Tusk seeks parliamentary backing after far-right win
Tusk seeks parliamentary backing after far-right win
Donald Tusk wants the vote of confidence to be held soon but insists the election of Karol Nawrocki does not change anything. Photo: Reuters
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk on Monday called for a parliamentary confidence vote in a bid to demonstrate continuing support for his pro-EU government after nationalist Karol Nawrocki won the presidential election.
European far-right leaders welcomed the election of the 42-year-old Nawrocki, a fan of US President Donald Trump who has said he will oppose the government's progressive agenda on abortion and LGBTQ rights.
He won Sunday's runoff in the highly polarised EU and NATO member state with 51 percent of the vote to 49 percent for Tusk's liberal ally Rafal Trzaskowski.
In a televised address, former EU chief Tusk said he wanted the confidence vote "soon" and vowed to stay on, adding that the election "will not change anything".
His comments came shortly after opposition leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski of the populist Law and Justice party said that Poles had shown him the "red card".
Kacynski called for a "technical" government of experts to replace the current one.
Nawrocki said on X that he wanted Poland to be "a state that matters in international, European and transatlantic relations".
"I will represent you with dignity on the international state, ensuring Poland is treated as an equal," he wrote.
Nawrocki could revive tensions with Brussels over rule-of-law issues and complicate ties with Ukraine as he opposes NATO membership for the war-torn country and wants to cut benefits for Ukrainian refugees.
"Nawrocki's presidency will be a rough ride for the Tusk government," said analyst Piotr Buras, adding that the president-elect "wants to overthrow" Tusk.
He said the election result could lead to "early parliamentary elections, maybe not this year, but next" year.
Reforms planned by Tusk, who came to power in 2023, have been held up by a deadlock with the current president, who endorsed Nawrocki.
There have also been divisions in his governing coalition, which analysts said could be exacerbated by the election result.
Polish presidents hold a crucial veto power over legislation. (AFP)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
HKFP
6 hours ago
- HKFP
US President Trump says deal with Chinese leader Xi ‘extremely hard' as steel tariffs double
Donald Trump said on Wednesday that it was 'extremely hard' to reach a deal with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, but the EU touted progress in its own trade talks with Washington even though the US president doubled global metal tariffs. Trump's latest trade moves came as OECD ministers gathered in Paris to discuss the outlook for the world economy in light of a US hardball approach that has rattled world markets. Trump's sweeping tariffs on allies and adversaries have strained ties with trading partners and sparked a flurry of negotiations to avoid the duties. The White House has suggested the president will speak to Xi this week, raising hopes they can soothe tensions and speed up a trade deal between the world's two biggest economies. However, early Wednesday, Trump appeared to dampen hopes for a quick deal. 'I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!' he posted on his Truth Social platform. Asked about the remarks during a regular press briefing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian said: 'The Chinese side's principles and stance on developing Sino-US relations are consistent.' China was the main target of Trump's April tariff blitz, hit with levies of 145 percent on its goods and triggering tit-for-tat tariffs of 125 percent on US goods. Both sides agreed to temporarily de-escalate in May, after Trump delayed most sweeping measures on other countries until July 9. His latest remarks came hours after he increased his tariffs on aluminum and steel from 25 percent to 50 percent, raising temperatures with various partners while exempting Britain from the higher levy. EU trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic said after talks with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on the sidelines of the OECD meeting in Paris that raising the metal tariffs 'doesn't help the negotiations'. The two sides were nonetheless 'making progress' in their negotiations, Sefcovic said at a news conference. Goods from the 27-nation bloc will be hit with 50-percent tariffs on July 9 unless it reaches a deal with Washington. The EU has vowed to retaliate. 'We did very much focus on these negotiations, and I still believe in them,' Sefcovic said, adding that he was optimistic that a 'positive result' could be reached. Steel tariffs The OECD cut its forecast for global economic growth on Tuesday, blaming Trump's tariff blitz for the downgrade. 'We need to come up with negotiated solutions as quickly as possible, because time is running out,' German economy minister Katherina Reiche warned. French trade minister Laurent Saint-Martin said: 'We have to keep our cool and always show that the introduction of these tariffs is in no one's interest.' Canada, the largest supplier of the metals to the United States, has called Trump's tariffs 'illegal and unjustified'. After talks between UK Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds and Greer on Tuesday, London said imports from the UK would remain at 25 percent for now. Both sides needed to work out duties and quotas in line with the terms of a recently signed trade pact. 'We're pleased that as a result of our agreement with the US, UK steel will not be subject to these additional tariffs,' a British government spokesperson said. White House wants offers The Group of Seven advanced economies — Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States — was due to hold separate talks on trade Wednesday. Mexico will request an exemption from the higher tariff, Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard said, arguing that it was unfair because the United States exports more steel to its southern neighbour than it imports. 'It makes no sense to put a tariff on a product in which you have a surplus,' Ebrard said. Mexico is highly vulnerable to Trump's trade wars because 80 percent of its exports go to the United States, its main partner. While some of Trump's most sweeping levies face legal challenges, they have been allowed to remain in place for now as an appeals process takes place. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed Tuesday that the Trump administration sent letters to governments pushing for offers by Wednesday as the July 9 deadline approached.
Asia Times
7 hours ago
- Asia Times
Did Trump know about Ukraine's drone blitz in advance?
Ukraine's strategic drone strikes on Sunday against elements of Russia's nuclear triad all across the country were an unprecedented provocation that risks a dramatic worsening of the conflict. Speculation has since swirled about whether Trump knew about these attacks in advance, which his Press Secretary denied. What follows are five relevant points, each accompanied by brief arguments about why they either do or do not prove that he really was aware, which will help readers make up their own mind: 1. Trump is Pushing For A Record Trillion-Dollar Defense Budget * Escalating and then maintaining tensions with Russia, but importantly keeping them manageable, would create a sense of urgency in Congress for passing this record budget by year's end and reduce opposition to it from key MAGA allies. The military-industrial complex is influential in Trump 2.0 and he himself has always boasted about how powerful he wants the US Armed Forces to become. He might thus have known about Ukraine's drone strike plans in advance, but didn't call them off for this reason. – Trump has invested a lot of political capital in trying to de-escalate tensions with Russia and caught tons of flak as a result, yet he still officially remains committed to it (at least for now), thus suggesting sincerity. Regarding his proposed defense budget, it may be more about preparing the US for war with China, rather than waging another endless war against Russia by proxy. There's also wide congressional approval for containing China, so his defense budget likely doesn't need escalated tensions with Russia to pass. 2. Trump Surprisingly Patched Up His Problems With Zelensky * The minerals deal, Trump's latest in-person meeting with Zelensky at the Vatican, and the influence of the US' permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies ('deep state') might have combined to reshape Trump's perception of both Zelensky and Putin. It might therefore be that while Trump talks about peace with Putin in public, he's plotting against him during talks with Zelensky. Their latest in-person meeting could have even seen Trump approve of Zelensky's strategic drone strike plans. – Trump is profit-minded and mercurial so it makes sense that his attitude towards Zelensky changed for the better after the minerals deal was finally signed. Likewise, his inability to reach any similar or more significant deals with Putin – which are dependent on first freezing or resolving the Ukrainian conflict – accounts for his newly harsh rhetoric about him. Had Trump known about Zelensky's plans in advance, then he'd have called them off so as to not risk losing these potential deals with Putin in the aftermath. 3. Trump Warned That 'REALLY BAD' Things Might Soon Happen To Russia * His scandalous post came less than a week before Ukraine's strategic drone strikes and might have thus meant to foreshadow this unprecedented provocation, albeit in a 'plausibly deniable' way for escalation-control purposes. Trump could have also wanted to signal to Putin that he'd better accept an unconditional 30-day ceasefire or else. If that's really what happened, then he might be preparing another such post for the same reason, which he'd hope might then pressure Putin into concessions. – Critics claim that Trump sometimes bluffs as a negotiating tactic so this might have been one example of that in practice on the world's stage. The wording and timing coincidentally served the relevant interests of the Biden-era 'deep state,' which could have cooked up this unprecedented provocation long ago without him ever finding out, given that it might implicate Trump in Putin's eyes. In that event, the peace process might collapse, and Trump might thus escalate in response just like they want. 4. Axios Initially Claimed That Ukraine Informed The US In Advance * Although Axios later corrected its report to note that Ukraine did not inform the US in advance, its initial claim might have been accurate, but understandable escalation-control concerns vis-à-vis Russia could have prompted the White House to urgently request that they change it. Axios might have voluntarily complied for national security reasons or because it was coerced with legal threats. In any case, this incident convinced some people that Trump really was aware of Ukraine's plans in advance. – Axios either made an innocent error in its initial report that was then swiftly corrected, or this was a preplanned provocation by Democrat-loyal elements of the 'deep state' to falsely implicate Trump. If the second scenario is what happened, then the purpose would have been to convince Putin that Trump really was aware of Ukraine's plans in advance, which could then trigger the peace process's collapse. Even so, Russia is well aware of the 'deep state's' tricks, so it might not fall for this latest possible one. 5. Trump Has Remained Suspiciously Silent About These Attacks * For someone who seems to always have an opinion about everything, even the most mundane and random things, Trump hasn't yet said a word about Ukraine's unprecedented provocation against Russia. His suspicious silence is thus being interpreted by some as tacit approval. After all, these strategic drone strikes risk triggering the collapse of the peace process into which he's already invested so much political capital, so it follows that he'd have condemned Ukraine by now if he was really against what it did. – Trump might have been caught off guard by this just as much as Putin was if the Biden-era 'deep state' really did cook this up long ago without him ever finding out. Therefore, both of them might have agreed – whether during an unreported phone call on Sunday or during their top diplomats' one that same day – to play it cool while jointly investigating, thus keeping the peace process alive for now. In that case, Trump's silence would be temporary, and Putin would already know not to misconstrue it as acceptance. ———- Whether Trump knew about Ukraine's strategic strikes in advance will determine the extent of Russia's retaliation and whether it remains involved in the peace process. The best-case scenario from Russia's perspective is that Putin becomes convinced that Trump didn't know and that he then acts against those in his government that did, while the worst-case scenario is Putin concluding that Trump knew and either approved it, didn't care or couldn't stop it but didn't inform him. This article was first published on Andrew Korybko's Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber here.
Asia Times
9 hours ago
- Asia Times
Ukraine shows it knows wars are never won in the past
The iconoclastic American general Douglas MacArthur once said that 'wars are never won in the past.' That sentiment certainly seemed to ring true following Ukraine's recent audacious attack on Russia's strategic bomber fleet, using small, cheap drones housed in wooden pods and transported near Russian airfields in trucks. The synchronized operation targeted Russian Air Force planes as far away as Irkutsk – more than 5,000 kilometers from Ukraine. Early reports suggest around a third of Russia's long-range bombers were either destroyed or badly damaged. Russian military bloggers have put the estimated losses lower, but agree the attack was catastrophic for the Russian Air Force, which has struggled to adapt to Ukrainian tactics. This particular attack was reportedly 18 months in the making. To keep it secret was an extraordinary feat. Notably, Kyiv reportedly did not inform the United States that the attack was in the offing. The Ukrainians judged – perhaps understandably – that sharing intelligence on their plans could have alerted the Kremlin in relatively short order. Ukraine's success once again demonstrates that its armed forces and intelligence services are the modern masters of battlefield innovation and operational security. Western military planners have been carefully studying Ukraine's successes ever since its forces managed to blunt Russia's initial onslaught deep into its territory in early 2022, and then launched a stunning counteroffensive that drove the Russian invaders back towards their original starting positions. There have been other lessons, too, about how the apparently weak can stand up to the strong. These include: attacks on Russian President Vladimir Putin's vanity project, the Kerch Bridge, linking the Russian mainland to occupied Crimea (the last assault occurred just days ago) the relentless targeting of Russia's oil and gas infrastructure with drones attacks against targets in Moscow to remind the Russian populace about the war, and its incursion into the Kursk region, which saw Ukrainian forces capture around 1,000 square kilometres of Russian territory. On each occasion, Western defense analysts have questioned the wisdom of Kyiv's moves. Why invade Russia using your best troops when Moscow's forces continue laying waste to cities in Ukraine? Why hit Russia's energy infrastructure if it doesn't markedly impede the battlefield mobility of Russian forces? And why attack symbolic targets like bridges when it could provoke Putin into dangerous 'escalation'? The answer to this is the key to effective innovation during wartime. Ukraine's defense and security planners have interpreted their missions – and their best possible outcomes – far more accurately than conventional wisdom would have thought. Above all, they have focused on winning the war they are in, rather than those of the past. This means: using technological advancements to force the Russians to change their tactics shaping the information environment to promote their narratives and keep vital Western aid flowing, and deploying surprise attacks not just as ways to boost public morale, but also to impose disproportionate costs on the Russian state. In doing so, Ukraine has had an eye for strategic effects. As the smaller nation reliant on international support, this has been the only logical choice. Putin has been prepared to commit a virtually inexhaustible supply of expendable cannon fodder to continue his country's war ad infinitum. Russia has typically won its wars this way – by attrition – albeit at a tremendous human and material cost. That said, Ukraine's most recent surprise attack does not change the overall contours of the war. The only person with the ability to end it is Putin himself. That's why Ukraine is putting as much pressure as possible on his regime, as well as domestic and international perceptions of it. It is key to Ukraine's theory of victory. This is also why the latest drone attack is so significant. Russia needs its long-range bomber fleet, not just to fire conventional cruise missiles at Ukrainian civilian and infrastructure targets, but as aerial delivery systems for its strategic nuclear arsenal. The destruction of even a small portion of Russia's deterrence capability has the potential to affect its nuclear strategy. It has increasingly relied on this strategy to threaten the West. A second impact of the attack is psychological. The drone attacks are more likely to enrage Putin than bring him to the bargaining table. However, they reinforce to the Russian military that there are few places – even on its own soil – that its air force can act with operational impunity. The surprise attacks also provide a shot in the arm domestically, reminding Ukrainians they remain very much in the fight. Finally, the drone attacks send a signal to Western leaders. US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, for instance, have gone to great lengths to tell the world that Ukraine is weak and has 'no cards'. This action shows Kyiv does indeed have some powerful cards to play. That may, of course, backfire: after all, Trump is acutely sensitive to being made to look a fool. He may look unkindly at resuming military aid to Ukraine after being shown up for saying Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would be forced to capitulate without US support. But Trump's own hubris has already done that for him. His regular claims that a peace deal is just weeks away have gone beyond wishful thinking and are now monotonous. Unsurprisingly, Trump's reluctance to put anything approaching serious pressure on Putin has merely incentivised the Russian leader to string the process along. Indeed, Putin's insistence on a maximalist victory, requiring Ukrainian demobilisation and disarmament without any security guarantees for Kyiv, is not diplomacy at all. It is merely the reiteration of the same unworkable demands he has made since even before Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. However, Ukraine's ability to smuggle drones undetected onto an opponent's territory, and then unleash them all together, will pose headaches for Ukraine's friends, as well as its enemies. That's because it makes domestic intelligence and policing part of any effective defence posture. It is a contingency that democracies will have to plan for, just as much as authoritarian regimes, who are also learning from Ukraine's lessons. In other words, while the attack has shown up Russia's domestic security services for failing to uncover the plan, Western security elites, as well as authoritarian ones, will now be wondering whether their own security apparatuses would be up to the job. The drone strikes will also likely lead to questions about how useful it is to invest in high-end and extraordinarily expensive weapons systems when they can be vulnerable. The Security Service of Ukraine estimates the damage cost Russia US$7 billion. Ukraine's drones, by comparison, cost a couple of thousand dollars each. At the very least, coming up with a suitable response to those challenges will require significant thought and effort. But as Ukraine has repeatedly shown us, you can't win wars in the past. Matthew Sussex is associate professor (Adj), Griffith Asia Institute; and fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
