rachel Reeves, when she was shadow chancellor, promised 'securonomics', but little has since been heard about that either; tax rises and welfare cuts have been the main talking points. Will Labour's policies work? They may well do, but not necessarily fast enough to produce tangible results by the time of the next general election, and to rescue Labour's second term. There are many measures that should edge up growth, even if each is comparatively modest: the Brexit reset; trade deals with the US and India; making the public finances stable; reforming planning rules; expanding airports; building 1.5 million homes; green energy including nuclear power; loosening financial regulation; making room for cuts in interest rates; and some strategic investments in new sectors. Headwinds for the UK include the continuing world trade war, cuts in migration, a trend to higher debt-financing costs globally, and the prospect of more wars. The problem is that any major investment drive takes years, which means that much of the benefit in lifting the trend rate of economic growth won't be felt until the early to mid-2030s – by which time some other political party may be in power and claiming the credit. What can Labour do? Up its presentation. As with the NHS, voters need hard evidence that things are indeed improving, even if slowly, and that they are on the path to better times. That means explaining why present sacrifices have to be made, but also some vision of the rewards that will follow as a result. The party needs to boast and showcase its successes. Does it matter? The economy will always be central, which in a way is a strength for Labour given that it can't win on the 'culture war' issues. A display of determination and competence in running the public finances and the wider economy can win the confidence of the voters. Unfortunately, Reeves has made too many errors of political judgement to be confident that the public will be receptive to anything she says. But give it time, and some evidence of higher living standards and improved public services, and that can be turned around. Is the opposition capitalising on Labour's misfortunes? Not that much. The words 'Liz Truss' and 'mini-Budget' still make people – including the current shadow chancellor – wince. The memories of the Tory years in power aren't that rosy: a long spell of austerity, followed by Brexit, Partygate, splits, crises, and general 'chaos and confusion'. Labour can still rightly pin some of the blame for 'broken Britain' on 14 years of Tory rule. The electorate simply isn't yet ready to give the Tories a hearing; they've apologised for Truss, but it's not enough. Meanwhile, perhaps from frustration with the two main parties, voters are curiously susceptible to the lavish and unrealistic promises made by Nigel Farage and Reform UK. Again, this could actually turn to Labour's advantage if it concentrates on the not-too-difficult task of proving that Farage's fantastical figures don't add up. Not much sign of that yet, though. Labour's biggest problem isn't so much the economy as complacency.
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Largest ICE detention facility at Fort Bliss opens after months of delays, contract squabbles, and a workplace death
A new immigration detention facility, expected to be the largest in the United States, is set to open this week after facing months of delays, including a failed contract and a workplace death. The detention facility, dubbed 'Lonestar Lockup' by Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn, will begin receiving hundreds of people on August 17. The site at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, has an initial capacity of approximately 1,000, but that will expand to 5,000, making it the largest Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in the country. Donald Trump 's administration has rushed to open detention camps including in Florida, dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz', and Indiana's 'Speedway Slammer', to fulfill the president's mass deportation agenda. More than 60,000 people are now being held in immigrant detention centers, according to internal ICE records obtained by The New York Times, breaking the previous record of 55,654 people in August 2019. The process of building the soft-sided tent camp at the Texas military base has been beset by controversies since the beginning. For the past six months, Trump officials have been seeking to build an ICE facility on a military base, eventually settling on Fort Bliss. In April, the administration initially awarded a multi-billion-dollar contract to a company called Deployed Resources to build the Fort Bliss camp but it was quickly canceled. A White House document about the contract claims it was terminated 'for convenience', citing Trump's executive order on wasteful spending and transparency. Weeks later, the government offered two contracts to build and maintain the facility, but both offers were pulled before they could be awarded to a new company. It is unclear why. Finally, in July, the Department of Defense announced it had secured a $231.9 million contract, under a Navy program, with Acquisition Logistics LLC to construct and operate the ICE detention facility in El Paso. Another company that did not win the bid, Gemini Tech Services LLC., filed a bid protest in July. While it is sealed, a source told NBC News the company was seeking to stop construction of the facility. The Fort Bliss project is also subject of two investigations by the Government Accountability Office, an independent nonpartisan agency that audits, investigates, and evaluates government services, according to NBC News. Those investigations are for improper bidding. Last month, the project faced tragedy after Hector Gonzalez, a 38-year-old employee with a subcontracted company, died in a workplace accident. The death is being investigated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as well as the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division. 'Hector was a beloved husband, father, son, brother and co-worker and he will be greatly missed. Our support and prayers are with his entire family,' a spokesperson for his company, Disaster Management Group, told NBC News. In response to questions about the bid protest and workplace accident death, an Army spokesperson told NBC News that they are 'aware of the GAO protest for the Acquisition Logistics contract,' but could not discuss the issue due to ongoing litigation. 'However, we can confirm that this protest is unrelated to the recent death, which is under investigation,' the Army spokesperson added. In a statement, ICE said that the Fort Bliss facility will adhere to the agency's detention standards and will include access to legal representation, visitation, recreation space, and medical treatment space. The immigration detention center will also provide balanced meals and necessary accommodations, ICE stated. The facility with serve as a detention center and processing center, streamlining the removal process, ICE noted. "Upon completion, this will be the largest federal detention center in history for this critical mission - the deportation of illegal aliens," Pentagon spokesperson Kingsley Wilson said. So far, several states have assisted the federal government by building detention facilities including Florida, which erected Alligator Alcatraz, a tent camp and temporary holding center in the Everglades. It's been subject to scrutiny by lawmakers and detainees for its poor conditions. Similarly, the Speedway Slammer, an extension of the Miami Correctional Facility in Indiana, has also been subject to criticism from local people who believe the facility is an inhumane way of housing immigrants. Both facilities were built quickly to assist in the administration's mass deportation agenda which has compounded worries from Democratic lawmakers and immigration advocates that the locations are unable to meet the stringent requirements of an ICE facility.
BBC News
15 minutes ago
- BBC News
Ukraine war: US and Russian delegations head to Alaska for crunch talks
US and Russian officials will converge on the state of Alaska ahead of a highly anticipated Friday meeting between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir pair will meet for the first time in six years, as Trump tries to enact a key campaign pledge to end Russia's war in Ukraine. The US president, who has portrayed himself as a global peacemaker, hopes to leverage his personal relationship with Putin to achieve a ceasefire breakthrough where others have Thursday he assessed there was a "25% chance" the meeting would not be leader Volodymyr Zelensky has been excluded from the talks, and warned that any resolutions made in his absence will be meaningless. The summit comes exactly one week after Trump's deadline for Russia to reach a ceasefire or face tough new was always highly unlikely that Kyiv and Moscow – who have been locked in a bloody war since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 – would reach an agreement to end hostilities before that was scepticism about whether Trump would stand by his threat of imposing sanctions on countries that do business with Russia, which would have resulted in a blistering trade war with China. He has, however, gone as far as to say he will impose secondary tariffs on India later this month over its purchases of Russian week's announcement that Trump and Putin would meet had the effect of tacitly pausing the sanctions countdown - and awarding both sides more time to think about their next move. ANALYSIS: What do Putin and Trump each want from summit in Alaska?Putin must 'prove he is serious about peace,' says StarmerWhy did Putin's Russia invade Ukraine? Throughout the week, the American approach to the aims and hopes for the summit has been varied – shifting from the positive, to the cautious, to the the latter extreme, Trump has threatened "very severe consequences" if his Russian counterpart does not agree to end the war. What seemed to harden his approach was a group call on Wednesday with European leaders including the other hand, Kyiv will have been alarmed when Trump mooted the "swapping of territories" and the White House indicated that the president would take a passive approach by treating the meeting as a "listening exercise". All the while, the Russians have remained mostly silent – refusing to engage with speculation and rumours of frozen frontlines, territorial exchanges or minerals deals between Moscow and is consistency in that silence. Whenever Kremlin officials have spoken this week, it has been to reiterate Putin's seemingly intractable position on the conflict. They have restated that the war will only end once Russia gains full sovereignty over the Ukrainian regions it partially occupies – Donetsk and Luhansk, known as the Donbas, as well as Kherson and Zaporizhzhia – and a pledge that Kyiv will demilitarise and not join Nato, the military alliance of Western Trump seems convinced that the usually convivial relationship he has cultivated with Putin could help him unlock a deal to end the conflict and further his image as a global peacemaker. The issue has become central to the question of what Trump has delivered on the world stage since returning to the US presidency. He has a domestic audience to keep happy, and many of his supporters backed him for his pledge to swiftly end the war and disentangle America from expensive foreign conflicts more of the summit - his first meeting with Putin for six years - the American hopes that his negotiating style will pay dividends where other efforts to end the war have failed. His top officials have stressed the importance of him meeting Putin in person, and Trump himself has talked up his business-like instincts, saying he may know "in the first two minutes... exactly whether or not a deal can be made". Europe finds itself in the unenviable position of being caught between the two sides and excluded from Friday's their last-minute call with Trump on Wednesday, European leaders emerged tentatively optimistic that once in Alaska the US president would fight their Ukraine itself, they have endured several turbulent months, during which Trump had a memorable White House bust-up with Zelensky and later temporarily paused military supplies for Kyiv - a markedly different stance to his predecessor Joe Biden. Ukraine has been sidelined ahead of Friday, protests by the Ukrainian leader that any agreement struck by Trump and Putin without input from Kyiv would amount to "dead decisions", it became increasingly clear as the week progressed that the US-Russia meeting would remain a bilateral only. While he remained careful to keep Trump onside, Zelensky felt he had to intervene after the US president's throwaway comments about the need to see "some swapping, changes in land" between Russia and Ukraine."We will not withdraw from the Donbas. We cannot do that," the Ukrainian president said, with a hint of exasperation, as speculation over potential territorial concessions reached a height on Tuesday."Everyone forgets the first part: our territories are illegally occupied. For the Russians, the Donbas is a bridgehead for a future new offensive," he said, arguing that he would "pave the way" for further conflict on its soil if it gave up the many of his compatriots, Zelensky is convinced that Putin wants to destroy Ukraine's sovereignty and people, and believes any concession to Russia would result in renewed and perhaps fatal aggression in the near is why he has consistently pushed to be invited into the room with Trump and Putin. While this will not be the case during Friday's summit, the US president has pledged to update Zelensky soon afterwards - and has indicated he is angling for a "quick" three-way meeting in the near future. What Putin would have to gain from such a meeting is unclear. The Kremlin has always said Putin and Zelensky have no reason to meet until much further down the negotiating that could still be far off. Ultimately, Putin's "central objective lies in obtaining... the geopolitical 'neutralisation' of Ukraine," according to analyst Tatyana Stanovaya."It is extremely difficult to convey what is truly at stake... as people often simply cannot accept that Putin might want so much - and be serious about it. Unfortunately, he can."The frenzied lead-up to the Alaska summit has revealed that if Trump's position on a potential resolution of the conflict is still subject to change, Putin's is will offer them a meeting place; common ground at the negotiating table may be harder to find. Follow the BBC's coverage of the war in Ukraine EXPLAINER: Where in Alaska is Trump meeting Putin and why?VISUALS: The war-ravaged Ukrainian territories in mapsVERIFY: Russian attacks on Ukraine double since Trump inaugurationGROUND REPORT: On Ukraine's front line, twisted wreckage shows sanctions haven't yet stopped Russia
