Representatives of the ruling coalition, including the Deputy Minister of National Defense and some political commentators, accused Law & Justice (PiS) of voting against Poland. Did they?
EU Minister Adam Szłapka accused the opposition of voting in the EP against recognizing the Eastern Shield as a flagship project for EU security. PiS MEP Michał Dworczyk told PAP that this is not true. "We voted for the amendment regarding the Eastern Shield, but we did not support the entire resolution."
"I am against the European Defense Union project because the actual guarantor of the security of the member states is NATO, and security and defense are the exclusive competencies of the member states. The resolution is de facto, a strong blow to NATO as a transatlantic alliance. In view of the ongoing war in Ukraine, instead of deepened operational cooperation, allocating additional funds for the purchase of military equipment and thus really strengthening deterrence and defense capabilities, it is proposed to create structures that are de facto outside the alliance, and therefore lead to the weakening of NATO. Attempts to replace the transatlantic format with some other weak structure, devoid of experience and community of interests, are nothing more than the implementation of Russian plans aimed at dividing and weakening NATO," explains Dworczyk.
"My next objection to the document is the postulate that votes on the Common Security and Defence Policy should be held by a qualified majority, violating the principle of unanimity in the Council, the Council of Ministers and EU agencies such as the European Defence Agency. The adoption of such a provision will cause the member states to lose real influence on their own defense and security issues. Before the outbreak of a full-scale war, Western European countries and European institutions, despite warnings from my region, primarily Poland, continued their lucrative business with the Russian Federation (e.g. the North Stream gas pipeline).
In this context, abandoning the unanimity principle would "incapacitate" the Central and Eastern European countries if they returned to this erroneous policy."
"I oppose the lack of solidarity in terms of defense spending by European partners. The resolution does not impose specific requirements on member states regarding the amounts allocated for armaments in relation to GDP. At the same time, it postulates the coordination of the use of member states' armaments from the central level (EU institutions). This will result in Western countries still not allocating the funds required by NATO for defense, while at the same time obtaining the right to dispose of Polish armaments resources built with such great effort by Polish society."
"I would like to draw attention to the dangers resulting from the postulate of European preference in the purchase of equipment and technology. Although the general assumption of supporting European production is not entirely bad, in a broader context, it directly affects non-EU partners within NATO. Moreover, in the current situation, which requires urgent replenishment of armaments, this postulate is completely unrealistic."
"I oppose the continuation of the confrontational attitude towards the United States contained in the text of the resolution. The United States, thanks to which Ukraine has been able to fight Russian aggression for the past 3 years, has remained a key guarantor of our European security since World War II. The departure from the idea of deep cooperation and the transition to a new form of European isolationism weakens the security of our continent."
PN: This furious attack on the opposition parties has one specific goal. To draw away attention from the details hidden in the resolution.
- Based on reporting by Dorzeczy(.)pl
