Posted on 12/21/2025 4:00:59 AM PST by Cronos
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has met with his Polish counterpart Karol Nawrocki for the first time since Nawrocki took office in August.
While Nawrocki has taken a less friendly approach towards Kyiv than his predecessor, Andrzej Duda, today he declared that his meeting with Zelensky was “a sign that we are together” and was “bad news for Moscow”, their common enemy.
The Polish president said that he was “optimistic” about “building good neighbourly relations”, while Zelensky likewise said that he “feels very positive” following the talks, which he believes can “open a new stage in relations”.
After arriving in Warsaw on Thursday evening, Zelensky met with Nawrocki at the presidential palace on Friday morning – first for one-on-one talks before moving to broader discussions involving their respective delegations.
Speaking afterwards at a joint press conference, Nawrocki said that Zelensky’s “visit is proof that, on strategic issues of security cooperation, Poland, Ukraine, the countries of the region and countries steeped in democratic values are united, and this has never been in doubt”.
In particular, he identified “neo-imperialist” Russia as a shared threat, including through its “hybrid operations” against Poland that have included airspace violations and acts of sabotage against infrastructure.
Nawrocki noted that Poland was one of the strongest international supporters of Ukraine after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, providing extensive humanitarian and military aid.
However, he said that “Poles have the impression that our efforts and assistance to Ukraine were not properly appreciated or understood” and that he had conveyed this to Zelensky during their “tough, honest, yet very pleasant and gentlemanly conversation”.
The Polish president also noted that their talks had encompassed closer economic cooperation, including the involvement of Polish firms in the postwar reconstruction of Ukraine and Poland’s aims to act as a hub supplying natural gas to Ukraine and other neighbouring countries.
Both presidents also touched upon the difficult legacy of massacres during World War Two in which Ukrainian nationalists killed around 100,000 ethnic Poles. The issue has long soured otherwise strong relations between Warsaw and Kyiv.
Earlier this year, the two countries announced a diplomatic breakthrough that would allow the resumption of exhumations of the remains of tens of thousands of victims that remained buried in unmarked graves in Ukraine.
However, progress has been slow so far, with most of Poland’s exhumation requests not yet approved by Ukraine. The heads of both countries’ Institutes of National Remembrance attended today’s talks, and Nawrocki urged them to push ahead on the issue.
Zelensky, meanwhile, said that he would “continue to support” exhumations. “Each of the victims deserves our Christian respect. We should reach an understanding in this regard and commemorate these victims in an appropriate manner.”
Nawrocki, who is a close ally of Donald Trump, also emphasised that “peace [between Russia and Ukraine] will not be achieved without the involvement” of the US president. “Donald Trump is the only leader in the world ready to force Vladimir Putin to sign a peace agreement.”
Wonderful news! A couple of weeks ago, I saw the welcome to Zelensky given by Micheál Martin on behalf of Ireland, too. Inspiring!
Thanks for posting.
Finland President Alexander Stubb just appeared for an interview on Fox, and it was very encouraging.
Glad tidings!
Ukraine either concedes the annexed area and agrees to remain neutral toward Russia, as its constitution mandates, or it will continue to shrink and, ultimately, cease to exist.
“Ukraine either concedes the annexed area and agrees to remain neutral toward Russia, as its constitution mandates, or it will continue to shrink and, ultimately, cease to exist.”
Just wait until the ground freezes.
Having that clause in its constitution turned out to be completely pointless and self-harming, as both Russia and the USA have been hell bent on breaking the agreements and ignoring, at every opportunity, Ukraine (a) declining overtures to join NATO and (b) pushing back against Russian blackmail.
Russia’s attempted assassination of Yuschenko, its flooding of the Donbas with mercs, its tacit support of the never-once-duly-elected pair of gauleiter regimes (the DNR and LNR), and its phoney referenda, are egregious violations of every related agreement with NATO and Ukraine since the Helsinki Accords.
The USA’s incessant attempts (under past administrations) to get Ukraine to join NATO despite Ukraine itself saying “no” and multiple states in EU-NATO stating they’d oppose (and veto) any such application, have given Putin an excuse to serially violate agreements.
Even though Ukraine and EU-NATO are perfectly capable of seeing that the excuse is the thinnest of gruel, they can’t walk back the stupidity of the neocons.
Ukraine’s “neutrality” was supposed to be the quid pro quo for it NOT being used as a retarded tug-o-war between the USA-NATO and RF-CSTO. It is now the enabler of that tug-o-war.
So I wouldn’t have a problem with Ukraine removing the neutrality clause from its constitution.
No, it was absolutely necessary to prevent what has occurred in Ukraine over the past four years.
Russia was never going to tolerate a Ukraine that was hostile toward it or threatened access to its naval base in Crimea, anymore than it was going to tolerate NATO advance to its borders.
But, it's easy to be a sh$t stirrer in Britain when it's Ukrainians are the ones dying in a war with Russia. It's the only thing your sorry, leftist country does well.
Zelensky has done nothing but push for NATO membership since he got into office, even before the war began.
Ukraine will cease to exist before Russia tolerates it in NATO or puts up with NATO troops in Ukraine.
Bollocks. What has occurred in Ukraine over the past four years is a consequence of legitimate opposition to Russian aggression not a consequence of “Russophobia” (for something to be a “phobia” it has to be irrational, but there is nothing irrational about hating a force that wants to completely wipe you off the map - would you describe Israel’s attitude towards Hamas being a “phobia” too?)
As FR has been reporting since 2014, the Western press (as well as Zelensky himself) were nowhere near being on the side of Azov. However, even Wagner, the FSB, the LDNR and the Kremlin-backed ombudsmen have conceded that between Jan 2019 and Jan 2022 the fighting between “separatists” (Russian irregulars pretending to be Ukes) and Ukrainian nazis (e.g. Azov) had all but fizzled out before the SMO was launched.
Denisov and Pushilin had both reported that they were struggling to recruit anyone in the Donbas to fight with them, Denisov then resorted to conscription only for the conscripts to rebel. The “banderite” problem was, in short, such a red herring that even Russian speakers who identified as Russian weren’t buying what the DNR and LNR were trying to sell.
In the first month of the SMO, Ukraine’s overall national response to Russian troops was not just muted, it was handcuffed by the West imposing strict rules of engagement. In the first couple of weeks, several Ukrainian towns and cities let the Russians in without a fight. It’s one of the reasons why the whole Snake Island thing got so blown up - basically, the biggest thing some Ukrainian troops did in reaction to the SMO was tell a Russian warship to go f*** itself.
What changed after that was a consequence of the brutality and butchery across southeastern Ukraine - especially after what happened in Bucha and Mariupol, and the “human safaris” in Kherson, and the matter of Ukrainian children being taken into Russia or Crimea against their own AND their parents’ consent (and that includes Russian Ukrainians who didn’t want to get involved in the fighting, who’d sent their kids to summer camps in Russia, but haven’t seen them since).
Once it became abundantly clear that far from the Azov fighters being either the instigators or enforcers of a cultural genocide against Russian speakers, the Azov fighters were defending civilians and engaging only with RUSSIA’S forces (and it was RUSSIA’S forces that were attacking civilians), the narrative across Europe shifted. Russia kept spinning the bullshit about banderites because they had nothing else - it was obvious that far from Russia’s arrival being welcomed with flowers and songs, the harder Russia fought, the more Ukraine pushed back.
“Russia was never going to tolerate a Ukraine that was hostile toward it” - Ukraine was never hostile to Russia until after prolonged, and utterly unmerited brutality from the east. Putin’s Russia has no right to expect anything but hatred even from the Russians in Ukraine; you can’t burn a bridge and then complain the people on the bridge don’t like you anymore without coming across as a spectacularly delusional prick.
And, we all know that everything else Putin refers to as a justification for attacking Ukraine, is opportunistic bullshit. You don’t need Western press to confirm that; you can simply watch Putin’s own lips moving.
2002: Putin said he had no problem with Ukraine joining NATO. https://x.com/United24media/status/1951241525381239170 - which wasn’t exactly surprising as Russia was WITH Ukraine in the Partnership for Peace, and at one point Russia + NATO were even discussing a long term merger of CSTO and NATO.
2003: Putin confirmed, in writing, the borders between Russia and Ukraine. https://x.com/IuliiaMendel/status/2003406309023183041
2008: Putin denied any hostile attitude towards Ukraine - video here. https://x.com/danibauman2/status/1992164406319538426
Biolabs - never even got mentioned by Russia until after Putin’s useful idiots in America handed that bullshit narrative to him on a plate.
General NATO expansion: In 1997, Russian President Boris Yeltsin tried to secure a guarantee from President Bill Clinton that NATO would not add any former Soviet republics. Clinton refused. There followed a signed agreement between Russia and NATO (https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1997/05/27/founding-act) to the effect of, they were not adversaries, and while NATO rejected any commitment against admitting former Warsaw Pact members, it did pledge not to permanently station substantial combat forces or nuclear weapons in new member states (in the “current and foreseeable security environment”), relying on reinforcement instead. (And, right up to February 2022, this promise to Russia had been kept.)
Full NATO membership for Ukraine: Yet again, this was never an EU-NATO push; it was the USA that kept insisting it’d happen - Clinton had implied it, Bush said it explicitly, Obama didn’t roll back. But Putin still knew that it was never going to happen because even in the unlikely event that Ukraine did apply for full membership, EU-NATO nation state vetoes would have prevented it from ever coming to pass. And France and Germany have explicitly said that to Moscow on multiple occasions - including https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html
Secondly, Ukraine never even tried to apply until September 2022 (after the bogus annexations). If Ukraine doesn’t apply to join NATO, it can’t be admitted into NATO. Putin’s known that since the day he first stepped into office.
When faced with a choice between Hitler and Stalin, or between any two unacceptable alternatives, what should a person do?
When faced with a choice between LBJ and Nixon, between Bush 1 and Clinton, between McLame or Romney and Obummer, or Putin and Zsky.....what should a person do?
When do you side with the lesser of 2 evils and when do you say “None of the above” ?
I know. The absurdity of the whole topic is depressing.
Russia has adopted the Z symbol and rehabilitated the hammer and sickle, its media has been enthusiastically talking about invading other countries after Ukraine, and nuking European/American cities, for over three years now... Of course non-Russian people who were definitely in the crosshairs for the entirety of the Soviet Union (or were caught between the Nazis and the Soviets in WW2) get into a panic when they see it.
Russia has no reason to be scared of the USA, especially not under Biden or Trump, because the USA has never been interested in attacking Russia. The USA would LIKE the Russian Federation to break up, but there’s a difference between wanting it and making it happen.
Likewise Russia has no reason to be scared of the ex-Warsaw Pact, because it has no interest in attacking Russia.
Ditto France, Germany, the UK.
The only thing Russia does seem scared of is the prospect of another onslaught from the non-existent Third Reich. Which is understandable.
As I see it, the adoption by Ukrainians of neo-nazi symbols to scare the Russian ultranationalists who’re attacking them, is no different to Russians putting the Z symbol out there to scare a whole continent.
You are professional propagandist, one likely being paid by the lying British government to post online.
You and your fellow globalist war pigs have us closer to WW III and nuclear war than we ever were during the Cold War, pushed Russia into an dangerous alliance China and has given rise to BRICs.
This all while the globalist elite behind this are have destroyed Britain and turned into the equivalent of the old Soviet Union through mass migration and green energy policies and by cutting your nation off from cheap Russian energy.
Free speech doesn't exist in Britain. Mothers of four are being arrested for calling their attackers faggots.
Russia is a freer, saner and conservative country than your country is.
Everything said is true:
1) We (including Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Victoria Nuland) helped fomented the Maiden coup that setoff a civil war in Ukraine that led to the present war and endangered Russia's naval base in Crimea, one its operated since before the US Constitution was written.2) The people of Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk all voted for President that was removed from office ILLEGALLY, 10 votes short of votes necessary for impeachment. They had every moral, legal and ethnical right to join the Russian Federation or declare their independence. 3) The people in the annexed area don't want to go back to being part of Ukraine.
Really? Then, why did the militias of the DPR and LPR along with Chechens do all ground fighting in the first year of the war on behalf of Russia?
Your propaganda is laughable.
🎯🎯🎯
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.