Political Cynic breathes deep, and chokes, on the incense burnt in the names of misbegotten expertise.
Mr. Bret Stephens is a political opportunist, always looking to guild his commentaries with some high sounding, and not the least pretentious opening paragraph.
Several years ago, the Harvard political scientist Graham Allison coined the term “Thucydides’ trap.” It was based on the ancient historian’s observation that the real cause of the Peloponnesian War “was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta.” Allison saw the pattern of tensions — and frequent wars — between rising and ruling powers repeating itself throughout history, most recently, he believes, with the challenge that a rising China poses to American hegemony.
This offers some insights into Graham Allison:
Graham Allison is a professor of government at the Harvard Kennedy School, where he was the founding dean. He is a former U.S. assistant defense secretary and the author of Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?
It’s an intriguing thesis, but in China’s case it has a glaring flaw: The main challenge we will face from the People’s Republic in the coming decade stems not from its rise but from its decline — something that has been obvious for years and has become undeniable in the past year with the country’s real estate market crash.
Stephens becomes prescriptive:
Western policymakers need to reorient their thinking around this fact. How? With five don’ts and two dos.
The Reader might observe that Allison has had actual experience as ‘ a former U.S. assistant defense secretary’, that Stephens can’t even match, nor I! Yet Stephens continues to scribble away ‘as if’ …
First, don’t think of China’s misfortunes as our good fortune.
Second, don’t assume the crisis will be short-lived.
Fourth, don’t take domestic tranquillity as a given.
Fifth, don’t suppose that a declining power is a less dangerous one.
Sixth, do stick to four red lines.
Seventh, do pursue a policy of détente.
The final paragraphs:
We should not seek a new cold war with China. We cannot afford a hot one. The best response to China’s economic woes is American economic magnanimity. That could start with the removal of the Trump administration tariffs that have done as much to hurt American companies and consumers as they have the Chinese.
Whether that will change the fundamental pattern of Beijing’s bad behavior is far from certain. But as China slides toward crisis, it behooves us to try.
The New Cold War with China is of long standing, to act as if this is not a political fact, is self-serving myopia- yet for a Neo-Conservative ghoul, to play the part of The Voice Of Political Reason, is not just unconvincing, but disingenuous. The reader might ask, what expertise dose Stephens offer his readership on China, besides his list? The other Times Neo-Conservative, @nytdavidbrooks, could have written a better exercise in a proffered, for want of better descriptors, Political Realism, Political Pragmatism ?
I’m sorry, but Mark Carney is a lot smarter than Bret Stephens—and Carney knows that Trump’s “idiotic outbursts” are not mere bluster as Bret Stephens seems to think, but backed by extremely harmful tariffs which may cost tens of thousands of Canadians their jobs, weaken our economy significantly, exacerbate domestic tensions between provinces, and cost Canadian taxpayers billions in money needed to prop up companies and individuals who are suffering from the economic war Trump launched against us.
We also understand something neither Bret or most Americans seem to have learned, despite being presented daily with overwhelming evidence: your system of government is completely broken. It’s not just Trump, it’s your Congress, your Supreme Court, your system of elections, and your constitution. We also see that whatever Trump does, there is no effective resistance from the American people—and America’s institutions, from corporations, to universities, to law firms, to the media—mostly defer to his authoritarian demands to protect their assets, which they hold more dear than their democracy.
China has not shown such malice toward us as has the United States—and yes, it is the United States, not just Trump, because the nation as a whole is responsible for the actions the nation takes.
So Bret, before you call our policies “immoral, unwise and unsound” think a bit harder about your own government’s actions against us. If you try hard, maybe you’ll catch up to Carney.
Blunt Anti-Kremlin Warnings: He warns aggressively about Russia, such as stating Poland would shoot down Russian airspace trespassers [AI Overview].
Historical Analogies: In 2006, he compared the Nord Stream gas pipeline to the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact [AI Overview].
Intelligence Disclosures: He frequently shares warnings about potential Russian false flag operations or provocations aimed at testing NATO [AI Overview]. [1]
The Context and Defense
Proved Right by Events: Eastern European leaders argue their historical warnings about Vladimir Putin’s revisionism were dismissed until Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine validated them [AI Overview].
The “Crying Bear” Philosophy: Sikorski states that bordering nations cannot afford diplomatic politeness when a real security threat is at their door [AI Overview]. While noting Russia lacks the immediate strength for a direct full-scale invasion of Poland, he stresses that robust defense preparations and vigilance remain vital. [1]
Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)Polish Foreign Minister Warns of Chaotic and Conflict-Driven …Jun 18, 2026 — Radek Sikorski, Poland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister tells RUSI audience ‘this is not the world Western…
Facebook·CBS NewsPoland’s deputy PM doesn’t believe Russia will attack his countryJun 25, 2026 — Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister Radosław “Radek” Sikorski told CBS News’ Aidan Stretch he doesn’t believe Russia would have the str…44s
ABC7 Los AngelesDeputy prime minister on Poland’s defense: ‘We are … – ABC7Jul 14, 2026 — Deputy Prime Minister Radosław Sikorski on Poland’s defense strategy: ‘We are determined not to become a Russian colony ever’ – AB…
Show all
No results found for AI Overview Radosław “Radek” Sikorski, Poland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister, is often labeled a “political hysteric” or “warmonger” by Russian state officials, political adversaries, and some Western critics due to his blunt rhetoric and aggressive warnings about Russian imperial ambitions.However, within Poland and across Central and Eastern Europe, his defenders view his outspoken approach as a necessary and realistic “rallying cry” rather than hysteria.Why Critics Call Him a “Hysteric”Blunt Anti-Kremlin Warnings: Sikorski frequently issues intense public warnings regarding the Kremlin. For example, he stated that Poland would shoot down any Russian aircraft or missile crossing into its airspace, telling Moscow at a UN Security Council meeting, “please don’t come here to whine about it.” Russian diplomats responded by dismissing the meeting as an extension of Western “hysteria.”Early Combative Statements: His reputation for provocative rhetoric dates back years. In 2006, as Defense Minister, he famously compared a direct Russia-Germany gas pipeline (Nord Stream) to the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, an analogy that a pro-Kremlin analyst at the time explicitly slammed as “hysterical.”Public Intel Disclosures: Sikorski regularly goes public with intelligence warnings. He explicitly stated that Russia is actively planning cyberattacks and “false flag operations” on its own territory to fabricate a pretext to strike a NATO state.The Context and Defense of His RhetoricA History of Being Proved Right: Sikorski and other Eastern European leaders spent decades warning the West about Vladimir Putin’s revisionism. During those years, they were routinely dismissed by Western European nations as “Russophobic warmongers.” The full-scale invasion of Ukraine fundamentally shifted mainstream European perspective closer to Sikorski’s worldview.The “Crying Bear” Philosophy: Addressing his critics directly, Sikorski argued that overstating a non-existent threat is foolish, but “crying bear when the beast is already at the door… is a rallying cry.” He emphasizes that countries like Poland, which share a physical border with the conflict, cannot afford the luxury of diplomatic politeness.Selective Use of the Word “Hysteria”: Interestingly, Sikorski uses the accusation of hysteria himself against his domestic opponents. He has publicly condemned far-right Polish factions, stating that domestic “anti-immigrant hysteria harms Poland” and wakes up dangerous political demons.WikipediaRadosław Sikorski – WikipediaRadosław Tomasz “Radek” Sikorski (born 23 February 1963) is a Polish politician, journalist and statesman who is the longest-servi…EuronewsPolish FM Sikorski: Anti-immigrant hysteria harms PolandJul 13, 2025 — “Anti-immigrant hysteria harms Poland, it awakens the worst demons, and Holocaust denial excludes us from civilised nations”, – Si…Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)Polish Foreign Minister Warns of Chaotic and Conflict-Driven WorldJun 18, 2026 — It is also not the world central Europeans expected to join after 1989. ‘ In a speech that followed the recent signing of the Nort…Show all.
And both Democrats and Republicans generally agree that the country would be better off with fewer pregnant teenagers, fewer unwanted children, fewer absent fathers, fewer out-of-wedlock births.
Where cultural liberals and social conservatives differ is on the means that will achieve these ends. The liberal vision tends to emphasize access to contraception as the surest path to stable families, wanted children and low abortion rates. The more direct control that women have over when and whether sex makes babies, liberals argue, the less likely they’ll be to get pregnant at the wrong time and with the wrong partner — and the less likely they’ll be to even consider having an abortion. (Slate’s Will Saletan has memorably termed this “the pro-life case for Planned Parenthood.”)
The conservative narrative, by contrast, argues that it’s more important to promote chastity, monogamy and fidelity than to worry about whether there’s a prophylactic in every bedroom drawer or bathroom cabinet. To the extent that contraceptive use has a significant role in the conservative vision (and obviously there’s some Catholic-Protestant disagreement), it’s in the context of already stable, already committed relationships. Monogamy, not chemicals or latex, is the main line of defense against unwanted pregnancies.
Government’s power over fertility rates is limited, but not nonexistent. America has no real family policy to speak of at the moment, and the evidence from countries like Sweden and France suggests that reducing the ever-rising cost of having kids can help fertility rates rebound. Whether this means a more family-friendly tax code, a push for more flexible work hours, or an effort to reduce the cost of college, there’s clearly room for creative policy to make some difference.
More broadly, a more secure economic foundation beneath working-class Americans would presumably help promote childbearing as well. Stable families are crucial to prosperity and mobility, but the reverse is also true, and policies that made it easier to climb the economic ladder would make it easier to raise a family as well.
Editor: Note the primary problem as presented by Douthat is couched in the long dead Ultramontane Chatter of another time and place, and held aloft by decadence? Do Karl Barth and Hans Kung of November 3, 2004offer the reader what is utterly absent from Douthat’s New York Times chatter?
Beneath these policy debates, though, lie cultural forces that no legislator can really hope to change. The retreat from child rearing is, at some level, a symptom of late-modern exhaustion — a decadence that first arose in the West but now haunts rich societies around the globe.It’s a spirit that privileges the present over the future, chooses stagnation over innovation, prefers what already exists over what might be. It embraces the comforts and pleasures of modernity, while shrugging off the basic sacrifices that built our civilization in the first place.
Such decadence need not be permanent, but neither can it be undone by political willpower alone. It can only be reversed by the slow accumulation of individual choices, which is how all social and cultural recoveries are ultimately made.
Editor: Jonathan Turley collides with the Amendment I and Robert Jackson!
The problem here is that Jonathan Turley’s self-willed forgetting of American Dissidents : Gordon Hirabayashi, Minoru Yasui, Fred Korematsu, and Mitsuye Endo!!
Korematsu v. United States: 80 Years Later
Even 80 years later, Korematsu v. United States still serves as a reminder of the need to protect civil liberties even during times of insecurity.
November 7, 2024
…
Jackson warned of the dangerous precedent set by the ruling, emphasizing that racial discrimination was antithetical to American democracy—particularly when fighting a war against fascism:
But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes.
Despite the dissents, the court’s ruling not only legitimized the military’s actions during wartime but also raised questions about accountability and oversight in matters of national security.
When General Delos Emmons (Western Defense Commander after DeWitt stepped down in 1943) lifted the exclusion orders on the West Coast and the Army permitted Japanese Americans to return to the West Coast in January 1945, Korematsu’s brothers went home to Oakland, where they found their family’s nursery in disarray. Korematsu couldn’t bring himself to return and decided to remain in Detroit. There, he met his wife and raised his children, living a quiet life and never speaking of his experiences.[19]
But in December 1981, while Congress wrapped up a series of hearings on the removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans during the war, a lawyer named Peter Irons reached out to Korematsu with a shocking discovery. Based on his legal team’s research at the National Archives and Records Administration, Irons discovered that the military and the federal government had purposefully withheld information proving that Japanese Americans were not a security risk—crucial documents that the Supreme Court justices could have used in their decision. When Irons informed Korematsu that he wanted to pursue a pardon for his wartime conviction, Korematsu retorted, “I don’t want a pardon. If anything, I should be pardoning the government.” Ultimately, however, Korematsu agreed to Irons’ proposal.[20]
Two years later, in November 1983, San Francisco US District Court Judge Marilyn Patel heard Korematsu’s case and issued her ruling: “[t]he conviction that was handed down in this court and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States is … vacated and the underlying indictment dismissed.” [21]
Korematsu was grateful but had one final plea:
“Having this conviction cleared, I am very happy. But … I would like to have it completely cleared from the record and that this will never happen again to any American citizen.” [22]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Editor: This from Chicago Magazine of Febuary 1, 2017 might just put Mr. Stephens enthiasm for Rahm Emanuel, into another, more accurate perspspective !
Headline: Rahm Emanuel: The Least Popular Mayor in Modern Chicago History
Sub-headline:The mayor’s job approval drops well below the Bilandic Line in the latest Tribune poll—and his approval rating among white voters is just four points ahead of Harold Washington’s in 1985. By Whet Moser February 1, 2016, 3:56 pm
A decade ago, TV writer John Rodgers was trying to figure out how low George W. Bush’s approval ratings would go. A friend predicted 27 percent, because that was the percentage of the vote the hapless Alan Keyes received in his comically lopsided Senate race against Barack Obama. “Twenty-seven percent of the population of Illinois voted for him,” his friend said. “They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgment.” (Bush would drop to 25 percent in the Gallup poll, making it a pretty impressive prediction.)
The Tribune just polled ‘s approval rating. What do you know: it is 27 percent.
It’s a big poll for a local politician, almost 1,000 respondents, and Emanuel gets killed on basically every question. The only thing resembling a bright spot is that “only” 41 percent of respondents think he should resign, versus 51 percent who don’t. But the racial breakdown is dramatic. Whites are 26 percent for resigning versus 69 percent against, while blacks and Hispanics have basically same split: 51 percent and 50 percent for resignation, respectively, versus 40 percent against. It’s a big blow for a politician who needed the black vote to win a surprisingly contested second term.
How bad is 27 percent? It’s real bad. According to my search of Tribune job approval polls, since the era of Daley dominance began no mayor has ever been this unpopular. In fact, it’s so bad that it’s six points below the previous worst.
Richard J. Daley
He served before the age of regular job-approval polling, but a Gallup poll taken 10 years after his death in 1986 gave him a 73 percent job-approval rating. Before his last election, Daley won a Trib poll in a four-way mayoral primary with 55 percent.
Michael Bilandic
Remember him? He was the machine politician whose handling of the 1979 blizzard—both logistically and politically—is a famous cautionary tale for urban leaders. Prior to it, he had a 48-percent approval rating, according to a WBBM poll; afterwards, he fell to 33 percent.
Jane Byrne
She won because of Bilandic’s collapse, but a year later had a mere 35 percent job-approval rating—and, according to the Tribune in 1980, her good/excellent numbers were actually lower than Bilandic’s.
Harold Washington
Racial tensions caused problems for Washington in City Council, but his top-line numbers were good: 54 percent approval versus 36 percent disapproval in 1985 (though the split was 33/58 for whites), and 67 percent approval in 1987. The Trib used the northwest and southwest sides as a proxy for white voter approval that year, and he notched 47 percent in the former and 32 percent in the latter.
Eugene Sawyer
Washington’s successor was unable to fill his shoes, but his numbers weren’t atrocious. In 1988 the Tribune polled residents on a number of questions about his performance; 55 percent thought he was not “strong, decisive, and independent”; 54 percent thought he was not an “effective leader”; and 45 percent said he wasn’t “good at getting things done.”
Richard M. Daley
For most of his tenure, Da Mare maintained high approval ratings: 80 percent in 1991, 79 percent in 1999. After the Hired Truck scandal, arguably the biggest of his time in office, it slipped to 53 percent in 2005. By late 2009, after the parking-meter deal turned into a disaster, even the great Daley slipped to a Byrne-level 35 percent.
As for Rahm? His highest job approval ratings are among whites, but they’re bad, too: 37 percent, a mere four points above Harold Washington’s approval rating among whites in 1985.
Editor: Mr Stephens assumes that his particular reader won’t bother to check readily avavalable sourses of information! He is a propgandist by avovation and temperament. In this particular instance Mr. Stephens dons the weak guise of a Political Reformer of the New Democratic Party, fogetting that the Neo-Conservatives and the New Democrats have made an allience in the 2024 election. That Bill & Hillary Clinton, Braack Obama are now desperate to begin a political reinvention, post the resounding victory of Trump.
Mr. Stephens wastes no time in presenting Rahm Emanuel as the answer, yet the first paragraph above makes plain the fact Stephens wastes no time pointing out that Progressive Left as a natural enemy of the Parties hierarchy and presents Rahm Emanuel the natural enemy of : ‘The progressive left despises his pragmatism and liberal centrism’. Stephen’s re-invents Emanuel?
There’s a buzz around Rahm Emanuel — the former Bill Clinton adviser, former Illinois congressman, former chief of staff to President Barack Obama, former mayor of Chicago — possibly becoming the next head of the Democratic National Committee. The progressive left despises his pragmatism and liberal centrism. He has a reputation for abrasiveness. And his current job, as ambassador to Japan, has traditionally served as a posting for high-level political has-beens like Walter Mondale and Howard Baker.
But he also has a gift for constructing winning coalitions with difficult, unexpected partners.
…
Editor: Mr. Stephens relies on the well worn bad actor of ‘the progressive left’ that always falls into line with the New Demcratic majorty!
Editor: Here is a New York Times essay on ‘The Brothers Emanuel’ of June 15, 1997 by By Elisabeth Bumiller
The best Rahm Emanuel story is not the one about the decomposing two-and-a-half-foot fish he sent to a pollster who displeased him. It is not about the time – the many times – that he hung up on political contributors in a Chicago mayor’s race, saying he was embarrassed to accept their $5,000 checks because they were $25,000 kind of guys. No, the definitive Rahm Emanuel story takes place in Little Rock, Ark., in the heady days after Bill Clinton was first elected President.
It was there that Emanuel, then Clinton’s chief fund-raiser, repaired with George Stephanopoulos, Mandy Grunwald and other aides to Doe’s, the campaign hangout. Revenge was heavy in the air as the group discussed the enemies – Democrats, Republicans, members of the press – who wronged them during the 1992 campaign. Clifford Jackson, the ex-friend of the President and peddler of the Clinton draft-dodging stories, was high on the list. So was William Donald Schaefer, then the Governor of Maryland and a Democrat who endorsed George Bush. Nathan Landow, the fund-raiser who backed the candidacy of Paul Tsongas, made it, too.
Suddenly Emanuel grabbed his steak knife and, as those who were there remember it, shouted out the name of another enemy, lifted the knife, then brought it down with full force into the table.
”Dead!” he screamed.
The group immediately joined in the cathartic release: ”Nat Landow! Dead! Cliff Jackson! Dead! Bill Schaefer! Dead!”
Rahm Emanuel and Israel It was inevitable that the world would eventually realize the unhappy fact that President-elect Barack Obama will not represent a complete break with the past 60 years of American diplomacy. By tapping Rahm Emanuel, a fierce partisan of Israel who volunteered as a mechanic in northern Israel during the first Gulf War, it is fair …
By David Kenner, Middle East editor at Foreign Policy from 2013-2018.
Editor: This from Jewish Journal
November 6, 2008
…
His father, a pediatrician still practicing near Chicago, immigrated to the United States from Israel and spoke Hebrew with his son, when Emanuel was a boy. Emanuel volunteered as a civilian volunteer in the Israel Defense Forces during the 1991 Gulf War, serving in one of Israel’s northern bases, rust-proofing brakes.
…
Mr Stephens avoids the mention that he and Emanual are not just Zionists but of the the most belicose iteration of that cardre. Mr. Stephens acts as a conduit for Emanual’s politics, which he characterises as: But he also has a gift for constructing winning coalitions with difficult, unexpected partners.
With Hillary Clinton’s hysterical attack on the Constitutional guarantee of Free Speech, and calling her students Foreign Agents: and Biden Pardoning his son- when will be the propitious moment arrive for Rahm Emanuel to take the lead role of The New Democratic Party ? Mr. Stephens is a propagandist and constructs a senario dubed ‘Flip the Script’, that reeks of the arcaine vocabulary of those mythically re-engeneered ‘Mad Men’?
In the Rostov region, in southern Russia, the owner of several stalls that sell local produce says she dreams of having her own fuel tanker. “They can all go to hell with their ideas and grand ambitions,” she says. “They” include Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky, Emmanuel Macron and local governors. “We used to live just fine. Now all you do is scramble from one problem to the next.”
Elena Panfilova, who conducts focus groups in Moscow, says the mood is turning from frustration to seething hatred of the authorities. It is not just the fuel shortages and internet outages that make people angry, but the widening gap between reality and the Kremlin’s rhetoric. “The only way out is to stop [hostilities],” says Valery. “We have been hearing upbeat reports that ‘Russian troops are confidently advancing along the entire front line’ for all four years. Yet if you look at the maps, everything is bogged down in a swamp.”
Mr Putin continues to insist that the war is mostly going to plan. In a recent interview, reading his answers from an autocue, he said: “Everything is operating steadily and with a substantial margin of resilience.” His bare acknowledgment of the change in circumstances suggests he may still be deciding on his next course of action. Many Russians fear that instead of cutting his losses and scaling back, he will double down on the conflict.
…
Noticeably fewer men are now on the streets. “The atmosphere in the city is terrible,” says Elena, a resident. “I forbade my husband from leaving the house. When I go out, I lock him from the outside. We keep the curtains drawn all day.” Andrey Surkov, Penza’s military commissar, claimed the raids were simply to hunt for draft dodgers and deserters.
…
“Vladimir Vladimirovich, pay attention to this. Invite me to meet you. Otherwise the army will turn its weapons on the Kremlin.” The man was predictably arrested (and later released), but by then the video had gained 20m views. From soldiers to street merchants, discontent is rising. As Sergei in Nizhny Novgorod says, “Nobody understands what all this is for, other than perhaps to satisfy Putin’s ego. If people protest, they go to jail. All we can hope for now is that he dies.”
Editor: True to form Zanny Minton Beddoes does not provide a transcript! Hardley a surprise! This is Propganda!
Episode summary
Russia is under pressure. More than four years have passed since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the war is still not going to plan. Ukrainian attacks are reaching deep into Russia, disrupting fuel supplies and adding strain to the country’s economy. Ordinary Russians are feeling the pain.
Andrey Melnichenko, one of the country’s richest—and most understated—oligarchs, fears for Russia’s future. He has shared his vision for what must happen in an essay and nearly 60 hours of conversation with The Economist. It is a remarkable intervention from an insider living in Moscow who understands the risks of speaking out in Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
Zanny Minton Beddoes, The Economist’s editor-in-chief, and Edward Carr, deputy editor, discuss Mr Melnichenko’s manifesto with Arkady Ostrovsky, our Russia editor, and Oliver Carroll, our Ukraine correspondent.
Editor: True to form Zanny Minton Beddoes does not provide a transcript! Hardley a surprise! This is Propganda!
Episode summary
Russia is under pressure. More than four years have passed since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the war is still not going to plan. Ukrainian attacks are reaching deep into Russia, disrupting fuel supplies and adding strain to the country’s economy. Ordinary Russians are feeling the pain.
Andrey Melnichenko, one of the country’s richest—and most understated—oligarchs, fears for Russia’s future. He has shared his vision for what must happen in an essay and nearly 60 hours of conversation with The Economist. It is a remarkable intervention from an insider living in Moscow who understands the risks of speaking out in Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
Zanny Minton Beddoes, The Economist’s editor-in-chief, and Edward Carr, deputy editor, discuss Mr Melnichenko’s manifesto with Arkady Ostrovsky, our Russia editor, and Oliver Carroll, our Ukraine correspondent.
Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)Polish Foreign Minister Warns of Chaotic and Conflict-Driven …Jun 18, 2026 — Radek Sikorski, Poland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister tells RUSI audience ‘this is not the world Western…
Facebook·CBS NewsPoland’s deputy PM doesn’t believe Russia will attack his countryJun 25, 2026 — Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister Radosław “Radek” Sikorski told CBS News’ Aidan Stretch he doesn’t believe Russia would have the str…
ABC7 Los AngelesDeputy prime minister on Poland’s defense: ‘We are … – ABC7Jul 14, 2026 — Deputy Prime Minister Radosław Sikorski on Poland’s defense strategy: ‘We are determined not to become a Russian colony ever’ – AB…
StephenKMackSD's Blog 