Poland presidential debate puts Ukraine and Europe centre stage
Polish presidential candidates offered different visions of Poland and its relations with Ukraine in a televised debate ahead of next week's run-off, which remains on a knife-edge.
During a head-to-head debate lasting two hours, the centrist Warsaw mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, from prime minister Donald Tusk's governing pro-European coalition, faced the Eurosceptic historian Karol Nawrocki, backed by the populist rightwing Law and Justice party (PiS).
The two candidates – who qualified for the second round after coming in the top two places in the first vote last Sunday – clashed over Poland's relations with Ukraine, EU policy, and the track records of their respective parties, which have dominated Polish politics since 2005.
Nawrocki – a conservative historian who it was revealed this week had been involved in organised fights between groups of football hooligans in his youth – characterised the election as a referendum on an unpopular coalition government led by Tusk, repeatedly dismissing his rival as 'Tusk's deputy'.
The government came to power in late 2023 promising to undo illiberal reforms by rightwing predecessors and liberalise laws on abortion and LGBTQ rights, but has made little progress, fearing a veto from the outgoing conservative president, Andrzej Duda.
The issue has loomed over the presidential election, turning the ballot into a question of whether voters want to carry through with the political overhaul or prefer an opposition president to keep the government in check – even at the cost of political paralysis.
Trzaskowski challenged Nawrocki's attempts to paint himself as an independent candidate despite being supported by PiS, which ruled Poland between 2015 and 2023.
'You say you're not from PiS, but people from PiS pay for your campaign, organise it and lead it … There is an English saying: if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck,' he said.
During tense exchanges on Friday night, both candidates agreed on the need to support Ukraine militarily in its fight against Russia. But they clashed over other elements of the relationship, including Ukraine's future Nato membership and the controversy over the import of cheaper agricultural goods, which has led to anti-Ukrainian protests by Polish farmers.
Courting the rightwing voters of two far-right candidates who came third and fourth, Nawrocki already said this week that he would block Ukraine's accession to Nato.
On Friday, he repeated his criticism of the farming arrangements. 'As a president, I will do everything to really support [Ukraine] militarily … but I will not let [them] make Poland an auxiliary enterprise.'
Trzaskowski, a former EU lawmaker and junior minister, attacked him for 'speaking the language that favours Putin', also citing his rival's criticism of EU plans to boost member states' militaries. 'We need to be tough with Ukrainians, protect Polish interests … but help Ukraine, because Putin has to break all his teeth in Ukraine and not attack anyone else,' Trzaskowski said.
Just over a week before the vote, the candidates remained virtually level, with individual polls showing narrow leads both ways within the margin of error.
Experts said voter mobilisation – with turnout already at a record high in the first round – could play a decisive role in deciding the outcome.
On Sunday, both candidates will lead rival marches across Warsaw, symbolically starting simultaneously on parallel streets but going in opposite directions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
This must end the grooming cover-up for good
For decades, officials and politicians have systematically turned a blind eye to the horrific grooming gangs operating across Britain. It is therefore welcome that after months of pressure, Sir Keir Starmer has felt forced to announce a national inquiry into the full extent of the scandal. It is also long overdue. A culture of cover-ups and dismissive attitudes have concealed the true scale of offending from the public, extending from local council officials and police officers fearful of accusations of racism to national politicians like Lucy Powell, who in May felt able to call references to the scandal a 'dog whistle'. Even in January, when Elon Musk and others brought renewed focus to the issue on social media, Sir Keir Starmer's first instinct was to kick the issue into the long grass, commissioning a fresh review from Baroness Louise Casey and resisting calls for a full national inquiry. It is hard not to suspect – as Sir Trevor Phillips, former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has claimed – that Sir Keir's reluctance was 'political', motivated by the extreme discomfort that a full inquiry will bring to the Labour party. Some of the highest profile scandals took place under the view of Labour councils, amid Pakistani-heritage communities seen as reliable Labour voters, and it is likely that any full inquiry will bring to light yet more damning evidence of the party's effective complicity. No matter how awkward, however, the inquiry must be given the freedom to ask all necessary questions. Those reviews and reports which have taken place to date have found that officials up and down the country felt under pressure to put 'community cohesion' ahead of the need to save children from sexual abuse. It is likely, moreover, that many in government will still be susceptible to this pressure, and wish to ensure that any inquiry is sufficiently sanitised to be 'safe' for public release. They must not get their way. There can be no more cover-ups. The inquiry must be broad enough to capture the full extent of offending, hold to account those politicians and officials who let the scandal go on, and given the resources and a timetable that brings the truth to light rapidly rather than dragging as the Covid Inquiry has. The grooming gangs scandal lay in plain sight for decades. Official inaction, through inertia and through deliberate choices to turn a blind eye, allowed abuse to continue unchecked. This cover-up must end once and for all, the officials and criminals responsible brought to justice, and the unvarnished truth laid before the country, no matter how damaging to our national self-image it may be.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
For once in his life, Keir Starmer must be decisive
For more than twenty years successive UK governments, in concert with our western allies, have resolutely declared that the Islamic Republic of Iran should not be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon. That rhetoric is finally being put to the test. Faced with new evidence of Iran's relentless march towards nuclear weapon capability, and an alarming warning from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about the regime's continued enrichment of uranium, Israel chose to take action to protect its citizens – and, in the process, those of numerous Arab states who also live under the darkening cloud of Tehran's nuclear ambitions. It shames Britain that the initial response from our Prime Minister to Operation Rising Lion failed to call out the risks to our own interests of a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran. Neither did it express any kind of moral support for the brave actions of our ally Israel whose very existence the regime wishes to eradicate. Instead, he limply called for de-escalation and reaffirmed his faith in a diplomatic process. This response was sadly characteristic of a government that has chosen, in recent months, to save its harshest language for Israel instead of the Iran-backed thugs of Hamas who carried out the worst slaughter of Jews since the Nazi Holocaust. Ministers have gone out of their way to deploy performative gestures like sanctioning two Israeli ministers and the shameful arms embargo, while lapping up cheers from its backbenches. Israel's decisive action was not an act of aggression but a necessary measure to counter a looming existential threat. Israel's right to self-defence is indisputable, given Iran's repeated breaches of nuclear obligations and its explicit threats to annihilate the Jewish state. Israeli leaders have always understood, with good reason, that the first duty of government is to provide security to its citizens. They also know that this is not a task that can be outsourced to the whims of the international community. Iran's history of violating nuclear agreements is both extensive and alarming. The IAEA last week confirmed Iran's non-compliance with its non-proliferation obligations. Iran has enriched uranium to near-weapons-grade and amassed sufficient material to produce multiple nuclear warheads within days. This stockpile, combined with Iran's refusal to halt enrichment activities, violates the JCPOA and other international commitments. For years, Iran has deceived inspectors, concealed undeclared nuclear sites, and advanced its centrifuge technology, all while claiming peaceful intentions. These actions reveal a regime intent on acquiring nuclear weapons, posing an unacceptable risk to Israel and the world. During the recent negotiations with the United States, Iran made clear its refusal to roll-back its nuclear programme and even threatened to accelerate the process for acquiring a nuclear weapon. That was a threat that no Israeli leader could ignore. Israel cannot afford to wait for Iran to cross the nuclear threshold. The targeted destruction of facilities like Natanz and Fordow, which has degraded Iran's enrichment capacity, was essential to avert a catastrophe. Operation Rising Lion draws on Israel's previous interventions to neutralise nuclear threats, such as the 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor and the 2007 attack on Syria's al-Kibar facility. These actions safeguarded not only Israel but the wider Middle East region. On both those occasions world leaders were quick to publicly condemn the pre-emptive strikes, while saving their praise for private meetings with Israeli ministers and officials. The UK's historical commitment to Israel's security demands a stronger stance on this occasion, one that affirms Israel's right to protect its people from destruction. Keir Starmer's call for 'restraint' completely failed to acknowledge Iran's role as the aggressor. Israel's right to self-defence is rooted in both international law and moral imperative. This is not a moment for Britain to show confusion over whose side we are on. Solidarity with Israel is a stand for democracy, stability, and the fundamental right to live free from the shadow of nuclear destruction.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
British Jews warned of ‘revenge' attacks after missile strikes on Iran
British Jews have been warned to be vigilant and follow 'strict security measures' in the wake of Israel's strikes on Iran 's nuclear nuclear facilities and military bases and the subsequent aerial response from the Islamic Republic. The crisis has left Jewish leaders in the UK concerned about potential attacks closer to home. Synagogues have been placed on alert, while Israeli embassies around the world were closed due to increased threats. Jonathan Turner, chief executive of UK Lawyers for Israel, told The Telegraph: 'Israel's actions are extremely justified, especially when you have a country like Iran which repeatedly states the mantra 'death to Israel' and is developing nuclear weapons and trying to cover it up. 'We are aware that a number of colleagues in the UK and other countries have been targets of intended or potential attack by Iranian agents that were foiled by security services. We are very grateful to the police and security services for all they do to keep ourselves and our colleagues safe.' Protesters waived Iranian flags in London on Saturday, with crowds chanting 'Stop bombing Gaza, stop bombing Iran'. The Foreign Office has advised against all but essential travel to Israel, and said: 'The situation could escalate quickly and could pose significant risks, including missile fire.' The Community Security Trust (CST), which works to protect UK Jews from terrorism and anti-Semitism, said that the 'deep threat from Iran is central to our planning and our operations', but also warned security measures have been at a high level for more than 18 months since the Oct 7 attacks on Israel by Hamas. They added: 'CST strongly requests that our community be vigilant and follows the strict security measures that are in place at communal buildings, events and areas.' Meanwhile, Israel's National Security Council (NSC) warned Israelis abroad to 'avoid displaying Jewish or Israeli symbols in public spaces'. They added that it was likely that 'terrorist elements will seek to carry out acts of revenge against Israeli and Jewish targets around the world, including civilians'. Israel's foreign ministry also recommended that all Israeli citizens who are overseas fill out a form detailing their whereabouts. Phil Rosenberg, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, called on the UK Government to 'maintain its active support for Israel's defence against the murderous Iranian regime'. He added: 'We express our deep solidarity with the Israeli people at this time, and pray for their safety and security. 'We affirm Israel's right to defend itself against threats in the region. There can be no doubt about Iran's intentions to acquire nuclear weapons capability. 'This poses a grave and intolerable threat to Israel, but also to the security and stability of the region and the world.' The Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) said its thoughts were with all those awaiting incoming fire from Iran. A spokesman added: 'We were grateful that successive UK governments provided life-saving support to help defend Israel from Iranian attacks, and we call on the UK to support its ally in the fight against a common threat.' They warned the Iranian regime poses a 'lethal threat, not only to Israelis and Jews worldwide but to British people here in the UK... such a regime must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons'. The warnings come as the CST recorded 3,528 anti-Semitic incidents in the UK last year, the second-highest annual total ever reported to it, after a peak the previous year. Rhetoric related to the ongoing Middle East conflict featured in 1,844 (52 per cent) of anti-Semitic incidents reported to the CST in 2024. In at least 355 of the incidents, the phrase 'Free Palestine' was said to have been used in an anti-Semitic way, by being targeted 'at Jewish people or institutions in a hostile manner simply because they were Jewish'.
