While looking at the American political landscape we often notice the constant rivalry between two parties. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party have dominated the political battlefield, but they are not the only ones on it. In the American duopoly of power, one can notice the small impact that the Libertarian Party exerts.

Despite the already mentioned duopoly of power, there are at least a few other political groups in the United States. They represent different, often extreme views present in the land of the free. The largest political party that has not reached the core of American politics is the Libertarian Party. It was founded in 1971 and currently has nearly 700,000 registered voters.[1]

The Libertarian Party promotes classical liberalism, which stands in contrast to the modern liberalism and progressivism of the Democratic Party as well as the conservatism of the Republican Party. Overall, in terms of policies, the Libertarians combine, among others, the liberal worldview of the Democrats and the economic liberalism represented by the Republicans. Despite their commonalities with major American political parties, the Libertarians lag far behind in terms of the number of registered voters when compared with both the Democrats and the Republicans. What seems interesting, however, is the initiative itself, which is likely to play an increasingly important role in American politics over time.

• Read more: US Cyber Forces as a Model for the Polish Ones

Despite having less than a million registered voters, paradoxically, the Libertarian Party has the potential to influence the outcome of the most important American elections. The analysis of the results of the 2020 presidential election shows that the number of votes of third-party voters dropped in comparison to the 2016 presidential election. This is due to the fact that people who voted for a third-party candidate in 2016, chose to vote for either Joe Biden or Donald Trump in 2020. It turned out that the outcome of the close race between Biden and Trump might have been affected by the actions of Jo Jorgensen, 2020 Libertarian Party presidential candidate.

Jorgensen allowed Biden to win key states, such as Wisconsin and Arizona. In the former, the difference of votes between the winning and losing candidate was equal to 20,682, while in the latter it was even smaller – 10,457 votes. Considering the totals of votes cast in these states, such differences were marginal. The influence of the 2020 Libertarian Party presidential candidate in these locations can be easily noticed. In Wisconsin, Jorgensen secured 38,393 votes, while in Arizona she obtained 50,636 of them – almost five times the difference between Biden and Trump. The latter won both of these states in 2016, but lost them to Biden in 2020. Accordingly, two conclusions could be reached – either some Trump’s libertarian supporters voted for the Libertarian Party candidate, or the third-party voters assumed that Joe Biden would be more likely to implement their demands. The latter seems more plausible.

In October 2020, a Pew Research Center poll asked people who voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 about their voting intentions in 2020. As many as 49% of them said they were leaning toward or supporting Biden, while 26% said they were supporting Trump. A quarter said they were planning to vote for a third-party candidate again in 2020.[2] A New York Times exit poll of 15,590 voters found that of the 5% of respondents who voted for a third-party candidate in 2016, 60% supported Biden and 25% voted for Trump in 2020, while the remaining 15% of votes were cast for other candidates.[3] The results of these polls show that some Libertarian Party advocates chose to support the Democratic Party candidate in the last presidential election. Adding up the votes of third-party voters cast for Biden and those that Trump lost as a result of Jorgensen’s run, one can notice the Libertarian Party’s influence on the outcome of the election in at least a few states. Meanwhile, Jo Jorgensen, a professor at Clemson University, won 1,865,724 votes, or 1.2% of the voter turnout. This is a far superior result in comparison to other candidates representing parties that are not associated with the duopoly of power in the United States. It demonstrates the importance of the votes collected by Jo Jorgensen and the votes that the remaining Libertarians cast for Joe Biden.

The Libertarian Party can boast of 10 politicians who have been elected to state legislatures since its founding. Some of them became its members after being elected as Democratic or Republican politicians. The most recent such example is Marshall Burt, who serves in the Wyoming House of Representatives since 2020. Yet, the case of Representative Justin Amash (MI), who left the Republican Party to join the Libertarian Party, seems to be an exception. As a result of it, the Libertarian Party had its first representative at the federal level. In general, the Libertarian Party has representatives mainly in state legislatures, as well as among local executive heads and other lower-level bodies. Their number has been growing steadily, reaching 182 in 2019. Despite the fact that the size of this political group is incomparable to the two largest parties in the country, the Libertarians in the United States are trying to build their structures from the ground up, and their role in federal elections may be underestimated by numerous political analysts.

Jan Hernik 

Editor in chief, Expert

Jan Hernik is a journalist and publicist who gained experience in Polish independent Internet media broadcasts. In his career, he participated in the creation of projects related to domestic policy and geopolitics. Hernik has an experience in working as a TV presenter and editor of a news portal. At the Warsaw Institute, he is the editor-in-chief and expert in the field of the United States.

Hernik is a graduate of the American Studies Center at the University of Warsaw. He specializes in the theory of religion, race and ethnicity for political choice in the U.S presidential elections. His research interests also include the colonial era of the United States, the right to bear arms and the American liberal thought.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

On February 8, 2022, the Safer Internet Day, Polish Minister of National Defense Mariusz Błaszczak officially established the Cyberspace Defense Forces (CDF). Director of the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) Brig. Gen. Karol Molenda [1] became their new commander. This is the final stage of the process that began in February 2019. During the past three years, the National Cryptology Center and the IT Inspectorate were integrated and the NCSC was established. The latter took on the role of a centralized center focused on cybernetics, cryptology, and broadly understood IT.

The new forces, based on the idea of the US ones, will secure ICT systems, detect attacks in cyberspace, as well as conduct offensive and defensive actions in it. Similarly to the US, the CDF operates alongside the NCSC. The NCSC provides analytical and intellectual support, much like the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States. Both soldiers and civilian experts who are proficient in cybersecurity can work at the NCSC. On the other hand, the CDF is a strictly military institution that gives commands to tactical level units. Its employees include almost exclusively full-time soldiers. The CDF can be compared to the US Cyber Command, and, as Brig. Gen. Karol Molenda admitted in an interview with Polska Zbrojna, the new unit was built precisely on the basis of solutions used in America. “The commander of US Cyber Command is at the same time the director of the NSA. This allows for a free flow of personnel between the units and guarantees one person’s responsibility for the entire domain – cyberspace.” Polish policymakers wanted to achieve the same effect, hence the idea that the same person should have the control over both the CDF and the NCSC.

• Read more: Blinken Visits Poland, Confirms U.S.-Poland Ties

The reality quickly verified the need to create a new type of military unit. During the war between Russia and Ukraine, military specialists observed extremely increased activity of groups inspired by the governments of Russia and Belarus. This activity concerns both cyberattacks against the state infrastructure and disinformation operations against public figures. The importance of defensive and offensive cyber skills is crucial in the context of the current political situation in Europe. This is why Polish cyber soldiers are developing their skills both on the basis of domestic resources as well as the solutions and competencies of allies. Further training courses for Polish experts are created on the basis of the best examples taken from NATO specialists. Their importance could be observed, for instance, by analyzing the works of American specialists who went to Ukraine in order to strengthen the cyber defense of that country just before the outbreak of war. A team of US Cyber Command soldiers and experts of private companies that deal with cyber security, helped Ukraine to face cyberattacks, which targeted its infrastructure, by providing relevant know-how [3]. This limited the scope of cyberattacks targeting Ukraine, both those occurring days before and during the invasion. Poland and other EU members also provided assistance in cyberspace as part of European cooperation. Shortly after the conflict began, a rapid response team was established and included cybersecurity experts from EU member states. Their skills, such as incident response, forensics, and vulnerability assessment, are used exclusively for defending the Ukrainian infrastructure [4].

The development of cyber security cooperation capabilities between Poland and the United States is undoubtedly much needed. Thanks to it, it was possible to take effective action against actively implemented hostile operations of hacking groups, which preceded the war started by Russia. These included mainly DDoS attacks (which aim to restrict access to services), ransomware (extortion of ransom by encrypting data), phishing (attacks using mostly email to steal logins and passwords), and wipers (software that irreversibly destroys data) [5]. Since the conflict began, experts have observed a significant increase in this type of hostile activity. Not only the conflicting parties, but also Poles and Americans are exposed to their effects. The implementation of strong sanctions against Russia, resulting in material losses, exposes us to retaliation from cyber criminals linked to Russia.

Author:

Wiktor Sędkowski 

Security solutions architect and independent security researcher. Certified (CISSP, CCSP, OSCP, OSWE, MCTS) expert in the field of digital threats. He specializes in vulnerability analysis, writing and analyzing exploits. A graduate of ICT at the Wrocław University of Technology, PhD student at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Automatics and Computer Science of the Opole University of Technology. He conducts research on the use of artificial intelligence solutions in the threat modeling process. He gained experience as an engineer and technical manager in leading IT companies.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

[1] https://www.wojsko-polskie.pl/woc/articles/aktualnosci-w/nowe-era-cyberbezpieczenstwa/

[2] https://polska-zbrojna.pl/home/articleshow/36588?t=Jak-bedzie-bilo-cyfrowe-serce-armii 

[3] https://cyberdefence24.pl/polityka-i-prawo/amerykanie-przygotowywali-ukraine-do-cyberwojny-na-kilka-miesiecy-przed-inwazja-rosji

[4] https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/02/22/european-union-cyber-defense-team-deploys-to-aid-ukraine/

[5] https://www.cfr.org/blog/tracking-cyber-operations-and-actors-russia-ukraine-war

[6] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-russia-cyberattack-chris-krebs

photo: Twitter

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Poland on the first Saturday of March. While at the Polish-Ukrainian border later, the U.S. chief diplomat met Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau. Blinken came to Poland to confirm robust ties between his state and Poland as well as NATO's commitment to security on the country’s eastern flank. He also spoke highly of Polish people who helped Ukrainian refugees.

Poland is in close cooperation with the Joe Biden administration, as evidenced by Washington's efforts to boost up Poland militarily––the country of NATO's eastern wing. Thus, in early February, the United States more than doubled the number of its military personnel deployed in Poland, including a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division. With some assistance from the United States, Poland is getting involved in firm steps Western countries have made against the Russian Federation. According to estimates, Poland has so far provided $950 million worth of military and humanitarian assistance to war-torn Ukraine. Poland is ready to provide Kyiv with additional defensive weapons, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki told a press conference. This includes helmets, bulletproof vests, and arms designed to defend cities, streets, and homes. Since the start of the war, Poland has taken more than one million Ukrainian refugees who had fled the country, mainly women, children, and the elderly.

In my meeting with Polish Foreign Minister @RauZbigniew, I expressed the United States’ admiration and appreciation for Poland’s solidarity and support for Ukraine in the face of Putin’s aggression. pic.twitter.com/L3mX8s962Y

— Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) March 5, 2022

At the meeting with his Polish counterpart Zbigniew Rau, Blinken voiced his gratitude for being in Poland and stressed U.S.-Polish cooperation that bound the two states together in the face of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He said the very ideals that bound Poland and the United States were freedom, democracy, peace, and security. The Biden administration made a $2.75 billion request to Congress for additional funds to Ukraine to meet the need of vulnerable people and communities inside Ukraine as well as to support refugee services, including in Poland. That is in addition to the more than $54 million in humanitarian assistance to Ukraine that the U.S. state administration had announced before. Mr. Blinken also expressed his gratitude to the Polish government that had sheltered diplomatic personnel of the U.S. embassy in Kyiv. "At this moment of crisis for millions of Ukrainians – and as the security of Europe hangs in the balance – Poland has stepped forward with generosity, with leadership, with resolve," he added.

• Read more: Biden Announces Supreme Court Nominee

Another effort is by transferring MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed the British Parliament via video, making a plea to supply the Ukrainian military. However, Ukraine's military pilots are not trained to fly U.S. jet fighters. They are yet capable of operating Soviet-made MiG-29 planes. Negotiations are underway to make Poland give its MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine in exchange for some newer F-16 jets from the United States. Polish President Andrzej Duda initially denied having said that by keeping MiG-29 warplanes in Poland, the Polish government seeks to protect the country. Nonetheless, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken gave NATO countries a "green light" to send jets to Ukraine. By supplying Ukraine with its own MiG-29 fighter jets, Poland would receive newer U.S.-made aircraft. Now twenty-eight MiG-29 jets remain in Poland's fleet––they are based in Mińsk Mazowiecki and Malbork. Handing over the fleet of MiG-29 warplanes would possibly weaken the potential of the Polish armed forces. Giving up its Soviet-era MIG-29 jets would leave Polish armed forces with just 48 F-16 warplanes.

Polish diplomacy issued a proposal that had not been previously consulted with the US allies. Poland wanted to make its MiG-29 fighters available for free, provided that they would be handed over to Ukraine through American bases in Europe. Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said Poland's proposal was "untenable."

It is worth pointing out that the decision to send MiG-29 aircraft to Ukraine should be made and carried out as part of collective NATO activities, not an individual initiative. It is a joint responsibility of the alliance states, especially the USA, which Washington, without declaring clear compensation for Poland's military potential, wanted to transfer onto Polish shoulders. That is why Warsaw, with the proposal to transfer the fighters to the Ramstein base, said "I am checking".

• Read more: AUKUS Trilateral Meeting and the US Indo-Pacific Strategy

Both Poland and Western nations are making their best efforts to provide military aid to Ukraine while staying out of a conflict with Russia. But where is there a boundary between providing military aid and actually stepping into an open kinetic conflict? Is declaring military support for one warring party while imposing harsh sanctions on the other no longer an effort to be in the war? The Kremlin claims that sending weapons to Ukraine could be tantamount to entering the conflict directly. This is a message for Poland that––despite offering its biggest-ever humanitarian aid for Ukrainian refugees and military aid to its eastern neighbor––seeks to stay out of the conflict with the Russian Federation.

Author:

Jan Hernik is a journalist and publicist who gained experience in Polish independent Internet media broadcasts. In his career, he participated in the creation of projects related to domestic policy and geopolitics. Hernik has an experience in working as a TV presenter and editor of a news portal. At the Warsaw Institute, he is the editor-in-chief and expert in the field of the United States.

Hernik is a graduate of the American Studies Center at the University of Warsaw. He specializes in the theory of religion, race and ethnicity for political choice in the U.S presidential elections. His research interests also include the colonial era of the United States, the right to bear arms and the American liberal thought.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

photo: Twitter

On Friday, February 25, US President Joe Biden officially introduced his nominee for Supreme Court justice. Ketanji Brown Jackson, 51, is expected to replace retiring Justice Stephen G. Breyer. The choice is of exceptional importance as Jackson will be the first Black woman who will take up the post at America’s highest judicial body.

The month-long search for a suitable candidate to replace Justice Breyer was filled with controversies. According to the accusations against Joe Biden’s administration, Breyer’s resignation from the lifetime appointment and the search for a Black woman to replace him were purely political.

Firstly, this may be an attempt to change the current 6-3 conservative majority of Supreme Court justices. Most probably, the Democratic Party leadership decided to replace Justice Breyer, 83, nominated to the Supreme Court by Bill Clinton in 1994, with an equally liberal, but 32 years younger, Ketanji Brown Jackson. This action aims to gradually shift the worldview balance of justices, which, in the long run, may prove crucial to Democratic Party’s legislative successes and potential contestation of bills that will be controversial among most Americans.

For too long, our government and our courts haven’t looked like America. I believe it’s time that we have a Court that reflects the full talents and the greatness of our nation, with a nominee of extraordinary qualifications — Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. pic.twitter.com/3EVQaolCFE

— President Biden (@POTUS) February 26, 2022

Secondly, a part of American public opinion, Republican Party politicians, as well as representatives of conservative media, accused Biden of exaggerated political correctness and setting not the competence and experience, but the color and gender of the candidate as the main selection criteria for the new justice. During the 2020 presidential campaign, President Biden promised that if he had the opportunity to nominate a new Supreme Court justice, he would nominate a Black woman. In April 2021, when Biden announced his first three nominees for judges of the Court of Appeals, all of them were Black women. Among them was also Ketanji Brown Jackson. Likewise, two more of the 10 appellate judges, which the current president appointed, were Black women. After swearing in the first Black woman of Asian descent, Kamala Harris, as vice president of the United States, the next “historic” step of the Biden administration was to appoint the first Black woman as a Supreme Court justice.

Political calculation may be apparent in Jackson’s case, but her appointment also suggests that Joe Biden administration’s wants to check whether such candidacy would be supported by the US Senate. Biden deliberately chose a liberal lawyer who gained Republican backing when she was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last year. Consequently, he increased Jackson’s chances in the upcoming hearings. The process now moves to the 50-50 Senate, where the Democrats’ top priority is to keep all their votes supporting Ketanji Brown Jackson. That will be enough for the first Black woman to sit in the Supreme Court since Republicans eliminated the 60-vote rule for Supreme Court nominations in 2017.

• Read more: AUKUS Trilateral Meeting and the US Indo-Pacific Strategy

Nonetheless, White House and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) said that Democrats’ goal is also to win Republican votes. As he pointed out in recent statements, Biden’s team aims to complete Jackson’s Senate vetting process by April 9. Republican Senators seems to be approaching Jackson’s nomination relatively softly.

Senator Mitt Romney called Biden’s nomination “historic,” and Senator Rob Portman said: “I don’t think this will be as partisan as we’ve seen in the past.” Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) assured on FOX News that Republicans will be “polite” during the Supreme Court nomination hearings.

• Read more: Illegal firearms flow on the U.S-Mexican border

While Republicans are ambivalent about the Supreme Court justice nominee, representatives and voters of the Democratic Party will certainly like Ketanji Brown Jackson. After all, she is the author of the famous 2019 legal opinion in which she, in strong words, cracked down on claims of then-President Donald Trump who refused to disclose details of his actions in Ukraine, which were the subject of his first impeachment trial. Jackson, graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, has a similar educational path to all current Supreme Court justices, except for Amy Coney Barrett. Jackson spent much of her career on criminal law cases and public interest issues. Thus, it appears that apart from political correctness, which Biden is accused of by his political opponents, he nominated a person who is properly qualified to serve on the highest court in the United States. At the time of writing, Jackson is meeting with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), majority leader of the US Senate. This is the first of several courtesy calls with senators ahead of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. All indications are that the US Senate will approve the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson within the timeframe indicated by Dick Durbin.

Author:

Jan Hernik is a journalist and publicist who gained experience in Polish independent Internet media broadcasts. In his career, he participated in the creation of projects related to domestic policy and geopolitics. Hernik has an experience in working as a TV presenter and editor of a news portal. At the Warsaw Institute, he is the editor-in-chief and expert in the field of the United States.

Hernik is a graduate of the American Studies Center at the University of Warsaw. He specializes in the theory of religion, race and ethnicity for political choice in the U.S presidential elections. His research interests also include the colonial era of the United States, the right to bear arms and the American liberal thought.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

HMAS Onslow Oberon Class Submarine 4

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs Marise Payne, and British Foreign Secretary Elizabeth Truss held a trilateral meeting at the Munich Security Conference. The meeting of the members of the pact, concluded at Joe Biden’s initiative in September 2021, concerned the progress in implementing initiatives under the AUKUS trilateral security partnership. This pact focuses on maintaining peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region.

The political and strategic implications of the AUKUS pact between the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, are still under development. To date, the details on how Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) have often been overlooked. However, this issue was raised by Antony Blinken and Marise Payne behind the scenes of the Munich Security Conference.

Australia will obtain conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS initiative. Australian government officials plan to arm the submarines with conventional weapons. The details of the program are yet to be established, likewise the choice between the US and British submarines still has to be made. Ultimately, the Royal Australian Navy will purchase eight nuclear submarines. The whole project is worth about $70 billion, but, according to numerous experts, this price could still rise. A report published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in December found that the nuclear submarine program could cost more than $80 billion.

• Read more: Cyberattacks in Ukraine Can Hit Europe and the US

The very idea of introducing nuclear-powered vessels into the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) appears to be a fundamental decision that is significant in the context of further competitiveness in the Indo-Pacific in the face of China’s growing position in the region. The main concern is the distance between Australia’s coasts and the South China Sea. The waters of the region are located about 5,500 kilometers away from the RAN base near Perth. The Royal Australian Navy will have to compete with Chinese SSNs, which currently may not match the quality of their Western counterparts. Yet, advances in the surface fleet indicate that their quality and number are likely to increase rapidly over the next decade.

During the trilateral meeting, the representatives of the US, the UK, and Australia expressed their desire to deepen cooperation on additional advanced military and technology capabilities. Precisely for this reason Blinken visited allied countries in the Indo-Pacific in early February this year.

The Biden administration’s strategy for the way forward in the Indo-Pacific, released on February 11, confirms what has become apparent in the first year of Biden’s presidency – a clear foreign policy orientation towards East Asia as well as an effort to strengthen joint defense and preventive capabilities of US partners and allies. Almost five months after the announcement of the AUKUS security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, this strategy appears to be an opportunity to recognize the value that allied European states can bring to the Indo-Pacific.

The strategy of the current White House administration upholds efforts to engage the United States in East Asia and assumes a bipartisan understanding that the Indo-Pacific region plays a critical role in US security now. The document also represents Biden’s recognition of the growing threat from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) not only in the South China Sea but also in the overall superpower rivalry between the US and the PRC. The strategic assumptions imply that the administration of the current US president notices the need to intensify the American presence in East Asia. Such actions could have already been observed from early March 2021. Then, after the US-China summit in Alaska, the United States began planning the establishment of additional military bases in Japan and South Korea.

The plan concerning further US actions in the Indo-Pacific clearly states that the main reason for its involvement in the region is the increased Chinese activity. It refers to the use of economic, diplomatic, military, and technological instruments by the PRC that seek to expand China’s sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific.

Washington recognizes also the threat associated with China’s economic offensive against Australia. Xi Jinping’s regime imposed tariffs of up to 212% on Australian wine. Earlier, the PRC took steps to restrict imports of various products from Australia, including coal, copper, and barley. This way Beijing is sending a clear message to the United States’ allies in the region and the countries that want to join the anti-China alliance to be led by the United States.

The Americans are also aware of other threats from the PRC, such as the growing pressure on Taiwan and the increasing activity of Chinese troops in the South China Sea.

The United States, recognizing China’s growing power, realizes that in order to effectively conduct its business in the region, it must build alliances and strategically relevant environments, aiming to achieve a balance of influence in the region. The current Russia-Ukraine crisis has not confused the US administration, which is well aware that despite Ukraine’s obvious value to the United States and NATO, the Indo-Pacific is where the struggle for direct world domination is taking place.

• Read more: Enhanced Presence of the US Troops on NATO’s Eastern Flank

Author:

Jan Hernik is a journalist and publicist who gained experience in Polish independent Internet media broadcasts. In his career, he participated in the creation of projects related to domestic policy and geopolitics. Hernik has an experience in working as a TV presenter and editor of a news portal. At the Warsaw Institute, he is the editor-in-chief and expert in the field of the United States.

Hernik is a graduate of the American Studies Center at the University of Warsaw. He specializes in the theory of religion, race and ethnicity for political choice in the U.S presidential elections. His research interests also include the colonial era of the United States, the right to bear arms and the American liberal thought.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

Experts assessing the geopolitical situation in eastern Europe have no doubt that Russia is planning an attack on Ukraine [1]. This is evidenced by Russia’s massive military build-up near the borders of Poland’s eastern neighbor. Thousands of soldiers, gathered under the pretext of military exercises, could launch an invasion at any time.

This is evidenced by satellite images published for several weeks on a number of websites. However, the actions of the cyber forces, which Russia is likewise mobilizing in preparation for a potential conflict, remain less visible. Cybersecurity experts say that if Russia decides to invade Ukraine, it will undoubtedly use cyberattacks as a key part of its strategy. This took place already during the previous conflicts – in Georgia as well as Crimea (2016). If the cyberattacks get out of control, institutions that are not involved in the conflict, such as government agencies and private companies in the US, Poland, and elsewhere, could be affected too. Past events show that this is a very likely scenario.

• Read more: Enhanced Presence of the US Troops on NATO’s Eastern Flank

In mid-January, hackers swapped the content of dozens of government websites in Ukraine. This type of attack did not directly affect the websites, but it successfully attracted media attention around the world. The attackers posted misleading content only to create a smokescreen and divert attention from a more dangerous attack – planting destructive malware inside the networks of Ukrainian businesses and government agencies. The plot was identified and described by Microsoft’s security engineers [2]. After conducting a post-hack analysis, the Ukrainian security services unequivocally identified Russia as the source of the attack. Mandiant’s independent analysts, while predicting that the crisis in Ukraine would become a catalyst for additional aggressive cyber activity that would likely escalate, warned that future operations may not be limited to Ukrainian targets. At the same time, the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) warned critical infrastructure operators in the US and allied countries to take “urgent steps” against cyber threats, citing the attacks in Ukraine as a reason to remain vigilant against possible threats to US assets.

Polish government institutions and banks were also instructed to prepare for potential cyberattacks. Increased defense capabilities were necessary because of the incidents that occurred in previous years. CISA recalled the 2017 NotPetya attack that got out of control and spread quickly across the Internet. The malware infection affected the entire world, causing billions of dollars of damage. NotPetya was a Russian cyberattack targeting Ukraine during a period of high tension [5]. Similarly, BlackEnergy attacks aimed to disrupt industrial control systems (ICS) of Ukrainian power plants [6]. As a result of the aggression, the supply of electricity to half the population of the Ivano-Frankivsk region was suspended. Variants of the malicious code were later found also following the attacks on other institutions, including power sector companies in the US and Poland [7].

Attacks on critical infrastructure are far more complex as well as require far more work and expense than those targeting less protected assets. For that reason, Mandiant analysts stated that “destructive tools and other simpler methods could be leveraged against a large cohort of targets simultaneously.” They were not wrong – on February 15, 2022, Ukraine was once again hit with a DDoS attack. Such attacks can be launched at low cost, for instance, by using attacker’s botnets. The websites of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and two large banks were among the victims of the attack. In the latter case, customers reported problems with logging in to online banking and making withdrawals from ATMs. The source of the attack has not been provided to date.

• Read more: Legislative Challenges of the Democrats at the Start of 2022

Russia is likely to continue using cyber sabotage against Ukraine as it allows this country to effectively pursue its goals in the region. Cyberattacks, such as the power grid shutdown described above, have a destabilizing effect not only on the economy but also on the morale of the Ukrainian people. They are also a demonstration of Russia’s technical capabilities. A stronger attack on the financial sector could permanently prevent Ukrainians from withdrawing money and accessing bank accounts. An attack on the communications infrastructure would limit connectivity, and consequently the ability to organize evacuations and defense against aggression. Self-replicating malware attacks could bring all institutions and government agencies to a halt. They can also spread uncontrollably beyond the territory where they were intended to be used and hit the entire world, as it has already happened in the past.

Author:

Wiktor Sędkowski

Security solutions architect and independent security researcher. Certified (CISSP, CCSP, OSCP, OSWE, MCTS) expert in the field of digital threats. He specializes in vulnerability analysis, writing and analyzing exploits. A graduate of ICT at the Wrocław University of Technology, PhD student at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Automatics and Computer Science of the Opole University of Technology. He conducts research on the use of artificial intelligence solutions in the threat modeling process. He gained experience as an engineer and technical manager in leading IT companies.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

photo: Twitter

The soldiers of the 82^nd US Airborne Division arrived at the Rzeszów–Jasionka Airport (southeastern Poland) in early February. American troops flew to Poland directly from the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, onboard Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. This enhanced military presence on NATO’s eastern flank demonstrates the awakening of the American administration, led by President Joe Biden.

In late December 2021, President Biden approved a plan to help Ukraine, threatened by a Russian invasion. During his visit to Kiev in January 2022, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken confirmed that the United States would provide an additional $200 million in military aid to the Ukrainian army. Since the beginning of 2022, US aircraft have been delivering military equipment to Ukraine to support the country’s defense in the event of Russian military aggression. It is worth pointing out that the United States has been supporting Ukraine since 2014, when the Russian invasion of Crimea took place. Since then, the United States has allocated more than $5.4 billion to Ukraine. This aid concerned not only security but also other domains. In addition, the United States provided three sovereign loan guarantees totaling $3 billion. Since 2014, the United States donated more than $351 million to support people displaced or otherwise affected by the Russia aggression in eastern Ukraine. The US administration understands well that a sovereign state located between Poland and the Russian Federation is a valuable security buffer zone that separates the members of the North Atlantic Alliance from a potential threat from the Russian Federation.

• Read also: Legislative Challenges of the Democrats at the Start of 2022

On December 8, 2021, the day after Joe Biden’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the US president made it clear that he would not send American troops to Ukraine, even in the event of Russian aggression. However, recent actions of the US administration, including these of the Pentagon, led by Lloyd Austin, show that military aid to Ukraine may be indirect. Additional US troops on NATO’s eastern flank are intended to thwart Putin’s territorial ambitions.

In early February 2022, President Joe Biden formally approved the deployment of 3,000 American troops to Poland, Germany, and Romania. The information was announced by the Pentagon. This action is expected to strengthen the defense capabilities of NATO members in Eastern Europe. Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby indicated that the deployment concerns about 2,000 troops that were relocated from the United States to Poland and Germany. In addition, about 1,000 troops, currently stationed in Germany, are being relocated to Romania. If necessary, additional 8,500 troops remain on alert and await orders from command, which would depend on developments in Eastern Europe. If more troops are needed, appropriate decisions would be made on an ongoing basis. The Press Secretary noted that American troops will not conduct combat operations on the territory of Ukraine and will not participate in its defense, but will only strengthen the defense capabilities of its allies, should that be necessary.

Our #Paratroopers are deploying to the @USArmyEURAF AO in order to assure our @NATO Allies and partners in the region. We are grateful to our Polish Allies for their warm reception and we are fortunate to train alongside them#strongertogether #weareNATO #AATW #UnbeatableLGOP pic.twitter.com/txDDURUwOr

— All American Division (@82ndABNDiv) February 6, 2022

Around 1,700 additional service members from the 82^nd Airborne Division have arrived in Poland. Its commander – General Christopher Donahue, is famous for being the last soldier to leave Kabul after the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan last year. It is important to emphasize that this Division constitutes the core of the Immediate Response Force – its soldiers are capable of engaging in combat anywhere in the world within 18 hours. For this reason, this unit is considered elite.

The characteristics of the US Army unit that arrived in Poland are geared towards responding in the event of a sudden escalation of the conflict on the Russian-Ukrainian border and its potential transfer to NATO’s eastern flank. This means that President Biden and his advisers are serious about the Russian threat, which has been growing for months. These actions may also be an attempt to rebuild the American credibility as the member of the Alliance after the chaotic withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in August 2021.

Consequently, the matter of the security and integrity of Ukrainian territory is also a test for the US, which verifies its readiness to help allies located in Central and Eastern Europe. Currently, it is clear that the United States is living up to its commitments and sending a clear message to Moscow. The intensification of Washington’s activities on NATO’s eastern flank is also a result of the recent meeting between Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin and President of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) Xi Jinping. On the occasion of the Winter Olympic Games in Beijing, Putin and Xi called on NATO to refrain from further expansion of the Alliance. The summit of the two leaders, organized on the day of the opening ceremony of the Games, was another step towards an ever closer partnership between Beijing and Moscow as the relations of these two countries with the West continue to deteriorate. Both nations are making territorial claims towards states that remain under US protection. In terms of the Russian Federation this concerns Ukraine and the former Soviet republics, while the PRC is involved in a dispute with Taiwan.

• Read more: Early Predictions Ahead of the 2024 Presidential Election

It seems that the administration in Washington has read the message sent to it from Beijing. Russia and China are strengthening their relations by building an anti-American and anti-Western alliance. The response of the free world must therefore be clear and decisive. One of the evidences of the strengthened position of the United States is the relocation of additional troops to the vicinity of the disputed areas. For this reason, we are able to observe an increased presence of American and NATO troops in Eastern Europe as well as the establishment of more US military bases in the Indo-Pacific region. An American diplomatic offensive in this regard is also evident. On Friday, February 4, Antony Blinken met with Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Zbigniew Rau in Washington, D.C. The conversation concerned the situation of Ukraine, the likely prolonged stay of Russian troops in Belarus, and energy security, among others. Moreover, on Tuesday, February 8, Blinken embarked on another journey to allied countries in the Indo-Pacific, where he was discussing shared values and future regional policy cooperation in the region. The US is increasingly bold in responding to the growing threat posed by the intensifying partnership between Moscow and Beijing.

Author:

Jan Hernik is a journalist and publicist who gained experience in Polish independent Internet media broadcasts. In his career, he participated in the creation of projects related to domestic policy and geopolitics. Hernik has an experience in working as a TV presenter and editor of a news portal. At the Warsaw Institute, he is the editor-in-chief and expert in the field of the United States.

Hernik is a graduate of the American Studies Center at the University of Warsaw. He specializes in the theory of religion, race and ethnicity for political choice in the U.S presidential elections. His research interests also include the colonial era of the United States, the right to bear arms and the American liberal thought.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

Poland have a good chance of joining Spain in the knockout stages this summer

Polish football fans are already gearing up for this summer’s European Championships, as bets and match predictions abound about whether Robert Lewandowski is now the best striker in the world, and if he has enough backup within the Polish squad to propel them to glory. Certainly, the Polish are being priced by major Euro 2020 odds makers as a team bound for at least the knockout phases of the tournament.

However, standing in their way of making that happen are Spain, Sweden, and Slovakia, who all have their own ideas about going deep in the draw. Here we assess which national sides will pose the biggest threat to Paulo Sousa’s men.

Spain – Rebuilding of the Bull Continues Apace

Luis Enrique is the man in charge of uniting Spain’s club factions to turn the Spanish national team into a formidable force again.

Although they still appear a little lightweight up front, especially with Barcelona star Ansu Fati unlikely to recover from injury in time for the Euros, they are making improvements in other key areas. One of these is defence, where Enrique has pulled off something of a coup by convincing Man City centre back Aymeric Laporte to play for Spain instead of France. The Premier League winner should slot in nicely alongside Sergio Ramos, where the two will be a tough wall to break down.

Slovakia – The Group’s Whipping Boys?

Despite losing three times during their qualifying campaign, Slovakia still managed to squeak into the Euro 2020 main draw by beating Northern Ireland in an unconvincing 2-1 win after extra time. With no big match winners in their team and a lack of cutting edge, it's hard to see them achieving much in Group E other than clinging on for the odd draw.

Sweden – Hoping for More Zlatan Magic

If Slovakia are missing a match winner, then Sweden certainly has one in the form of Zlatan Ibrahimović, who was delighted to be recalled to the Swedish national setup after a hot run of form for AC Milan. The rest of the team proved during their qualifying campaign that they can compete against elite sides having registered a draw against the Spanish. However, they have also taken a few drubbings in the Nations League, so Poland will fancy beating them.

Although the US presidential election is still more than two years away, opinion polling centers are already competing in providing polls that report on the popularity of potential candidates for the 47^th president of the United States. Weakening support for the incumbent US President Joe Biden encourages more and more Americans to focus on the political future of their country. Consequently, it is worth taking a look at the list of politicians who may run in 2024 presidential primaries on both sides of the political fence.

Currently, Democrat Joe Biden sits in the White House. Almost from the beginning of his presidency, his support among the American public is dropping dramatically. In January 2022, the incumbent president’s approval rating reached a new record low. According to the latest Quinnipiac University Poll, only 33% of Americans support Joe Biden, USA Today reports.[i] This is the lowest approval rating during his presidency. The poll, conducted between January 7 and 10, 2022, indicated that 33% of surveyed adults approve of Biden’s job performance, while 53% do not. Ten percent expressed no opinion. It is worth comparing these results with the approval of the previous Democratic President – Barack Obama. In the corresponding moment, i.e., a year into his first term in the office, his job approval rating reached 51%.[ii] Thus, it is not surprising that Americans are beginning to wonder who might take over after Joe Biden’s term ends. Since there are a number of potential candidates, it is worth taking a look at the polls that show the early contenders from both political parties.

• Read more: Legislative Challenges of the Democrats at the Start of 2022

The most frequently mentioned candidate in the upcoming 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries among the Democratic Party voters is the incumbent president. According to a McLaughlin & Associates poll[iii] conducted between January 13 and 18, 2022, Joe Biden has the support of 25% of the declared Democratic Party voters. This is the highest score of all, but it remains far a strong support. The second highest score in the same poll was achieved, quite unexpectedly, by Michelle Obama (17%), while the third one by Kamala Harris (8%). Marginal support for other Democratic politicians, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, or Stacey Abrams, as well as 13% of undecided voters show that the Democratic electorate cannot pick a front-runner. The political leadership crisis in the Democratic Party seems to be severe.

The situation on the other side of the political fence is certainly much livelier. The degree of support for the leading politicians of the Republican Party in view of the upcoming 2024 presidential election was yet again assessed by McLaughlin & Associates. The survey,[iv] conducted between January 13 and 18, 2022, shows clear support of the Republican electorate for the former President Donald Trump. His approval rating reached 53% among the surveyed Republican Party voters. Such result suggests that Trump may be serious about fighting for the Party’s nomination again, prior to the 2024 presidential election. The second highest score was achieved by Ron DeSantis, who is gaining popularity. The Governor of Florida has the approval rating of 13% among the Republicans, but other polls suggest his support could be as high as 19%.[v] In the McLaughlin & Associates poll, third place and 9% support belongs to former Vice President Mike Pence. About 8% of Republican voters remain undecided. The poll listed also Nikki Haley, Larry Hogan, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, and Tim Scott, however, none of these politicians surpassed the 5% threshold of support of the Republican electorate.

Looking at the first approval polls for potential candidates in the 2024 presidential primaries, it is important to note a crisis in the leadership of the Democratic Party. Among the politicians who publicly declared their intention to run in the presidential primaries, Joe Biden achieved the highest score. However, the support of 25% of his own electorate and 33% of all voters does not translate into his clear leadership in the Democratic Party. Rather, these statistics suggest that the Democratic electorate currently lacks an undisputed leader who could successfully fight for the White House in the fall of 2024. Moreover, there are clear worldview divisions among the Party members. Despite the fact that the core of the Party is center-left (this group is represented by Joe Biden), the voice of some extreme left-wing politicians is also being heard in the Party. They include, for instance, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the leader of the socialist branch of the Democratic Party – Bernie Sanders, who, despite declaring his withdrawal from the fight for the nomination in 2024, still has double-digit support in some polls. A representative of the center-right wing – Joe Manchin, has also contributed to the divisions in the party. His actions are effectively blocking legislative proposals of his party colleagues in the Senate. The Democratic Party is still looking for a leader and its own identity, which may effectively limit their chances in the upcoming election.

• Read more: The United States Before 2022 Midterm Elections

On the other hand, in the Republican Party, there is a clear indication of Donald Trump as the leader and the Party’s frontrunner for the presidential primaries. Currently, Trump has the highest support among the Republican voters, which can be seen not only in the polls, but also at rallies held by the former president. At the recent rally in Texas, Trump said that he contemplates running in 2024 and declared that he would also consider pardoning those charged in connection with the deadly January 6 attack on the Capitol if he wins the White House again. The 2020 “stolen election” rhetoric is the key aspect that builds Donald Trump’s political support among Republican voters. An NPR/Ipsos poll[vi] shows that 64% of Americans believe that American democracy is “in crisis and at risk of failing.” This position is clearly voiced by Republicans – two-thirds of GOP voters agree with the claim that “voter fraud helped Joe Biden win the 2020 election.” Radical rhetoric is thus what drives Donald Trump’s popularity among Republicans. The strong standing of the former US president goes hand in hand with the increasing importance of Ron DeSantis, likewise radical in his actions related to the fight against COVID-19, with whom Trump maintains a close relationship. Members of the Party already speculate about combining the two major candidates of the Republican Party into a single team that would win the support of the majority of voters. In such a case, Trump would run for president and DeSantis for vice president. The Republican Party is growing stronger ahead of both the 2022 and 2024 elections.

Author:

Jan Hernik is a journalist and publicist who gained experience in Polish independent Internet media broadcasts. In his career, he participated in the creation of projects related to domestic policy and geopolitics. Hernik has an experience in working as a TV presenter and editor of a news portal. At the Warsaw Institute, he is the editor-in-chief and expert in the field of the United States.

Hernik is a graduate of the American Studies Center at the University of Warsaw. He specializes in the theory of religion, race and ethnicity for political choice in the U.S presidential elections. His research interests also include the colonial era of the United States, the right to bear arms and the American liberal thought.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

Leading members of the Democratic Party have entered 2022 with a series of political challenges. First, in early January, Senator Joe Manchin (D) indicated that he was no longer interested in negotiating the Build Back Better Act, a key piece of Biden’s agenda. Then, yet another bill, the Freedom to Vote Act, was rejected by the US Senate and thus added to the list of failures of the Democratic Party.

Build Back Better Act

After a little over a year of Joe Biden’s presidency, the Democrats managed to fulfil only a few campaign promises. They were outlined in the so-called Build Back Better Plan and included, above all, the American Rescue Plan Act (signed in March 2021) as well as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (signed in November 2021). Particularly the latter passed through the US Congress after lengthy bipartisan negotiations. Some of the Democrats’ draft legislation is pending further work.

Biden’s administration and the Democrats, who are still maintaining the majority in both houses of the US Congress, failed to implement the crucial Build Back Better Act – a legal framework proposed by the incumbent US president even before his inauguration. The document includes funding for COVID-19 assistance, social services, welfare, and infrastructure, as well as funds to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Paradoxically, Senate Democrat Joe Manchin from West Virginia prevented the adoption of the Act. His vote is crucial in this case – the Democrats lose the simple majority in the US Senate without it. This law could have been passed this way, because it was passed by an absolute majority in the House of Representatives and is part of the so-called reconciliation bill. After months of Manchin’s negotiations with the Democrats in the Senate and the President’s team, the Senator from West Virginia said that he was not interested in working on the bill anymore. During the legislative process, Manchin publicly withdrew his support for the bill due to lawmakers’ failure to adjust to its projected cost of approximately $1.75 trillion. Later he also dropped his support for his own draft of that bill stating that future negotiations would have to start “from scratch.” Consequently, the bill is blocked – in order to pass it, the Democrats need Manchin’s vote. Moreover, the politician stated that he prefers the standard legislative process, and this would require the support of at least 10 Republicans. He was maintaining that a future bill would have to address the challenges associated with the pandemic, inflation, the national debt, and prescription drug prices to gain his support. Further discussions about saving at least some of the Act’s provisions have been ongoing since January 2022. At the end of the first month of this year, Biden said that it would be better to pass “large chunks” of the bill and only then attempt to negotiate other aspects of it. Internal Party disputes will likely result in the adoption of a severely limited version of the bill, which indicates the low legislative effectiveness of the incumbent president’s party.

Freedom to Vote Act

The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, recently rejected by the Senate, is yet another challenge for the Democrats at the beginning of this year. If the bill had passed, it would have vastly changed the voting process and election administration in the United States. The bill embodies the policies of equality and expanding access to democratic procedures that the Democratic Party has promoted for years. Party leaders used the first anniversary of the January 6 riots at the US Capitol to make their case for the voting rights bill, directly linking the need for it to former President Donald Trump’s challenge to the 2020 election results.

The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act would standardize election laws across the country and greatly expand access to election procedures. One of its objectives is to undo the effects of multiple new voting restrictions enacted over the past year at the state level, particularly in places governed by Republicans.

Although initially all 50 Senate Democrats supported the voting rights bill, all Republicans jointly opposed it. The final vote was 51 to 49. At the end of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer changed his vote to “against” since this would allow him to bring the bill back for a vote at a later date.

Given the rules of filibustering in the US Senate, those supporting the bill fell 10 votes short of the 60 needed to pass it. The Democrats also failed to secure the votes needed to unilaterally change the Senate rules to bypass filibustering and pass the Freedom to Vote Act with only 51 votes instead of 60. All Republicans opposed the rule change, as did two Democrats – Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. The attempt to change the rules was voted down 52 to 48.

The image of the Democratic Party before the midterm elections to the US Congress

The fight over the bills discussed above is the continuation of the battle over the credibility and effectiveness of the legislative capabilities of the president and the party he represents. Despite pompous announcements from the 2020 election campaign about rebuilding “the backbone of this country,” i.e. the middle class, as well as slogans about equality and democracy, few of the Democrats’ promises have made it into the US Congress legislation.

Only a fraction of the Democratic promises from the announced Build Back Better Plan have been fulfilled. The Build Back Better Act seems to be almost dead after Senator Manchin’s disapproval, also the legislation concerning the unification and expansion of voting procedures has now fallen off the Senate’s agenda.

It is worth emphasizing that the party that currently has its president and a majority in both chambers of Congress, has all possible tools to implement its program proposals. Even if the politicians of the ruling party do not have the majority capable of breaking the filibuster in the Senate, they still have the simple majority. If the Democrats want to succeed in the upcoming midterm elections in November 2022, they must show the American people that they can effectively implement their own reforms. The Democratic Party must close its ranks if it wants to pursue its policies. Otherwise, after a potential takeover of at least one chamber of the Congress by the Republicans, accomplishing this task will become much more difficult. The Democrats will have to cope not only with some of the opposing members of their own party, but also with the Republican majority, which will seek to prove the ineffectiveness of the policies pursued by their opponents at all costs. Under these circumstances, the Republicans may get a considerable boost that will effectively strengthen their position before the 2024 elections.

Author:

Jan Hernik is a journalist and publicist who gained experience in Polish independent Internet media broadcasts. In his career, he participated in the creation of projects related to domestic policy and geopolitics. Hernik has an experience in working as a TV presenter and editor of a news portal. At the Warsaw Institute, he is the editor-in-chief and expert in the field of the United States.

Hernik is a graduate of the American Studies Center at the University of Warsaw. He specializes in the theory of religion, race and ethnicity for political choice in the U.S presidential elections. His research interests also include the colonial era of the United States, the right to bear arms and the American liberal thought.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/