Content uploaded by Simant Shankar Bharti
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Simant Shankar Bharti on Jul 01, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Eastern Journal of European Studies
324
DOI: 10.47743/ejes-2024-0114
● JUNE 2024 ● VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1
The Ukraine crisis: Poland as a strategic crossroad in
Eastern Europe
Simant Shankar Bharti a, Saroj Kumar Aryal b, Andrii Kutsyk b
a University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw, Poland; b University of
Warsaw, Poland
Introduction
Due to its location between two major powers (Russia and Germany) and to the lack
of natural barriers between them, Poland has one of the most volatile histories
worldwide. Since the end of the Cold War, Poland has made explicit attempts to
align its political future, military security, and economic success with Western
institutions, notably NATO and the European Union (EU). These geopolitical
decisions paid off handsomely, as post-communist Poland earned both the US and
NATO security umbrellas, as well as economic success through EU membership.
Considering its geographical position as the eastern edge of both NATO and the EU,
Poland has become the crossroad of various geopolitical nexus of world politics. The
argument posits that Poland has been an important player in Central and Eastern
Europe. After its integration in NATO and the EU, Poland has been a key player in
terms of Western instruments implementation.
Simant Shankar Bharti, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Sciences, University
of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw, Poland; email: s.bharti@vizja.pl.
Abstract
The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has highlighted Poland's significant
geopolitical role in Eastern Europe. Despite ongoing conflicts since 2014, the recent
escalation has increased regional security volatility, particularly for countries like
Poland. This study examines Poland's strategic position and role in the Ukraine conflict
by analysing its geopolitical and geostrategic implications within the broader Eastern
European framework. The research, employing qualitative content analysis and a
phenomenological approach, investigates how Poland's geopolitical stance both
influences and is influenced by the evolving dynamics of the Ukraine war and Eastern
European geopolitics. Our findings indicate that Poland has not only reinforced its
strategic importance in the area, but also shaped its role as a key player in the ongoing
conflict. This engagement reflects a broader strategy to counter Russian aggression while
strengthening ties with NATO and the EU, thereby enhancing its sway in the region.
Keywords: Ukraine conflict, Poland, Eastern Europe, geopolitics, regional security
Simant Shankar Bharti, Saroj Kumar Aryal, Andrii Kutsyk | 325
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
However, Ukraine has also had a long and turbulent history due to devastation,
suppression, and discontinuity. The country also faced the absence of independent
statehood because it surrendered to powerful neighbours. Ukrainian land was
confronted between Europe and Asia empires, and also with ethnic worlds such as
Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim. The invaders and colonisers of the rich and fertile
lands included Tatars, Poles, Turks, Mongols, Russians, and Germans. Historically,
there had been rivalry between Moscow and Lithuania over the territories of Ukraine.
In 1569, it was formed within the Commonwealth union of Poland and Lithuania.
Theroute and relations of Poland with Ukraine can be traced back then. This is
because ‘all ethnically Ukrainian lands’ were practically under Polish rule. In the era
of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, there was pressure to adapt the Polish ways of
Catholicism.
The Treaty of Andrusovo was signed between Poland and Russia and then
Ukraine was divided into two parts in 1967 (Nahaylo, 1999; Zafar, 2015). At the end
of the 18th century, Poland was declined, and Russia took Ukraine over and the
western territory was acquired by Austria. In 1921, under the terms of the Treaty of
Riga, the western territories of Ukraine were awarded to Poland, Czechoslovakia,
and partially to Romania. The Treaty of Riga was signed between Poland and Russia.
After World War II, the same western territories came under the Soviet Union, and
both Poland and Ukraine, together with Czechoslovakia and part of Romania became
members of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). In 1945, the same year,
Ukraine became a member of the United Nations (UN). In 1954, Crimea was
transferred to Ukraine by the Soviet Union (Zafar, 2015). This is a short overview of
the history of how Poland, Ukraine, and Russia entangled between the rusty past of
geopolitics until the fall of the USSR in 1991. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the
expansion of NATO increased and now includes the Central and Eastern European
states from the former Warsaw Pact. This type of Western enlargement toward
Central and Eastern Europe has always made Moscow feel uncomfortable. The end
of Cold War came with Putin’s litmus test and revival of Russian actor-ship on taking
stance against Europe (Rutland, 2015).
In light of the aspects considered above, the study examines the contemporary
flashpoint of the crisis, seeking to identify the primary causes that triggered the war
in Ukraine while also addressing Poland’s position and its implications in the context
of the conflict.
To substantiate the above arguments, a qualitative content, discourse, and
phenomenological analysis has been applied within a pragmatic research design.
Qualitative content analysis is an analytical technique that helps to summarise and
interpret texts. There are two methods to understand ‘the importance of content’: 1)
the researcher has flexibility for rational judgment of texts through ‘intrinsic value,
interest and originality of materials’, and 2) it provides space for quantitative
stimulation of the texts through the development of a more objective and systematic
analysis of communications twisted by governments, leaders, and other officials
326 | The Ukraine crisis: Poland as a strategic crossroad in Eastern Europe
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
through newspapers, press briefs, and television news (Burnham, 2008). The war in
Ukraine is not a new phenomenon in social science, especially in international
relations. There is a need to understand the origins of the Ukraine crisis, so discourse
analysis provides a comprehensive nature of critical and narrative assessment
(Pierce, 2008). The goal of the phenomenological method is ‘to describe, understand
and interpret’ the meaning of the political and social phenomena of international
relations. Subsequently, it focuses on generating findings that can understand a
particular situation such as the Ukraine crisis and the role of external actors.
Likewise, we can understand philosophy and psychology of roots in the diplomatic
context (Bloor & Wood, 2006).
All of these research approaches analyse the primary and secondary sources
of data available on the subject of the research. The research adopts primary data
sources: statements, reports, announcements, press briefs and other government
official documents carried out by ministers and diplomats. Secondary data sources
followed books and book chapters, articles, magazines, reports and papers by think
tanks and NGOs, newspaper clips, editorials, and opinions. These are the main
materials used in the study for a pragmatic assessment of the Ukraine crisis in the
central context of Poland’s involvement along with other powers.
1. Politics of a geography: defining geopolitics and geostrategy
Kjellen and Sandmeier (1924), a Swedish publicist, is credited with coining
the term ‘geopolitics’. In his work, ‘Der Staat als Lebensform’, he defined
geopolitics as ‘knowledge of a country as a geographic organism or a phenomenon
in space’. He also highlighted a series of branches describing the country’s diverse
interests, including politics, politics of authority, economic politics, ethno-politics,
and social politics, as well as geopolitics. Robert Sieger defined geopolitics as
‘geographical politics’, which he defined as ‘labelling the art’, from a geographical
point of view, nation management (Kiss, 1942). Geopolitics starts where one deals
with political forecasting in terms of space, which encompasses the country’s
economic and demographic potential. In other words, geopolitics encompasses a
wide variety of knowledge across the biological and social divides. Therefore,
geopolitics is a discipline that connects political processes to their geographical
surroundings. It is founded on a broad geographical foundation, particularly political
geography, which is defined as the study of the political organizations of space and
their structures. Geopolitics aspires to be and must be “the country’s geographical
soul.” Huntington, Mackinder, and Mahan, all had a similar understanding of
geopolitics.
In simple terms, geopolitics, in the traditional academic sense, is concerned
with the geography of international politics, notably the relationship between the
physical environment (location, resources, territory, and so on) and foreign policy
action. Geopolitics is thought to be a world of harsh truths, material realities, and
Simant Shankar Bharti, Saroj Kumar Aryal, Andrii Kutsyk | 327
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
inescapable natural facts, according to its own definitions and terminologies (Sprout
& Sprout, 1960). Geopoliticians have profited from the geopolitical analyses’
ostensibly objective materialism. According to Gray (1988), geopolitical analysis is
unbiased as to one or another political system or philosophy. It deals with the
foundations of international politics, the persistent geopolitical realities in which the
game of international politics takes place. These geopolitical realities are believed to
constitute long-term physical factors in foreign policy. In such a theory, geography
is considered a non-discursive reality, as it is distinct from the social, political, and
ideological components of international politics.
The attempt to analyse the politics of a geography can be accommodated
within three areas: research of a geographical area, research of a country and,
research of the political process in behavioural meaning. Likewise, the politics of a
geography can be divided into three spheres; Landscape, Ecological, and Organic
(Otok, 1985). When we talk about geographical and geopolitical positions, we can
conclude that the geostrategic position is determined by three variables. They
combine the physical location in the natural environment, the political circumstances
among certain countries in a given period, and the military potential of the country
and its neighbours. In terms of strategic thinking, the location that a country has in
its geographical surroundings might be defined as less or more profitable from a
military standpoint (Wendt, 2000).
The relationship between geopolitics and geostrategy is frequently viewed
from many angles. The characteristics of geo-strategy as a sub-discipline of
geopolitics may be found in the literature although their relationship is understood
in terms of their equal status in political thought (Baczwarow, 2002) or even the
status of geopolitics as an auxiliary discipline of geostrategic studies (Sykulski,
2013). Geostrategy, which differentiates from geopolitics and classical military
geography in terms of foreign policy, is concerned with the examination of the geo-
surroundings’ situations in one’s own country and neighbouring ones. This fact
places geography in a classical geopolitics framework rather than a military
geography framework. However, we must keep in mind that many scientists, notably
in the United States, have used both terms: geostrategy and geopolitics, sometimes
interchangeably. We may find some models that present the geopolitical
development associated with geostrategy in a variety of publications. Geostrategy is
thus essentially related to the line of their foreign policy from the perspective of
medium/middle and small states. The issue of changes is primarily related to the
decline, respectively, connected with the strengthening of existing centres of power,
but also with the creation of new ones, in the geopolitical context in which
governments function. Small, medium, and medium-sized states must be able to
respond quickly to such developments. The state must embrace geostrategic
decisions that reflect objective geopolitical situations (Sykulski, 2013).
While we attempt to analyse the position that Poland holds in the Russia-
Ukraine war, the behaviour can only be explained through the eye of the ‘geo’ factor
328 | The Ukraine crisis: Poland as a strategic crossroad in Eastern Europe
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
of it. Historically, and also contemporaneously, Poland’s location, politics, and
geography, strategy play a primary role in a war like that between Russia and
Ukraine. Poland is one of the many specks on the world’s political map and one of
the largest within the European Union’s borders, but it also occupies a unique
position – sandwiched between two great millstones of European history: Western
and Eastern Europe, Western and Orthodox civilisation, Germanic and Eastern Slav
nations, Germany, and Russia (Solarz, 2014). However, we can find academic works
which argue that, after the Second World War, the political geography and strategy
regarding Poland lost its relevancy. On the contrary, this paper is more inclined
towards the idea that the relevancy of the political geography of Poland has been
revived after the end of the Cold War and is still in play. Polish scholars, such as M.
Kieczewski, J. Loth, W. Nakowski, S. Pawowski, E. Romer, J. Smoleski, and S.
Srokowski have extensively worked on the development of political geography,
which is still highly applicable.
2. Genesis of the Ukraine crisis
As discussed above, the geography of Ukraine has been volatile since the
emergence of the idea of the country. There has always been a diplomatic nexus
between Europe and Russia since the era of kinship and the great empire. The
democratic footprints were chosen by the leaders of Ukraine as the republic style of
government, but its sovereign presence has not been very strong because the decision
making for foreign policy has always been compromised between the EU, the US
and other Western allies, and Russia. The 2014 Ukraine crisis serves as the perfect
example for the geopolitical clashes between various parties in Ukraine. That was
the first time that it emerged since the fall of the USSR. All this began when the
former President Viktor Yanukovych ‘rejected (Association Agreement-AA) a
greater deal for the integration of Ukraine with the EU’ in November 2013 (Fisher,
2014). The mass-level protest exploded, and Yanukovych tried to smash the
protesters. The game of ‘support or backed’ started when Russia backed
Yanukovych and protestors supported by the United States and the rest of Europe.
Meanwhile, former President Yanukovych held student demonstrations against not
signing AA in Kyiv. Yanukovych wanted the country closer to Putin than to the EU.
On the other hand, Moscow had already proposed a customs union between Russia,
Belarus, and Kazakhstan and also intended to include Ukraine in the union
(Chadwick, 2022).
Similarly, dozens of protestors came out in Kyiv and police were killed, during
what was called ‘the bloodiest days of the Maidan Revolution’ between 18 and 20
February 2014. On 21 February 2014, along with three opposition leaders,
Yanukovych signed the agreement regarding the government of national unity,
constitutional reforms, and calling for a new presidential election. On the next day,
he fled from Kyiv and Verkhovna Rada voted to remove Yanukovych from his
Simant Shankar Bharti, Saroj Kumar Aryal, Andrii Kutsyk | 329
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
office. Many political phenomena occurred in February 2014 and Russian
reinforcements reached Crimea during 25-28 February (Charap & Colton, 2017, p.
10). In March, Putin obtained formal approval from the upper house of the Russian
parliament to deploy military forces on Ukrainian territory. March was also full of
political and diplomatic drama on every front. The next day, Western allies enacted
a sanction against Moscow. The EU mentioned that the referendum was held after
Russian troops invaded so it was an “illegal and illegitimate” accession of Crimea to
Russia (Chadwick, 2022).
Furthermore, pro-Russian separatists started protests against Ukraine and
rebels started seizing territory in eastern Ukraine in April 2014. There was fighting
between rebels and the Ukrainian military. After the conflicts broke out, the rebels
declared the independence of two regions of eastern Ukraine after referendum by
Russian-speaking majority, regions known as Donetsk (pre-conflict population was
4.4 million) and Luhansk (2.2 million). These eastern territories are also known as
the Donbas region and separatist self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.
The Donbas crisis became an ethnic division between Russian speaking eastern and
the Ukrainian speaking majority of rather western part. Since April 2014, an estimate
said that more than 14,000 were killed (but the Vox report mentioned 2,500
Ukrainians killed) and nearly 24,000 injured (Fisher, 2014; Chadwick, 2022; Global
Conflict Tracker, 2022). Since then, this has become a key point of the ongoing and
unstoppable conflict between separatists and Ukrainian forces.
On 25 May 2014, the Ukrainian elected the new president Petro Poroshenko.
Together with Georgia and Moldova, Ukraine signed the AAs with the EU on 27
June 2014. Meanwhile, the US Treasury Department imposed more sanctions on
Russia in the following areas: financial, defence, and energy sectors (Charap &
Colton, 2017). Even at those times, although Moscow denied its involvement,
Ukraine and NATO were informed of the construction of troops and military
equipment by Russia near Donetsk and Luhansk and Russian cross-border shelling.
On 17 July 2014, rebels shot down Malaysian Airlines MH17 (flying from
Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur) over the Donbas region and 298 lost their lives.
Separatists believed that it was Ukraine’s fighter flight. Here, the fight between the
Ukrainian force and rebels intensified and separatists started to lose ground. The
Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) concluded its report that the ‘plane’ had
been shot down by a Russian-built surface-to-air missile at a specific site near the
Pervomaiskyi village (it was under rebel control) in October 2015. Later,
investigators also reported that the missile was allocated by Russia. However,
Moscow never accepted the final truth that it was fired by Russian-backed rebels and
the missile system provided by Russia. Russia itself established an investigation
committee that was named ‘key witness’ and they declared it was a Ukrainian Su-25
fighter’ (BBC, 2016; Fisher, 2014; Global Conflict Tracker, 2022; Wilson, 2014).
In August 2014, tensions reached a peak when the Russian army entered
eastern Ukraine to support rebels which Moscow mentioned as “the peace-making
330 | The Ukraine crisis: Poland as a strategic crossroad in Eastern Europe
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
force”. After the Cold War, these crises brought West relations with Russia to the
lowest point. Since then, Russian dominance has appeared from time to time in the
name and support of separatists, which is referred to by the term ‘proxy war’ in the
discourse of international relations (Fisher, 2014). No one imagined that ‘an internal
political conflict’ could lead to an inevitable crisis between two major powers after
the long gaps of the Cold War. While the west imposed various sanctions on Russia
due to its involvement in the Ukrainian territory, Russia also reverted with counter-
sanctions, with bans on agricultural and food items from the West on 7 August 2014.
Before peace negotiation, the Ukrainian force defeated by rebel counter-offensive
attack backed by Russia ended in Ilovaisk. Between 2014 and 2015, two Minsk
agreements focused on ‘a ceasefire’ were signed between Ukraine and Russia. On 5
September 2014, the Minsk Agreement (Minsk-I) was signed between
representatives of Russia, Ukraine and separatists (Donetsk People’s Republic-DNR
and Luhansk People’s Republic-LNR) and a ceasefire was signed in Minsk City of
Belarus. From time to time, repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement took place
between both sides, which sometimes turned into a ‘trench war’ (Charap & Colton,
2017; Chadwick, 2022).
On 12 February 2015, the 16-hour marathon peace negotiations were finalized
as the new ceasefire deal for the Donbas region in Minsk (also called Minsk II). The
negotiations went through the night ‘between Russian President Vladimir Putin,
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, French President Francois Hollande, and
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’. The Minsk II agreement included the following
key points: 1) immediate and full bilateral ceasefire, 2) withdrawal of all heavy
weapons by both sides, 3) release of all hostages and other illegally detained people,
3) full Ukrainian government control over the state border would be restored, and 4)
withdrawal of all foreign armed groups, weapons, and mercenaries from Ukrainian
territory (BBC, 2015; Charap & Colton, 2017). After this entire 2014 Ukraine crisis,
Wilson (2014) stated that ‘Russia’s action was really Putin’s action”. This action is
not only limited to him, but Russian history itself has produced many leaders who
were addicted to power, which translates to authoritative governance and aggressive
approach to its neighbours. As a result, Moscow, under the power addiction of Putin,
had the opportunity to take revenge for the ‘lost territory’ of USSR which still
remains as a humiliation in Russian history. Likewise, Russian power and influence
have been challenged by the NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe, which makes
Putin act on behalf of the Russian speaking population in Ukraine.
The high-voltage conflict escalated in 2014 and 2015, it never stopped, and
the Donbas region experienced several violations of ceasefire. When Donald Trump
became president of the United States, he considered a new arms package for
Ukraine in 2017. Before the Obama administration, the policy was not to provide
‘lethal defensive weapons’ to Ukraine. The Trump administration promised to fulfil
the tools to conduct electronic warfare, logistics, and intelligence equipment such as
satellite imagery. At the end of 2017, the former Ukrainian Defense Minister, Pavlo
Simant Shankar Bharti, Saroj Kumar Aryal, Andrii Kutsyk | 331
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
Klimkin, mentioned that Moscow ‘deployed thousands of armoured vehicles (almost
2,000) and troops into the Donbas region to support rebels. Moscow had always
denied the military involvement in the eastern region of Ukraine which was already
devastated by war. The Defense Minister also said that ‘In the sense of planning,
steering, and operating specific warfare, it’s all Russians’. At the same time, the US,
Canada, and other Western allies conducted a joint training program in the city of
Lviv (Western Ukraine). Overall, both signing parties of Minsk II violated the peace
deal signed in 2015 (Shinkman, 2017).
3. The rise of the crisis (2021/2022)
Zapad 2021 (meaning ‘west’) is known for famous military drills or joint
exercise between Belarus and Russian military forces. According to Kremlin press
information, Moscow announced a week-long military exercise as per year’s annual
strategic level (STRATEX) scheduled for 10-16 September 2021 (Norberg &
Simpson, 2021). This large-scale Russian-Belarusian exercise has started to attract
attention and speculation from around the world. Moscow indicated that nearly
200,000 troops are involved in Zapad 2021 and this event is conducted by Russia
every four years. It was one of the largest military drills conducted in Europe since
the Cold War. Wilk & Żochowski (2021) argued that the initial phase of training
began in July 2021, and the preparation of this military drill started at the end of
2020. The objective of this exercise is focused on the preparedness against the direct
challenge of Belarus and Russian alliance to rising aggression by NATO (Magnay,
2021). But Kofman (2021) argued that ‘Zapad’ is not just military theatre, but that it
is meant to affirm that years of modernization and reform have made the Russian
military a force with increased ‘capability, readiness, and mobility’ (Kofman, 2021).
In October 2021, Russian troops started moving with military equipment
towards the bordering area of Ukraine. There were commercial satellite imagery and
posts on social media about the increased military presence around the Ukrainian
border between November and December. During this time, the Siberian
Novosibirsk command of the Russian army came to encircle the Ukrainian border.
According to US intelligence officials, there were more than 100,000 troops in
December and the agency warned there could be a potential invasion of Ukraine by
early 2022. The Kremlin plan indicated that ‘a military can involve up to 175,000
troops (Global Conflict Tracker, 2022; Schwirtz & Reinhard, 2022). On 17
December, the Kremlin issued a list of demands from the West, and the ‘highly
contentious’ list mentioned security guarantees so that there could be ‘lower tensions
in Europe and defuse the Ukraine crises. At the strategic level, Moscow also
presented two demands; first, to completely stop the idea of integrating Ukraine into
NATO and second, to minimise the deployment of troops and NATO weapons in the
eastern flank. Moscow threatened that if the ‘legal guarantee’ of Russia could not be
provided, then there could be a similar military response to the Cuban Missile Crisis
332 | The Ukraine crisis: Poland as a strategic crossroad in Eastern Europe
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
of 1962. NATO head, Jeans Stoltenberg, and a senior official, Jen Psaki, said that
the proposal is ‘unacceptable’ (Roth, 2021).
On 29 November 2021, Minsk made another announcement of military drills
with Russia near the southern border with Ukraine. They cited that this exercise is a
counter-response to increasing NATO military alliance and offensive capabilities
near their borders (Reuters, 2021). Earlier in February 2022, Russia conducted
military drills with Belarus. Joint manoeuvres with Belarus, which included
warplanes, missile launchers, and live fire exercise were carried out until 20
February. The Russian Defence Ministry cited it as ‘suppressing and repelling
external aggression during a defensive operation’ (Chappell, 2022). The Guardian
reported from Kyiv that Russia moved up almost 30,000 troops, two battalions of S-
4000 surface to air missile system and many fighter jets, which has been taking part
in the training exercise with Belarussian army (Walker, 2022). However, Western
media, Ukraine, the US and NATO allies translated this action into a potential
invasion of Ukraine. The United Kingdom Premier, Boris Johnson, mentioned it as
‘Europe’s biggest security crisis in decades’. The 2022 defence drills, also known as
‘Allied Resolution 2022’, took place close to the Belarusian border with Ukraine.
Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, translated these drills as ‘the
accumulation of forces at the border is psychological pressure from our neighbours’
(BBC, 2022).
On the other hand, the Belarusian-Russian exercises were preceded for the
first time by large-scale, genuine hybrid activities. The most important one was when
the Belarusian government incited a refugee crisis along the border with three NATO
nations. It contributed to a rise in regional tensions and the declaration of
emergencies in several areas of Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania. Alongside the
manoeuvres, there was a campaign of revisionist history spearheaded by Russia and
Belarus, aimed at Poland.
On 24 February 2022, Putin approved a ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine
and bigger attacks were carried out on land, air and sea. The Western allies regarded
this attack as an invasion of Ukraine, which is considered one of the biggest
confrontations since World War II. Ukraine, the West and the whole world is
saddened by Putin’s immediate aggression. The West retaliated with heavy sanctions
on Russia. The Western allies once again cleared that they would not defend
Ukrainian territories against Russian troops (Al Jazeera, 2022). The war has now
continuously been going on for more than 2 years, costing the life of more than
50,000 people (until June 2024). Likewise, since 2021, Polish border guards have
thwarted almost 100,000 attempts by migrants to enter Poland illegally from Belarus.
Latvia and Lithuania have stopped about 25,000 and 22,000 attempts, respectively.
This is one of the biggest migration crisis that Poland has faced, which is not only
shaping Poland’s overall positionality regarding the migration issues in the EU but
is also creating many internal political tensions among parties.
Simant Shankar Bharti, Saroj Kumar Aryal, Andrii Kutsyk | 333
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
4. Polish engagement in a crisis
The emergence of the Ukraine crisis in late 2021 started due to the massive
deployment of troops near the Ukrainian border which later converted as the full
fledge war against Ukraine since February 2022. This situation also reflects the
conflict of 2014/15 which was the outcome of increased geopolitical temperature
between the US allies and Russia. The US has warned of ‘severe consequences’ if
‘any military action is carried out in Ukraine’ (Sharma, 2022). The reaction of the
USA and the allies was translating into international boycott of Russia and the severe
sanctions. Meanwhile, France played shuttle diplomacy from Moscow to Kyiv to
cool down the geopolitical crisis of Ukraine. Later, the German chancellor made the
same effort. Until mid-March 2022, no collective peace negotiations were held, but
were limited within shuttle and phone diplomacy. The relations between Moscow
and Europe have deteriorated even more since then.
In all this strategic build-up since the full-scale war in Ukraine, Poland has
had a highly significant role to play. Poland has been a significant geostrategic choke
point between the Western allies and Russia since the end of the Cold War. In
February 2022, President Biden deployed nearly 3,000 additional US troops in
NATO border countries, Poland and Romania, to protect Eastern Europe. Biden said
on deployment: “as long as he is acting aggressively, we are going to make sure that
we can reassure our NATO allies and Eastern Europe that we are there” (Stewart &
Antonov, 2022). In the Second World War (WW2), Poland was a key point and faced
a worse humanitarian and state crisis of human civilization. Pawłuszko (2021)
considered ‘the renaissance of geopolitical reflection’ important in Central and
Eastern Europe (CEE). While trying to understand the geopolitical significance of
Poland, there are two major factors: 1) strategic point and 2) international projects.
The geopolitical security sphere of Poland strengthened due to the close cooperation
between the US and other NATO countries and EU member states. The Obama
administration increased American initiatives in Poland. The Polish geopolitics and
security nexus increased its importance more as the ‘Bucharest Nine’ (also known
as B9) in 2015, which is a joint project between two countries and another is
Romania (Pawłuszko, 2021).
Similarly, the rise of the Poland-Belarus border crisis is not a coincidence.
Everything emerged after the Belarusian presidential election in August 2020. No
one imagined that the result of this election can again lighten the Eastern European
geopolitical crisis, where Poland is the focal point between western and eastern
interests. Belarusian Aleksandr Lukashenko was the winner of the election with a
landslide victory. Western scholars also consider him the last dictator of Europe
(every now and then, Lukashenko himself complies with the last dictator of Europe
narratives in the public speeches) as Lukashenko has been in power since 1994. The
West and opponents of Lukashenko did not condensate his victory, which triggered
the birth of a new geopolitical crisis in the Europe. After that, the crackdown on mass
334 | The Ukraine crisis: Poland as a strategic crossroad in Eastern Europe
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
protests in the capitals of EU members and the EU responded with a round of
sanctions against Belarus. All these events emerged as the ‘migrant crisis’ at the
Poland-Belarus borders in 2021, which continues as one of the most severe migration
crises that Poland has ever had to undergo until 2024. Poland and the western blocs
translated it as ‘a form of hybrid warfare’ and pointed out that Russia is playing an
unofficial role’. Poland and its NATO alliance started the ‘military readiness of the
eastern flank’. This entire incident sought the attention of the EU on the energy
security of Ukraine and EU member states (Fraszka, 2021; RANE, 2021). This is
one of the key reasons why Belarus exuberantly initiated defence drills with Russia
in February 2022.
Contextualizing the role of Poland in NATO, Friedman (2010) used a rhetoric
for Poland to become the ‘US aircraft carrier’ on the eastern flank. The words of the
American strategist George Friedman became true under the Trump administration.
After his election, Trump came to Warsaw in order to participate in Three Sea
Summit in 2017. On 6 July 2017, Trump reaffirms article 5 of the NATO treaty to
urge Moscow ‘to stop its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere.’ At that
time, Polish President Andrzej Duda repeated that the US is “working with Poland
in response to Russia’s actions and destabilizing behaviour”. Washington has
initiated a $ 7.6 billion deal with Poland to sell the Patriot missile defence system
which will start fully functioning from the end of 2024. This could build a stronger
defence wall at the eastern borders of NATO and stabilize the region. Referring to
the USA’s deepening bilateral defence cooperation with Poland, a Kremlin
spokesperson mentioned that there is a misunderstanding between Russia and the US
(Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 2017).
In 2019, Trump assured that he would deploy another 1,000 troops to Poland.
Trump also decided to take an American 52,000-strong contingent from Germany,
including drones and other military equipment. This permanent shift of US base deal
was purposed to Poland, where they are supposed to spend $2 billion for building a
new military base in the country to increase the deterrence capabilities against
Russia. President Duda expressed his gratitude to Trump as ‘extreme kindness
towards Poland and perfect understanding of Polish matters’. However, in those
times, there was the question of who would spend $2 billion. In the 2019 Polish
president’s visit to the US, he agreed on the initial building of a 1,000 US military
base in Poland. After the annexation of Crimea by Russia, there were 5,000 troops
already rotated in and out of Poland as part of the 2016 NATO deal. Warsaw also
ordered 32 F-35 fighter jets as part of a separate deal. All these deals created
‘disputes on the legal basis of the 1997 NATO-Russia founding act’ which Kremlin
mentioned in the current draft of the Ukrainian crisis negotiations to the White House
(BBC, 2019; Herszenhorn, 2018). Again, in 2020, both President Trump and Duda
reiterated toward its commitment to a ‘stronger alliance’. Trump mentioned ‘I don’t
think we’ve ever been closer to Poland than right now’, and Duda reacted as a
‘privilege and honour’. Trump repeated some of the 10,000 US troops relocated from
Simant Shankar Bharti, Saroj Kumar Aryal, Andrii Kutsyk | 335
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
Germany to Poland along with 30 US F-16 fighter jets (stationed in Germany) to
strengthen the eastern flank of NATO in order to combat Russian aggression
(Davies, 2020).
The involvement of Poland in the Ukraine crisis can be traced back to 2014,
as it was the first country to recognise the exile government of Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
Polish NGOs extended their support to Euromaidan by organizing rallies in Polish
cities and also arranged funds and medicines for Protestors in Ukraine (Jóźwiak &
Piechowska, 2017). Partnering with Germany and France, Poland played a crucial
role in the management of internal conflicts to avoid further bloodshed aftermath of
2014 Crimea annexation Lokomy (2017). As a policy reaction to the extreme volatile
situation in the Eastern border, Warsaw adopted five fundamental issues of the Polish
Foreign Policy Strategy for 2017-2020 ‘to ensure the stability of Poland’s immediate
neighbourhood’. Within the broader spectrum of the Polish neighbourhood
approach, Matera (2020) found four crucial points for the Polish cooperation with
Ukraine:
- A stable, democratic and West-oriented Ukraine is vital for Polish security.
Ukraine should also be independent of Russia in terms of politics and
economy.
- The participation of Poland in Ukraine is an element of the enhancement of
Poland’s position in the EU, which can be gained by acting as a supporter of
Ukraine’s integration with the West. Poland’s reputation as an expert may help
achieve its ambition to influence the policy of the EU toward the east as the
Polish contribution to the common foreign policy.
- The perspective of opening a large market for Polish trade and investments
should also be considered. A friendly Ukrainian government would be able to
create stable conditions for the economic activities of Polish companies.
- Poland wants to discourage Russia from the destabilisation policy of
Ukrainians of the latter and to curtail Russia’s ambition to exert its influence
in Eastern Europe.
From 2014 onward, helping to shape the new dimension of Poland’s foreign
policy to increasing the possibility to deter the Russian aggression has been the
prioritized task for Western European countries. Pełczyńska-Nałęcz (2019)
highlighted that “Poland has undertaken a geopolitical retreat, withdrawing from
what can be called the fundamental ‘dispute over the borders of the West’.” While
the Russian aggression against Ukraine was being prepared at the Belarusian border,
the then Foreign Minister of Poland, Zbigniew Rau (also a chair of the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe), made a visit to Moscow for the first time
in a decade (The First News, 2022a). Olech (2021) also stressed on the need of
Poland to have a pro-active engagement with Moscow on the side-line while
supporting the Ukraine conflict. After his visit to Moscow, Foreign Minister Rau
stated that “if Poland feels a rational desire to support its eastern neighbour, then, the
political struggle with Russia has so far been very ineffective, and consecutive joint
336 | The Ukraine crisis: Poland as a strategic crossroad in Eastern Europe
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
rallies of Polish and Ukrainian presidents, calling for European values
(“Europeanization” of Ukraine), will not contribute to a more rapid end of the
conflict” (Olech, 2021). Since the rise of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, Poland managed
Ukrainian refugees, and again, the US has shown its commitment that they will help
if refugees flee (The First News, 2022b).
The combination of Polish geostrategic positioning in the larger Eastern
Europe and Polish aspiration to be the security state, the stance that Poland has taken
can rather be coined as a ‘Realist Turn’ in terms of understanding Russia. As Kyiv
fights Russia and looks to the West for increased military and financial assistance,
Warsaw has become a crucial ally (Al Jazeera, 2024). Despite the fact that there was
some dent in the relationship related to the protest of the Polish farmers regarding
the Ukrainian products getting on the Polish market, Poland has shown strong
commitment to supporting Ukraine. Be it the logistical support or the support in an
international forum, Poland has strongly pushed Ukraine’s fight against Russia.
From a hawk eye perspective, Poland has shaped the political and cultural landscape
of Ukraine during the last 20 years. Millions of Ukrainians have been welcomed to
live, study, and work in the EU and NATO, which has been its steadfast supporter.
It has also offered an alternative vision of what Ukraine could become as a true
Central European nation: European, patriotic, openly anti-Russian, and
economically successful - all under the protection of US security guarantees (Jukic,
2022).
5. Significance of external actors in the Ukraine crisis
The Ukrainian crisis is a large geopolitical tussle between the collective West
and Russia. But to be precise, the crisis is the outcome of Russia’s aggression against
the increasing proximity between the West and Ukraine. Russia aimed to blackmail
the West and desired to seize some part of Ukraine which later turned into a full-
scale invasion. It is also an attempt to destabilize the situation in Ukraine
(economically, politically). However, due to the provocative actions from both the
West and Russia, the situation has escalated to a full-scale war. Although, Poland
remains the connector between the collective West and Russia, as the Eastern most
border of the EU and the NATO, there are actors such as EU (as an institution) and
US as the security provider of the Western Hemisphere.
In the past, the Russian aggression took different forms, like the situation of
2003 (Lambroschini, 2003; Didier, 2017). This was followed by the 2008 gas
conflict, the 2014 Ukraine crisis, and the 2022 Russian-Ukrainian war. All previous
crises has spillover implications to Poland. Despite the fact that Poland’s
materialistic capabilities did not use to be as strong as nowadays, it has partnered
with the US to support Ukraine (for instance, the joint communique of the then
President of Poland and the Vice President of USA in 2014, after Russia’s
Simant Shankar Bharti, Saroj Kumar Aryal, Andrii Kutsyk | 337
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
annexation of Crimea). Likewise, Poland is among the first nations in Europe which
started to sell military equipment to Ukraine.
It was especially after the 2014 crisis that the west sided with Ukraine and
introduced many sanctions against Russia. However, the sanctions did not stop
Russia from being more aggressive in eastern Europe. In other words, it can be
argued that the sanctions did not stop the war, but have only maintained the status
quo. The difference between the conflict of 2014 and that of 2022 is in the fact that
the west has renewed its approach in dealing with Russia. The collective West (the
EU, the United States, the United Kingdom, etc.) behaves quite differently and acts
more pro-actively regarding the supply of military equipment, immigrant
management and in terms of putting pressure on Russia in every possible way. It
should be noted that the EU, the USA, the UK, Turkey, and Poland help Ukraine in
different ways and play their role in this issue.
Perhaps despite the strong stance and approach adopted by the EU toward the
Russian war against Ukraine, the EU is in the most difficult position by comparison
with other external actors, particularly Germany, which is the most closely linked to
Russia’s energy (gas) and business interests. On the other hand, by imposing tougher
sanctions on Russia, many EU countries are causing great damage to themselves and
their economies. The EU’s primary aim is to balance between preserving European
democratic values and economic interests. Such balancing may continue until the
full implementation of the so-called “Green System” policy, which could replace
Russian energy with new energy sources (wind energy, etc.). Likewise, the EU
remains constantly concerned about the situation in Ukraine.
The EU has imposed various levels of sanction to Russia to deescalate the
situation. In June 2020, during the ‘Peace in Ukraine’ summit in Switzerland, the
European delegates even proposed to seize the foreign property of Russian
enterprises and use the money for the reconstruction of Ukraine. But on the other
hand, the EU is cautious regarding fulfilling the request of Ukraine to provide them
with lethal weapons to support their offence toward Russia. On the contrary, Poland
is in favour of providing Ukraine with any necessary modern military equipment.
Similarly, the role of the United States in the Ukrainian crisis is significantly
different from the role of the EU. Understanding the strategically important
geopolitical role of Ukraine, the United States is trying to control the situation in the
country. Highly influenced by the conceptual idea of Brzezinski (1997) that the one
who controls Eurasia controls the whole world, the USA has always been
strategically motivated in the region. It should also be noted that, compared to 2014,
US actions towards Russia have changed significantly, and now, the Americans have
moved from a policy of appeasing the aggressor to real actions to combat it, thus
starting to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons.
The USA’s strategic community came to a conclusion that it is impossible to
reach an agreement with Russia on equal terms. Breaching the Minsk agreement and
the continuous aggression toward Ukraine contributed to the USA’s changed
338 | The Ukraine crisis: Poland as a strategic crossroad in Eastern Europe
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
behaviours toward Russia. Especially after 2014, Ukraine’s main goal in the fight
against Russia has been to follow a roadmap to get NATO membership and Russia’s
main goal is to prevent this. In this situation, the United States is the main negotiator
between Ukraine and the alliance to consider Ukraine’s membership. The United
States has communicated Ukraine that the door is open for it to integrate with the
alliance, and also responds to Russia that it is unable to dictate its terms to both
independent countries and NATO structures on who should and who should not get
the membership. However, the United States is limited by the fact that any key
decision on Ukraine must be agreed with European partners, and not all European
partners are equally willing to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons, block Nord
Stream 2, and of course, provide Ukraine with a MAP on NATO membership.
Realising the fact that not all EU and NATO members are willing to see
Ukraine as a fellow member for various reasons, the Ukrainian government and
diplomacy began to focus on creating separate bilateral or tripartite alliances with
those countries. In particular, such countries are the United Kingdom, which has
begun supplying Ukraine with lethal weapons and instructors, and has even stated
that it is ready to send troops to Ukraine. Another country that is familiar with the
Russian threat is Poland. The Polish authorities have declared that they have
approved a bill in parliament to provide Ukraine with weapons of various kinds. The
arrival of the prime ministers of the United Kingdom and Poland to Ukraine to
establish a tripartite defence alliance outside NATO was important. Thus, one can
see how Ukraine, realizing the unlikely possibility of obtaining a MAP for NATO
membership, is quite successfully trying to create various defence and political
alliances with powerful geopolitical players that are not economically or politically
linked by alliances with Russia.
Also, a number of defence treaties, such as delivery of drones (Bayraktar)
from Turkey, can be considered such an alliance. Turkey, a geopolitical player in the
Black Sea region, is committed to mediate the conflict between Ukraine and Russia
and determined to do everything to prevent Russian aggression against Ukraine
(BBC, 2021). It can be concluded that the role of the EU, some individual attempts
of European countries, the US and the collective action during the war in Ukraine
have played a major role in keeping Russia in the back foot. Unlike the scenario of
the 2014 crisis, which was filled by sympathy and communique, the war of 2022
brings major attention from Poland, the EU and the USA in the form of hardware
military assistance to Ukraine.
Also, it should be noted that, in 2014, there was no synchronicity and one-
sided vision of the perception of the Russian aggression toward Ukraine among all
members of the “collective West”. On the one hand, it also shows the weakness of
the “collective measure” in the confrontation with Russia. However, it gave a signal
that, beside the collective actions, there are some independent major geopolitical
players such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and Poland. On a
larger note, the individual or the collective support that anyone is providing to the
Simant Shankar Bharti, Saroj Kumar Aryal, Andrii Kutsyk | 339
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
Ukraine, due to the geostrategic location, Poland have been involved in such
mechanism. The geographical proximity and the utmost intention to support Ukraine
has been the key factor in Poland’s approach toward the war in Ukraine.
Overall, the approaches adopted by either the USA or the EU have to travel
through Poland. The main hub for foreign aid is located at the regional airport in the
small town of Rzeszow in southeast Poland. Following the US decision to sanction
60 billion USD to aid Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, Germany will be the route
by which Poland will receive the cutting-edge offensive systems. According to a
Pentagon communiqué, the US military logistics can transport weapons and supplies
to Rzeszow swiftly via C-17 aircraft or by rail (Hofmann, 2024).
Conclusions
The above assessment allows us to draw some conclusions regarding the
conceptualization of the regional geopolitics and the role of the geostrategic factor
in International Relations. Historically, Poland has remained one of the volatile lands
due to its geographical position. Immediately after the Cold war, the academic work
related to the geostrategy of Poland has had some different understandings regarding
it. The foundational understanding of the geostrategy of Poland, also confront with
the idea of Russia. After WWII, Poland (together with other states in the region)
moved into the Central European void and, in Cohen’s view, became part of a
convergence zone, despite its desire to become a gateway. After joining the EU in
2004, it underwent a significant transformation. This act transformed Poland’s
geopolitical position as it became a part of the economically advanced maritime
realms of the Atlantic and Pacific, according to Cohen’s notion. Thus, when we try
to analyse the geostrategic positioning of Poland in context with Russia, it confronts
the very idea of the Russian intention in the region where Russia promotes the idea
of ‘United Russia’ with the intention of including post-Soviet countries in their
control sphere. On the other hand, the geostrategic community have also focused on
the revival of ‘Intermarium’. The rebirth of the Intermarium concept in Poland was
prompted by profound developments in European and worldwide geopolitics in the
1990s. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the states of Ukraine,
Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were re-established, and this new scenario
was particularly relevant to Pilsudski’s understanding of the Intermarium concept.
In light of these geopolitical shifts, the Intermarium concept has begun to resurface
in Polish geopolitical thinking. In this context, the geo-strategic understanding of
Poland clashes with the one that Russia has.
Second, Poland is the eastern edge of NATO, which has created a barricade
for the possible invasion of Russia in Eastern Europe. The military station in Poland,
as well as another in Romania, are examples of what Russian President Vladimir
Putin perceives as a threat presented by NATO’s eastward expansion - and part of
his justification for his military encirclement of Ukraine. The two facilities are
340 | The Ukraine crisis: Poland as a strategic crossroad in Eastern Europe
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
described by the Pentagon as defensive and not related to Russia, but the Kremlin
believes that they may be used to shoot down Russian rockets or launch offensive
cruise missiles at Moscow. However, after the crisis of Ukraine, the eastern flank of
NATO became vulnerable to Russian aggression.
Third, the war in Ukraine resembles the classic struggle between the ‘buffer
state’ vs. the ‘sphere of influence’. In this stance, both the EU and Russia have gone
through the dilemma of maintaining Ukraine as a buffer state or a sphere of
influence. In general terms, powers in the geopolitical globe compete for dominance,
and the buffer state is the product of this competition. The geopolitical deadlock
between two or more regional or global powers seeking supremacy in the region or
the world is known as a buffer state. Powers prefer to specify a fluid and buffer
condition for countries located within their geopolitical area because joining or
maintaining a buffer space can be very costly. Thus, due to the structural struggle
between buffer and sphere of influence, the situation has escalated and again put the
geostrategic position of Poland into jeopardy.
Fourth, the main reason for us to present the Ukrainian position while
discussing the broader geopolitical significance of Poland is that Russian invasion
and the total control of Ukraine will erase the buffer factor in Poland’s geostrategy
in the eastern border.However, due to the fact that it is one of the key members of
NATO, it is unlikely that Poland will face the same kind of attitude from Russia, but
it will surely become the victim of Russian spillover aggression. Overall, whatever
the context, Poland remains the geopolitical choke point between Russia and the EU.
Nevertheless, the combination of few factors, such as the geostrategic position
of Poland, Ukraine’s future as the buffer state between NATO and Russia and the
changing approach of the EU toward Russia, collectively working as the key aspect
of the changing geopolitical landscape of the Eastern Europe. On the other hand, the
increasing materialistic capabilities of Poland in both economic and security spheres
turns it into the key to geopolitical decision making in Eastern Europe.
References
Al Jazeera. (2022, February 24), Russian forces launch full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/24/putin-orders-military-operations-in-
eastern-ukraine-as-un-meets
Al Jazeera. (2024, January 22). Poland’s Tusk says Ukraine-Russia war a fight ‘between
good and evil’. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/22/poland-pm-visits-
ukraine-in-latest-show-of-solidarity-in-war-against-russia
Baczwarow, M. (2002). Kompendium wiedzy o geografii politycznej i geopolityce:
terminologia [Compendium of political geography and geopolitics: terminology].
Wydawn. Nauk. PWN.
Simant Shankar Bharti, Saroj Kumar Aryal, Andrii Kutsyk | 341
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
BBC. (2015, February 12). Ukraine ceasefire: New Minsk agreement key points. BBC
News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31436513
BBC. (2016, September 28). MH17 missile ‘came from Russia’, Dutch-led investigators
say. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37495067
BBC. (2019, June 12). Trump: US to send 1,000 troops to Poland in new deal. BBC News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48585045
BBC. (2021, November 29). Erdogan is ready to mediate between Ukraine and Russia.
BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/news-59461462
BBC. (2022, February 10). Ukraine tensions: Russia stages military drills with Belarus.
BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60327930
Bloor, M., & Wood, F. (2006). Keywords in qualitative methods: A vocabulary of research
concepts. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Brzezinski, Z. (1997). The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic
Imperatives. New York: Basic Books.
Burnham, P., Lutz, K. G., Grant, W., & Layton-Henry, Z. (2008). Research methods in
politics. Palgrave Macmillan.
Chadwick, L. (2022, February 4). Ukraine crisis: Why now? What’s the history? Will
Russia invade? Euronews. https://www.euronews.com/my-
europe/2022/02/04/russia-ukraine-border-crisis-explained-why-now-what-s-the-
history-what-are-putin-s-motivat
Chappell, B. (2022, February 10). Russia holds a massive military exercise with Belarus,
raising concerns in Ukraine. NPR News.
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1079888622/russia-military-exercise-belarus-
ukraine
Charap, S., & Colton, T. J. (2017). Everyone Loses: The Ukraine Crisis and the Ruinous
Contest for Post-Soviet Eurasia. London: Routledge.
Davies, P. (2020, June 25), Poland’s Duda promises ‘stronger alliance’ with Donald Trump
during U.S. visit. Euronews. https://www.euronews.com/2020/06/24/polish-
president-duda-meets-donald-trump-for-pre-election-boost
Didier, B. (2016). The Ukraine crisis or the revival of the Grand Chessboard’s geopolitics:
Euro-Atlantic response to Russia’s assault. Open Diplomacy, 1-10.
Fisher, M. (2014, February 18). Everything you need to know about the Ukraine crisis. Vox.
https://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/18088560/ukraine-everything-you-need-to-know
Fraszka, B. (2021, December 23). The Situation on the Poland-Belarus Border:
Background, Geopolitics, Narratives. Warsaw Institute.
https://warsawinstitute.org/situation-poland-belarus-border-background-geopolitics-
narratives/
Friedman, G. (2010). The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century. New York:
Anchor Books.
Global Conflict Tracker. (2022, February 17). Conflict in Ukraine. Global Conflict Tracker.
https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine
342 | The Ukraine crisis: Poland as a strategic crossroad in Eastern Europe
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
Gray, C. S. (1988). The geopolitics of superpower. University Press of Kentucky.
Herszenhorn, D. M. (2018, May 30). Warsaw to Trump: Let’s make a military deal
(without NATO). Politico. https://www.politico.eu/article/warsaw-poland-andrzej-
duda-to-donald-trump-lets-make-a-military-deal-without-nato/
Hofmann, F. (2024, April 26). US to send weapons to Ukraine via Germany, Poland.
Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-us-to-deliver-weapons-via-
germany-and-poland/a-68912696
Jóźwiak, I. & Piechowska, M. (2017). Crisis-driven mobility between Ukraine and Poland:
What does the available data (not) tell us (CMR Working Papers, No. 99/157).
https://www.migracje.uw.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/WP99157.pdf
Jukic, L. I. (2022, February 19). 2014 Euromaidan protests, Crimea Invasion bound Poland
and Ukraine together against Russia. Foreign Policy.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/18/ukraine-poland-russia-history-west-nato-
euromaidan-crimea/
Kiss, G. (1942). Political Geography into Geopolitics: Recent Trends in Germany.
Geographical Review, 32(4), 632–645. https://doi.org/10.2307/210001
Kjellén, R., & Sandmeier, J. (1924). Der Staat als lebensform [Statecraft as a form of life].
K. Vowinckel.
Kofman, M. (2021, September 23). Zapad 2021: What We Learned From Russia’s Massive
Military Drills. The Moscow Times. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/09/23/
zapad-2021-what-we-learned-from-russias-massive-military-drills-a75127
Lakomy, M. (2017). Polish-Ukrainian Relations, Euromaidan and the Donbass Conflict:
The Challenges for Warsaw. Central European Journal of International and
Security Studies, 11(2), 85-105. https://cejiss.org/polish-ukrainian-relations-
euromaidan-and-the-donbass-conflict-the-challenges-for-warsaw
Lambroschini, S. (2003). Russia/Ukraine: Prime Ministers Meet Today Over Tuzla Dam
Dispute. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. https.//www.rferl.org/a/1104782.html
Magnay, D. (2021, September 14). Zapad 2021. Russia showcases military might with
massive series of drills alongside Belarus forces. Sky News.
https://news.sky.com/story/zapad-2021-russia-showcases-military-might-with-
massive-series-of-drills-alongside-belarus-forces-12407356
Matera, P. (2020), Economic Incentives as Tools of Foreign Policy: Polish Engagement in
Ukraine. European Review, 30(1), 24–42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S106279872000109X
Nahaylo, B. (1999). The Ukrainian Resurgence. London: C.Hurst & Co. Ltd.
Norberg, J., & Simpson, N. (2021). Zapad 2021And Russia’s Potential for Warfighting.
Foreign Policy Research Institute.
Olech, A. (2021). The role of Poland in the Ukrainian conflict. Warsaw: Instytut Nowej
Europy.
Otok, S. (1985). Political Geography Around the World V: Poland. Political Geography
Quarterly, 4(4), 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/0260-9827(85)90038-2
Simant Shankar Bharti, Saroj Kumar Aryal, Andrii Kutsyk | 343
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
Pawłuszko, T. (2021). The Rise of Geopolitics in Poland and Eastern Europe: The Three
Seas and The Bucharest Nine Initiatives. The Copernicus Journal of Political
Studies, 1, 5-17. https://doi.org/10.12775/CJPS.2021.001
Pełczyńska-Nałęcz, K. (2019). Poland’s approach to Russia Radicalism without policy.
Warsaw: Stefan Batory Foundation.
Pierce, R. (2008). Research Methods in Politics: A practical guide. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. (2017, July 6). In Warsaw, Trump Reaffirms Article 5
Commitment, Criticizes Russia’s ‘Destabilizing Behavior’.
https://www.rferl.org/a/trump-europe-trip-poland-warsaw-visit/28597961.html
Rane. (2021, November 18). EU-Belarus Cooperation on the Border Is Unlikely to Yield
Broader Rapprochement. RANE Reports. https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/eu-
belarus-cooperation-border-unlikely-yield-broader-rapprochement
Reuters. (2021, November 29). Belarus announces military drills with Russia near Ukraine
border. Reuters News. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/belarus-announces-
military-drills-with-russia-near-ukraine-border-2021-11-29/
Roth, A. (2021, December 17). Russia issues list of demands it says must be met to lower
tensions in Europe. The Guardian News. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/
dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato
Rutland, P. (2015, April 9). An Unnecessary War: The Geopolitical Roots of the Ukraine
Crisis. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/09/an-unnecessary-
war-the-geopolitical-roots-of-the-ukraine-crisis
Schwirtz, M. & Reinhard, S. (2022, January 7). How Russia’s Military Is Currently
Positioned. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/
01/07/world/europe/ukraine-maps.html
Sharma, S. (2022, February 15). Russia-Ukraine conflict explained in 10 points. Mint News.
https://www.livemint.com/news/world/russiaukraine-conflict-explained-in-10-
points-11644925985257.html
Shinkman, P.D. (2017, November 24). Russia Has Deployed Thousands of Tanks, Troops
to Ukraine, Top Official Says. U.S. News. https://www.usnews.com/news/
world/articles/2017-11-24/russia-has-deployed-thousands-of-tanks-troops-to-
ukraine-top-official-says
Solarz, M. W. (2014). The rise, fall and rebirth of Polish political geography. Geopolitics,
19(3), 719-739. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2014.915807
Sprout, H., & Sprout, M. (1960). Geography and international politics in an era of
revolutionary change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 4(1), 145-161.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002200276000400111
Stewart, P. & Antonov, D. (2022, February 3). Biden orders nearly 3,000 U.S. troops to
Eastern Europe to counter Russia. Reuters News. https://www.reuters.com/world/
europe/kremlin-mocks-britains-utterly-confused-johnson-before-putin-talks-2022-
02-02/
344 | The Ukraine crisis: Poland as a strategic crossroad in Eastern Europe
Eastern Journal of European Studies ● 15(01) 2024 ● 2068-651X (print) ● 2068-6633 (on-line) ● CC BY ● ejes.uaic.ro
Sykulski, L. (2013). Andrzej Dybczyński (Red.), Geopolityka, Poltext, Warszawa 2013, SS.
448. Przegląd Geopolityczny, 06, 163-176.
The First News. (2022a, February 15). Polish FM flies to Moscow to met Russian
counterpart. https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/polish-fm-flies-to-moscow-to-
meet-russian-counterpart-27891
The First News. (2022b, February 15). US will help Poland with Ukrainian refugees says
minister. https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/us-will-help-poland-with-ukrainian-
refugees-says-minister-27893
Walker, S. (2022, February 9). Belarus military drills to begin as Russia ratchets up
Ukraine tensions. The Guardian News. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/
feb/09/russia-belarus-start-army-drills-threatening-step-ukraine
Wendt, J. (2000). The select methods of investigations in geostrategy and geopolitics.
Political Geography Studies in Central and Eastern Europe, 23-30.
Wilk, A. & Żochowski, P. (2021, September 3). The Zapad-2021 exercises: Russian
strategy in practice. Centre for Eastern Studies.
https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2021-09-03/zapad-2021-
exercises-russian-strategy-practice
Wilson, A. (2014). Ukraine Crisis: What it means for the West. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press.
Zafar, S. S. (2015). The Ukraine Crisis and the EU. Journal of European Studies, 31(2), 55-
69. https://asce-uok.edu.pk/journal/index.php/JES/article/view/65
