Conservative Karol Nawrocki wins Poland's presidential election
WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Conservative Karol Nawrocki won Poland's weekend presidential runoff election, according to the final vote count on Monday. Nawrocki won 50.89% of votes in a very tight race against liberal Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, who received 49.11%.
The close race had the country on edge since a first round two weeks earlier and through the night into Monday, revealing deep divisions in the country along the eastern flank of NATO and the European Union.
An early exit poll released Sunday evening suggested Trzaskowski was headed to victory before updated polling began to reverse the picture hours later.
The outcome indicates that Poland can be expected to take a more nationalist path under its new leader, who was backed by U.S. President Donald Trump.
The role of a president in Poland
Most day-to-day power in the Polish political system rests with a prime minister chosen by the parliament. However, the president's role is not merely ceremonial. The office holds the power to influence foreign policy and to veto legislation.
Nawrocki will succeed Andrzej Duda, a conservative whose second and final term ends on Aug. 6.
A headache for Tusk
Prime Minister Donald Tusk came to power in late 2023 at the end of a coalition government that spans a broad ideological divide — so broad that it hasn't been able to fulfill certain of Tusk's electoral promises, such as loosening the restrictive abortion law.
But Duda's veto power has been another obstacle. It has prevented Tusk from fulfilling promises to reverse laws that politicized the court system in a way that the European Union declared to be undemocratic.
Now it appears Tusk will have no way to fulfill those promises, which he had made both to voters and to the EU.
A former boxer, historian and political novice
Nawrocki, a 42-year-old historian, was tapped by the Law and Justice party as part of its push for a fresh start.
The party governed Poland from 2015 to 2023, when it lost power to a centrist coalition led by Tusk. Some political observers predicted the party would never make a comeback, and Nawrocki was chosen as a new face who would not be burned by the scandals of the party's eight years of rule.
Nawrocki has most recently been the head of the Institute of National Remembrance, which embraces nationalist historical narratives. He led efforts to topple monuments to the Soviet Red Army in Poland, and Russia responded by putting him on a wanted list, according to Polish media reports.
Nawrocki's supporters describe him as the embodiment of traditional, patriotic values. Those who oppose secular trends, including LGBTQ+ visibility, have embraced him, viewing him as a reflection of the traditional values they grew up with.
The Trump factor
Trump made it clear he wanted Nawrocki as Poland's president.
The conservative group CPAC held its first meeting in Poland last week to give Nawrocki a boost. Kristi Noem, the U.S. Homeland Security Secretary and a prominent Trump ally, strongly praised Nawrocki and urged Poles to vote for him.
The U.S. has about 10,000 troops stationed in Poland and Noem suggested that military ties could deepen with Nawrocki as president.
A common refrain from Nawrocki's supporters is that he will restore 'normality,' as they believe Trump has done. U.S. flags often appeared at Nawrocki's rallies, and his supporters believed that he offered a better chance for good ties with the Trump administration.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - From Odesa with love: Ukraine fights on with or without the US
The city of Odesa, once the pearl of the Black Sea and host to nearly 1,000 attendees during this year's Black Sea Forum, has regained its luster. Aside from smatterings of plywood-covered windows and burned-out or partially destroyed buildings, one would be hard pressed to think that it was in a country under siege, fighting for its collective life. This city is enjoying, under the circumstances, a fairly normal existence. The streets are pristine, unlike in too many American cities. Much of the architecture is Russo-French in design, dating back to the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. But most impressive are the Ukrainians. Determined to win this war, one is reminded of the stubborn British enduring the Blitz and Hitler's relentless attacks. This seemingly boundless display of optimism extends to the taxi drivers, restaurants and hotel staff, and the non-conference-attending civilians I encountered during my time here. The message is clear and is echoed by most of the European delegates who attended from parliaments and ministries of government, including the military, as well as the private sector, media and academia: Russia is a menace. If not stopped in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is determined to wreck NATO and reestablish a new and greater Soviet Union-like empire. And America is unconscious or blind to this threat. On one hand, the war in Ukraine is not atop the list of things worrying most Americans. As someone in the distant past remarked, 'it's the economy, stupid.' On the other hand, the behavior of the current president fills the media and the airwaves on a daily basis, often blocking out other news and reporting. Yes, a growing percentage of Americans of both political parties say they support Ukraine, a statistic that is widely used here as evidence that the U.S. can and should do more. Yet, when pressed as to what that support should be in specific terms, from equipping Ukraine with the most modern weapons, to rebuilding a country largely still suffering the ravages of war, to the question of whether to send U.S. troops to the region or not, that consensus quickly dissipates. At this writing, while Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and others have gained the support of some 80 of their colleagues to impose sanctions on Russia. Has that chamber suddenly grown a backbone to take on Donald Trump, who so far has dominated Congress in ways Lyndon Johnson would envy? That said, I take the Ukrainian rationale to smash Russia now before it becomes too great a threat — and many would argue that this view has taken hold across Ukraine — with a bit of cold water. I believe we in the West are exaggerating Russia's ability to mount a broader military assault; certainly, for now and for the foreseeable future, while it rebuilds a force that has reportedly taken nearly a million casualties. To be sure, a supermajority of Ukrainians do not accept that Putin's appetite will be satisfied if he perseveres in this war. But the fact is, the acidic warning that the only thing worse than being an enemy of the United States is being a friend or ally may apply here. Millions of Vietnamese, Afghans and Iraqis would not disagree with that observation. Will Ukraine be next is a tragic question that must be addressed. Many of us in the relatively small foreign and defense policy world argued that wars are often lost by getting too little too late; meaning that from Russia's February 2022 invasion (which, for too long, Trump incredibly blamed on Ukraine) the U.S. has not supplied enough weapons and sinews of war to enable the Ukrainian military to turn the tide of battle beyond halting, and in some places, reversing Russian gains. But that is the past. What next? Despite my dissenting analysis of Putin's military muscle, what Russia has done has to be reversed. That almost certainly will not happen. Now, Trump will decide Ukraine's fate for better, or more likely, worse. Tragedy can be defined as a collision with reality. There was every reason to support Ukraine while some exit strategy could be developed. Now it appears the Trump exit strategy will leave it up to the two combatants — Russia and Ukraine — to end the war. Should that be the case, we should not be surprised by the outcome. And frankly if that does happen, Americans should be ashamed. Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are authors of the forthcoming book, 'The Arc of Failure: Can Decisive Strategic Thinking Transform a Dangerous World.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Scaring Putin is the only route to a just peace
Nobody in their right mind thought Putin would come to the latest round of peace talks in Istanbul with any seriousness. And so it has proven. His demands are straight out of Soviet foreign minister Andrei Gromyko's negotiating playbook: demand the maximum, present ultimatums and do not give one inch. Putin's terms for a final settlement are no different from his diktats from the start, including international recognition of Moscow's occupation of the four regions he considers Russian territory, and a guarantee Ukraine never joins any international alliances. Even Putin's pathways to a temporary ceasefire require withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from all of the four regions, demobilisation of the armed forces, cessation of international military aid and electing a new government. In other words: total capitulation, with Ukraine surrendering its sovereignty, partitioned, isolated, disarmed and a Russian puppet government in Kyiv. That doesn't mean negotiations shouldn't continue in the hope of achieving less punitive terms. The Ukrainian government has already signalled it would be ready to accept the temporary occupation of territory Russia has already captured. But it is hard to see how Putin will climb down from his maximalist position without significant changes on the battlefield or to the economic situation. President Trump tried a softball approach with Putin, extending the prospect of major economic benefits through a return to normalisation in US-Russia relations. Putin hasn't bought that even though he has ham-fistedly attempted to mollify Trump and encourage him to abandon Ukraine with his disingenuous ploy of engaging in negotiations. Trump obviously sees right through that. He said he was 'p----d off' by Putin's proposal that Ukraine should be placed under external administration with elections overseen by the UN. The US now needs to try a different approach. Trump can say he did everything he could to end the bloodshed in the first months of his presidency but Putin's intransigence now demands different tactics. What would those tactics be? Continue to hold out an olive branch while doubling down on US military backing to Ukraine and pressuring European allies to do the same thing. It was Biden's faltering leadership that allowed most West European countries as well as the US to do the least they could get away with. That needs to change and we've already seen how Trumpian hectoring can compel Europeans to boost their own defence spending, both in his first term and even more in his second. Renewing US commitment to Nato would also help encourage European leaders. It would send a powerful message to Putin too, whose overriding strategic objective is dividing the West. We need to move on from providing Ukraine with just enough to defend themselves but never enough to prevail. The effort required to drive Russia back out of Ukraine is probably too much to expect, but the point would be to enable Kyiv to do even more damage to Russian forces to compel Putin to reconsider his current calculation that he can grind Ukraine down and outlast the West's support. Among the most harmful constraints Biden imposed on Ukraine was forbidding use of US-supplied weapons to attack Russian sovereign territory. That was the consequence of his fear of Russian escalation, both against Ukraine and Nato countries. It allowed Putin to continue to shield the Russian population from the conflict, keeping it limited to a 'special military operation'. Kyiv didn't play ball though, firing home-made drones into Russia and even mounting the first invasion of its territory since the Second World War. The latest breathtaking drone attack on Russia, which destroyed a large chunk of its strategic air force on the ground shows what can be done. Some say the US and European countries should distance themselves from that, dreading Moscow's retaliation. But irrespective of the diplomatic position they choose to take, they should do the opposite, by giving Ukraine what it needs to carry out further strikes to undermine Russian military capability, drive the war home to the population and humiliate Putin. Trump should start to do real economic damage to Russia. Much can be achieved by more effective military action to increase weapons and equipment loss rates, potentially forcing Putin to transition the economy to a full war footing. The half-hearted sanctions against Russia have not been good enough and European countries have paid more to Russia for hydrocarbons than they have given in aid to Ukraine. We need to turn the screws by tougher measures against the Russian energy sector, finally detaching Moscow from the international banking system and disrupting the ghost tanker fleet that has allowed oil revenues to surge. A bitter blow would also be landed by seizing the entirety of Russia's $330 billion of frozen assets in Western countries to pay for the war, or at least plan to do so subject to negotiations. Putin showed yet again in Istanbul that he doesn't eat carrots, so Trump now needs to propel him towards a proper deal by applying a very large stick. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Don't believe Starmer when he says he's angry about the small boats
In the week that the Prime Minister vowed to increase defence spending and solemnly averred, 'My first priority is the safety and security of the British people', the British people scratched their heads and gestured crossly in the direction of their southern coastline. 'Hang on, Keir,' they muttered. 'What about those 1,195 men from God-knows-where who broke into our homeland on Saturday to access the all-you-can-sponge benefits buffet that's 15,000 of the blighters this year so far, a record. How are you making us safe and secure?' You could tell the PM thought he was making a historic speech; the hair gel gets heavier and greasier along with the sententious, slippery phrases. It didn't help that he was speaking at the Govan shipyards in front of a group of workers who appeared to have been taken hostage during their break, wrestled from their Twixes and builder's tea to provide a stirring backdrop for this tinpot authoritarian dictator. All credit to the Scots, they looked either bored or openly hostile. Samuel Johnson's observation that 'patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel' never rang truer. A hugely unpopular Labour leader, who acts against the national interest at any given opportunity, was suddenly asking the country to pull together because his party risks coming a humiliating third, behind Reform UK, in the Hamilton by-election on Thursday. Don't get me wrong. I welcome any rise in funding for our beleaguered armed forces, but the PM's promise to make the UK 'a battle-ready, armour-clad nation' sounded absurd. Not least because he called committing to spending 3 per cent of GDP an 'ambition' when highly-respected generals (and now Nato) say 3.5 per cent on defence is the bare minimum. The damage has already been done as a result of years of underinvestment, lack of purpose, partly through constant change of leadership in all three services, lack of political will and an increasing number of civil servants without any military experience who hold down jobsworth appointments resisting change and threats to their position. But it wasn't just the lack of a firm financial commitment that felt evasive. Starmer avoided any mention of the clear and present danger, which is by far the biggest threat to our national security. There are currently more illegal male migrants of fighting age in the UK than there are soldiers. The British Army, once among the world's best, is now 71,000-weak and can no longer put an armoured division in the field, yet the state somehow finds a stupefying £8 million a day to place 'asylum seekers' in pleasant hotels beyond the means of any squaddie. The 1,200 invaders who came ashore on just one day last weekend are roughly the equivalent of two infantry battalions. One estimate has numbers reaching 50,000 by the end of the year, although if we have a good summer, it could be much worse. It's frightening. To add to the jeopardy, in 2020, MI5 said that nine-tenths of the 43,000 suspects on its terror watchlist were jihadists. More potential terrorists from Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Africa are ferried ashore every hour by the RNLI and Border Force; they are so busy transporting unwanted arrivals that last week they asked trawlers for help. (When Keir Starmer promised to 'stop the boats', little did we realise the boats he planned to stop were British fishing boats! The PM sold our fishermen out to the French as an incentive to prevent migrant dinghies setting sail. Curiously, for our 500 million quid, the numbers being 'prevented' are going down not up. Tant pis, Monsieur Keir!) If you or I were the prime minister or home secretary, the numbers above would be giving us sleepless nights. Who knows, maybe Keir Starmer in the wee small hours frets a little that the multicultural experiment is fast approaching breaking point and no amount of jailing 'far-Right thugs' like Lucy Connolly or clamping down on free speech is going to keep a lid on civil unrest. I doubt it somehow. It is an article of faith for the Left that Western countries have no moral right to control their borders and keep out unfortunate people from supposedly exploited places. In 1988, Starmer even said that 'a racist undercurrent… permeates all immigration law'. Nowadays, living in fear of Farage's turquoise tsunami, the hypocrite tweets: 'You have every right to be angry about small boat crossings. I'm angry too.' Don't believe him. Sir Keir is a member of that human rights legal elite who have set themselves up as defenders of the international 'rules-based order', rejoicing in their principled stand against their less enlightened and bigoted countrymen. (That's us, folks.) Irreversible change to the population and culture of our country is not an accidental by-product of their love for open borders; they won't rest until every last vestige of despised Britishness and patriotic feeling is erased. No one better personifies that sanctimonious, canting breed than Sir Keir's old mucker Attorney General, Lord Richard Hermer. Last week, Lord Hermer caused uproar when he said that politicians threatening to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were basically Nazis 'echoing 1930s Germany'. It is that very same wretched ECHR which all the human rights zealots love to exploit. Immigration judges regularly place some Islamist maniac's right to a family life above the right of British people not to be blown up, or raped, successfully blocking the deportation of thousands of dangerous foreign criminals. Imagine hating your country so much that you dedicate your life to representing those who hate it even more. Gerry Adams, Shamima Begum, five brutes linked to al-Qaeda – all were represented by Lord Hermer. So I was disgusted, but not surprised, when The Telegraph disclosed on Sunday that Lord Hermer personally signed off on the prosecution of Lucy Connolly for a single, deeply unpleasant tweet. At the time of the fast-tracked show trials around the Southport riots, the Attorney General warned: 'You cannot hide behind your keyboards – you will face the full force of the law.' (Looks like he and the PM both approved the draconian crackdown on free speech to cover up the cracks in their multicultural project.) The Telegraph also discovered that Hermer's office had declined to review 'unduly lenient' sentences handed to a convicted rapist, a paedophile and a terrorist fundraiser – all of them received shorter terms than Lucy. What a sick, ideologically-warped society it is where a convicted rapist is sentenced to 28 months and a devoted mum and childminder who typed one bad thing (swiftly corrected) is sent down for 31 months. Thank goodness for Robert Jenrick, who perfectly summed up the grotesque two-tier justice meted out to Lucy in an excoriating question in the Commons, and for Baroness Kate Hoey, who demanded compassion for Lucy in the Lords. In Scotland, the Prime Minister asked the country to 'work together' to confront the threat from Russia. I don't know about you but, right now, I'm less worried about Vladimir Putin than Richard Hermer. Even if the Royal Navy and the Army get the funds they need and deserve, there is no way the current Attorney General will permit our forces to repel or repatriate the thousands of undocumented males who present such a danger to the UK (particularly to women and girls). Unless we leave the ECHR, the hands of our soldiers and sailors are forever tied. Imagine trying to explain that mortifying impotence to those who died protecting this island from actual Nazis. Confronting the enemy within is every bit as important as bolstering our defences to engage the enemy abroad. Make no mistake: uncontrolled migration is by far the biggest threat. Starmer, Hermer and their ilk are not to be trusted with our nation's security; they owe their loyalty to international human rights law. Not to the men, women and children of Britain. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
