Has the Catholic Church been taken over from within? The author reveals the sources of the rebellion that struck at the very heart of faith. Explore the concept of Americanism, an ideology that created a dangerous bifurcation within the Roman Catholic empire. This is a book that sheds new light on the contemporary crisis of the church. Order your copy at ksiazevektory.pl. Good morning. Good evening everyone. I hope that no matter when, whether you're watching us now or later, you're also excited about our newest guest. Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in independent Lublin, Professor Marek Miąsko. Hello, professor. Good morning, Mr. Editor. Hello everyone. Even Mariusz says that exactly. And if I were to specify something more, I would even say that he is a professor at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Warsaw, but he represents the College of Legal Sciences in Lublin. This is why at the Lublin College of Legal Sciences in Lublin everything is connected, there are no coincidences. Professor, I must say that I was incredibly excited to meet you, because you are a representative of, let's call it, a school that fills ditches rather than deepens them among people. At the same time, I interpret you, if I may say so, as a man who is, I apologize, I hope I do not offend, right-wing through and through. Is this correct? I have a problem with the definition of right-wing in the modern world. I would say that I am a sovereigntist through and through. That's how I would put it. Maybe for me it depends on the same thing, because it seems to me that currently political parties want to give a very different dimension, color and image to this scope. I apologize, Professor, and I dare say that looking at it very subjectively, it seems to me that a right-winger is someone who values freedom, independence, and property, right? It's all about spirituality. Spirituality of any quality. Not just any quality. Yes. Yes. Decisively. Yes. If we understand and define it this way, it really fits into this trend. Although it is as you noticed, I am far from politics as such . I mean, I never wanted, I had no intention of being a politician, I did not feel like a politician, I have no such need, I have no such ambitions, I do not want to be a member of parliament, senator or anyone else in this understanding of politics as it functions is understood. However, for me, connecting people around projects is fundamental, and that is probably why for 26 years I have played various roles, in various capacities, sometimes marginal, sometimes larger, sometimes smaller, in many Polish governments. Mhm. And I have always focused on specific projects, on building projects. I started. Interestingly, even though I come from a so-called Solidarity family, because my father, my mother, my uncles, my grandfather were co-founders of the Solidarity of individual farmers. Very close to us was the house where Andrzej Gwiazda came from. In fact, to this day, once a year he comes from Gdańsk to visit us here, in Lesser Poland, in Korycza. So I come from a Solidarity home. From my childhood, I remember maybe 150 meetings, right, those about freedom, Solidarity, so it would seem that I should be a classic example of a right-wing child, but I don't see it that way. I do n't see the world that way. perhaps because my grandfather was first a representative of Wicia before the war. It was a pre-war peasant organization that was in opposition to the Sanation. And this opposition basically came down to only one element, the need to educate the Polish peasantry, to acquire skills, reading, writing, adding, subtracting, multiplying. Let us remember that at that time the Sanacja party did not at all take the position of providing the countryside with the maximum caloric value in terms of competences, because conscious people are more difficult to manage, although now I have doubts about this thesis, but so this is the beginning of my, so to speak, action of my grandfather's political activity. Later, during World War II, my grandfather took part in the first battles of Dukla, then near Przemyśl, to become a sharpshooter, later near Jarosław he was disbanded, later he miraculously escaped death twice from the side of his eastern friends, but those close to the east, i.e. Ukrainians. And later he was a representative of the peasant battalions and, interestingly, at the same time of the Home Army. for example, he received an oath from one of the field commanders of the Home Army. So it was an extraordinary case where an ordinary person, a farmer, a peasant, who had not completed all the grades of primary school, because there were simply no funds for it , and there was no primary school in our village , so we had to walk several kilometers to the nearest school, was endowed by the structure of the underground state with, one might say, a double honor and, at the same time, double trust. Because also on the side of the peasant battalions, that is, those that were, one might say, left-leaning, which were treated as left-leaning, but at the same time he was a representative of the so- called political three of the Home Army. Well, they are very strongly right-wing, right-wing organizations, you could say, in today's terms, so it was absolutely unusual. And later my grandfather was a member of the Polish People's Party, and later he founded Solidarity. I think it stems from the fact that I grew up in an environment where people focused more on the grassroots, in the best sense of the word, and focused on projects, and not on the politics of the impoverished ones at the top of power, because it is at the top of power that it is paradoxically impoverished, eroded at various levels, and that is what I learned immediately after my studies in 2000. I remember the then deputy minister came, it was Jacek Soska representing the PSL. Um, he was the deputy minister of agriculture. I graduated from the University of Silesia and because I came from the countryside and was one of only two students to graduate, I took agricultural law. And Jacek Soska came and asked who took the agricultural law exam here. Back then, everyone passed the mining and security exams. Well, who all thought that this was the future before mining and metallurgy? Well, it turned out that I was also taking the test from a friend of mine, but luckily for me she wasn't there, so I raised my hand. He says: "Listen, we will be negotiating the conditions of Poland's accession to the European Union in Warsaw. It was during the French presidency, and that's how I found myself in Warsaw and was negotiating the conditions of accession in the area of ​​agriculture on Trębacka Street, among other things, during the pre-accession period. The negotiations were very unsuccessful, extremely unsuccessful. We didn't negotiate anything, not even 1 euro, which we entered the negotiations with at the beginning, we left with that. The French didn't show even the slightest flexibility. They even explained later why they did n't show this flexibility. From their perspective, it made sense. Only then, at the end of these negotiations, did I understand what function and role Poland was assigned in the structures of the European Union, which we had n't joined yet at that time, because it was the pre-accession period, but I already understood what it was all about. I remember there was a certain Minister Kalinowski, I think he was even the Deputy Prime Minister at that time, and that was when we had already finished this phase of negotiations with the French presentation, they invited us to such a meeting. Let's say there was a rout at the embassy, and Kalinowski, who was bothered by this , kept asking the representative from the ministry, the French minister, why we hadn't negotiated anything, any conditions. And the man replied, " Because you Poles are like ants." This is a more or less accurate quote. You Poles are like ants. If we just gave you jobs and money, you would overturn this agricultural policy we've been building for so many decades. And then it completely hit me that we were a second-tier country there . If I remember correctly, at that stage—I don't remember what happened next, but at that stage, we were definitely offered entry, 25% of the subsidies farmers from the old European Union were receiving, and we left with exactly that amount. Perhaps there were some concessions later, but during that time, when I was negotiating or participating in these negotiations, we didn't negotiate anything. And then I understood what our role was, and that's why I started being very cautious, I wasn't I was skeptical about the European Union, I was cautious, but here you see, I'm answering your original question a bit broadly, Mr. Director. That is, as I see it, am I a man of the middle ground, so to speak, in the best sense of the word? Yes, I come from such a background, as you can see, a very diverse background, but it always had one common denominator. It was very process-oriented. It was conditioned to the implementation of specific tasks. And you, and that task was always the construction of Poland. Whether it was during difficult times, right? Post-communist, or communist, or still communist, or earlier Stalinist, or post-Stalinist, and later communist, and later post-communist. These people got along very well, whether they were from the SL or the SLD. Actually, I may not have had any, so to speak, relationships, but whether they were from the Polish People's Party, whether they were from the Solidarity of individual farmers, or the Solidarity of workers, or whether later Mr. Moczulski visited our house , whether that was or wasn't it? These people, from whatever circles they were , understood each other perfectly, that there was a certain superior value, and it seems to me that in Poland, Poland was heading towards this direction, until Prime Minister Olszewski, and it seems to me that this breakdown occurred in Poland after Olszewski's government, after that fateful night, and then there was some radical distortion, and I would say a breakdown of the district division at the level of the minds, that's how I would put it. A breakdown of the district division at the level of the minds in the Polish state. I really don't like it , maybe not that I don't like it, but I'm very careful when someone wants to put me in the right-wing box, because that would mean that I stand in opposition to all other people. You know, I apply that, that my mind is in opposition, my heart is in opposition to other people. But that's not the case. I don't stand in opposition to other people. That's the foundation, that's what I'm trying to learn, to make it like it was here. at home, that there were people representing such a group, such a group, such a group. I say at home because we had the most conspiratorial meetings, and it was n't just Solidarity people who came . You have to know this is something that's not generally talked about. There were people from very different centers of power there, not at the historical level. And historically, people who did n't belong to Solidarity at all, or even belonged to other groups, came to these conspiratorial meetings. And now I don't want it to sound like I'm a right-winger. I mean, some people will turn off the TV at this point, not the TV, but they will turn off their minds to my message, to what I want to offer, because they will think, aha, so we're in this box that doesn't accept us, so he won't say anything to me, because he won't accept me. It's not even about whether I want to be accepted, only he, or only he wo n't accept me. No, no, quite the opposite. I want to say that precisely I will accept. Professor, I'm terribly sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Just like you can't be half pregnant or not. Oh yes, I'm terribly sorry, but I know you want the best for everyone , right? But if, dear God, for example, you can't half-accept the immigration pact, or you can't only half- accept that our country is sold out, meaning we accept half that we'll sell out, and the rest will somehow remain independent. I have the impression that there's a kind of red line, an impassable line, called independence, for example . He would say, I would say sovereignty, but we've already drawn it. It's not like that anymore. Sovereignty. For me, sovereignty is the most important value at the state level, at the human level. The most important value at the level of first-generation human rights groups is the right to dignity, and at the state level, the most important value is sovereignty. But we've already established that de facto in the first sentence, or at the latest in the third, that we've reduced this to The conversation, and we also brought the scope of my perception to a point, focused on sovereignty. Therefore, as I'm operating in this space, in this space of those people who, regardless of whether they are left-wing, center-wing, or right-wing, their overriding value is sovereignty. You know that right? Please, please pay attention, if I could just point out one more aspect. Please pay attention, because we've already defined where I come from , so you probably can't expect me to glorify the period before 1989, especially since I was a small child before my eyes . On the first night of martial law, my father was arrested, severely beaten, and held in the harshest cell, in the harshest prison at the time, in Strzelce Opolskie. So harsh that five of them were held in the basement without a toilet. Well, you can imagine what the conditions were like, even without a window. You can imagine what those conditions were like. Moreover, the fact that the International Red Cross inspected the facility at that time and ordered its closure testifies to these conditions. internment, that prison. And so it happened. Please note, this shows what the conditions must have been like there , since at that time, during martial law, as a result of Red Cross intervention, they were imprisoned. My father was in such a prison, and we experienced, I know, some 30 years of injustice. Things changed for a long time, even after 1989, ladies and gentlemen. The Polish state's banner changed, our eagle gained a crown , but that by no means means that the lows changed. We experienced that long after 1989, but at the same time, let's remember that Poland built Ursus, built several factories that produced our buses, several brands, our tractors, our airplanes, our jets, our fighters, our helicopters, our ships, etc., etc. And what happened after 1989, so that we don't fall into such simplification, Mr. Editor and ladies and gentlemen? And after 1989, our right-wingers came. They were n't our right-wingers at all, they weren't our former right-wingers. So-called "our people" came and sold off those pearls, you could say they plucked them from the crown year after year. And what do we have now? Of those lasting values ​​that we had, our country possessed, basically everything was sold for trinkets, for some valuables, for houses, for whatever. And that's what I'm talking about, that's what I'm talking about, and you see, I 'm absolutely convinced. I grew up for four years, day in and day out, actually, even during my studies, almost nine years, with my uncle, one of the most outstanding Polish engineers, Józef Grela, who was a designer, designed the largest Polish plants, and was by no means a Solidarity supporter, nor was he left-wing, it must be said, he wasn't, he didn't belong to the party, but he was n't right-wing in our sense , he wasn't a Solidarity supporter either. But this man, my uncle, a wonderful, wonderful man, in the sense that every evening he told me, told me how much joy it brought him, It was the building and designing of the largest industrial plants for Poland. It was pure patriotism. It was pure, it was a purely sovereignty-oriented mindset. He always spoke extremely critically about Russia and relations with Russia. Maybe not about Russia, relations with Russia, or Russia's relations with Poland, but he was a man, a great humanist in that sense and a great sovereignty advocate. And this, to me, is a mature, mature discussion about sovereignty and relations within a state, so that once we define what is most important, that the most important thing is sovereignty, for example, including religious sovereignty. Because if someone believes there will be some kind of void after eliminating our religion, they only need to look at Great Britain, Germany, France , Spain to see that there will be no void. There will only be problems, so that's also a manifestation of some kind. If someone isn't religious, at least it's a manifestation of some rationality stemming from a certain layer of sovereignty. But this is, in my opinion, a mature approach. To think about the state, to think about relationships. And this is how I see it now, this is how I perceive reality, this is how I perceive interactions with people. Professor, we're talking in quite general terms. I have one more general question, but it's very revealing, and I think I'll understand what you're talking about, and so will our viewers. Professor, where does the truth lie? The truth? It lies where it lies. That's how I would put it. Thank you very much. I had to ask this question because it really makes me laugh when my guest tells me: "The truth lies somewhere in the middle, not the truth." The truth lies where it simply lies." Yes. Um, Professor, uh, it was very nice. Now we'll move on to very specific questions and it won't be so nice anymore. Do we, as a state, as a country, have friends? Someone is suggesting to us, I mean, we know very well who is suggesting to us, that our friends are, for example, our close neighbors, the Ukrainians, that our suddenly new friends are the Germans, that our tried and true friends are the French, or the English, or the Americans. Can we, as a state, have any friends at all? I'm putting it this way: not as a state, we cannot think in these categories. As a state, I emphasize, not as a nation and also not as a citizen, but as a state. And we are not allowed to think in these categories. You, as a state, must think exclusively in terms of pragmatism. I have lectured at two universities, among others, on national defense and several fields related to broadly understood security and defense, and I had students from most of the Polish services, if not all of them. I have lectured, among others, on such a subject, on In which I showed students the mechanisms of destabilization in individual countries and indicated the circumstances that must exist for effective destabilization to occur. Well, all the bans occurred at the Polish state level in Polish-Ukrainian relations, and students often asked, "Okay, is this ethical?" I replied, "But that's how purely pragmatic states operate." States don't consider ethics; they consider pragmatics, and that's how Americans negotiate. They may like us and even need a judge in Europe, but when they negotiate the terms of their fighters, they start with the highest possible stakes, and we don't negotiate hard with them, and very often we end up with very unfavorable conditions. We mustn't think naively either, because the opposite of pragmatic, state pragmatism is naivety. And now, please look at history. We mustn't think because we have historical experiences. You laugh at your mention of France, because we might return to Ukraine in a moment, if the editor allows, but Let's look at France. We have a phrase in our anthem that refers to Napoleon, Napoleon Bonaparte. And remember, he was the one who sent Poles to slaughter, to successive assaults, to slaughter, to pacify freedom-loving and pro-national movements, and by no means treated Poles in any particularly favorable way; on the contrary, he exploited Poles in an incredibly pragmatic manner. The situation with the Polish debt was similar. Besides, that's where the term "Bayan sum" originated in Poland. Remember, we don't have time to elaborate on this, but I encourage you to look at where this phrase came from. It came from Napoleon's unimaginable cynicism. There's no point in mentioning Germany, because it's true, the situation is so obvious, but you didn't mention it, you mentioned Ukraine, which I'll come back to in a moment, and in several different dimensions, but you didn't mention Slovakia. Well, few people know, as already, that in the first days Poland was attacked not by two countries, as we are taught, right? So we are taught that first by Germany, and later by Russia. Sorry, sorry. I should also add that not only Slovakia, not only Germany, but another international entity, completely independent of them, attacked us. Well, maybe. But Slovakia, oh, I don't know. But the Free City of Gdańsk. Oh, yes, in the sense of an entity. Okay, but I'm more referring to this nationality theme. That's what I mean, this nationality theme. Well, three, three countries in the Understanding, three nations attacked us. Well, at Dukla, before the Russians had time to enter Poland, Slovakia attacked us. Well, remember that at Dukla, Poland was attacked by combined German-Slovak forces. Why am I mentioning this? Not to blame the Slovaks for anything. Besides, and I always knew this from my grandfather, because my grandfather said, " Listen, grandson, at Dukla, it wasn't just the Germans who attacked us; we were attacked by the Slovaks as well." Well, my grandfather defended Duklin first , so I had firsthand knowledge of it, and it wasn't for him that it was a shock and a surprise that not only the Germans attacked, but also the Slovaks. So, please note that there must have been some kind of pragmatism on the Slovak side, that they decided it was worthwhile to attack Poland. That is, because they did n't like Poles. They were probably neighbors, but they acted as a state, in a pragmatic sense. There, perhaps not strictly speaking, they attacked the Slovak state as such, but the troops had to have some state consent. And now we mustn't behave impragmatically. Please note how this lack of pragmatism or pragmatism in relations with Ukraine ended, this kneeling before Ukraine in the first days of the war on all possible levels. I mean, Ukrainians are just like the average Ukrainian, and I assume a Ukrainian is the same person. Just like any of us. An average Ukrainian, because that's what I mean. And that's all. I mean, he's entitled to the same human rights, the same right to dignity, but Ukraine hasn't come to terms with the Polish state historically and hasn't shown gratitude. Perhaps because we didn't behave pragmatically, and perhaps because in the first days we showed not so much heart, because you can't show too much heart, but precisely too little pragmatism. There, we probably had to show as much heart as we did, but we had to account for every piece of equipment we delivered, account for ourselves in order to earn that respect. It's not that states have to, even in interpersonal relations, it's not that everyone has to like us, and even more so in interstate relations, the state isn't there to be liked. The state is there to be respected. Besides, people aren't there to be liked either. People are there to be respected. And basically, all great minds have said this throughout history. You often explain this to students, that I say: "Don't try to be so that everyone likes you. Try to be such that people will respect you. There are certain ideas, certain values ​​that you simply have to fight for, and then someone may not like you completely, but they will certainly respect you. And I believe that we do not have basic respect in Polish-Ukrainian relations , but we do not have it at our own request. I am so sorry. I sincerely apologize to the government's wishes. This is exactly what I was missing. I have nothing to blame myself for. I really don't know if you do or not. I also wish for the government to do so. And now you see again, you understand again, perhaps you and your dear viewers have understood my hesitation with this first question. Are you a right-winger through and through? And now you see, I have a problem with this, with this definition, because I wouldn't want to be judged as a thoroughly right-wing person if someone conflated the word right-wing, for example, with a political party that at that moment was on its knees giving Ukraine absolutely everything in an uncritical way. No, no, that's why you understand the source of my hesitation. Sure, I'm terribly sorry, but let's separate the labels from y from y definitions. And we have established what the definitions are, but I do not want to give you a label or a tag. I'm just saying how I perceive you as a person, that you think right. Oh, you think right. May be. Yes. Yes. Oh, this is a completely different box. Yes. Here we will definitely agree. Great. Um, I think I think we've exhausted the beginning of the conversation. It was very nice, but Professor, is it evolution, is it revolution, are we even capable of doing anything else? I have the impression that you have already mentioned that we are, we have a big heart. Um, so let's explain this and our approach to certain principles, let's call them moral, it seems to be right, that is, we can sympathize, we can help. Empathy is what I think Poles as a nation have. it simply has, but at the same time it is a culture, Latin, European culture. By the way, someone says to me: "But wait, but thanks to the European Union we are in Europe." No, I'm so sorry , we've always been there . We have always been there, and in fact we have often created this Europe, I would even say the centre of Europe. Does this mean that we are able, as a way of thinking, to get along with completely different, sorry, I think at least slightly different civilizations. Here I am suggesting, it seems to me, that our neighbors think a little differently and perhaps are a slightly different civilization. Oh, here, dear God, I missed it. The professor wrote a book about civilizations, the theory of civilizations. It was Professor Koneczny who stated that it was a completely different civilization, more Turanian than European. What do you think about this? Mhm. In general, I feel very uncomfortable, so to speak, when I hear terms that the editor very rightly denied, that we, as Poland, are also part of a civilization. No, no, we are not part of a civilization either, because let us remember that at the national level, i.e. the sense of historical, religious, cultural community, the sense of continuity, there are basically three nations in Europe. These are British, these are Hungarians and these are Poles. Therefore , we are not part of this European community. We create it first . This is the starting point for me. For me, this is also the starting point for thinking about a greater Poland. Once upon a time, editor Ziemkiewicz wrote an insanely good book. An insanely good book. This is not an advertisement, it is simply a statement of fact. I think it's titled Great Poland and it's a book with which I identify almost 100%, where the editor Ziemkiewicz beautifully describes the mentality, and I would say something more, the mentality of great Poland. I gave an interview to one of the radio stations asking if Polish politicians can afford the mentality of great Poland. It must be possible, I mean, not in such a great Poland. We don't need to conquer any territory whatsoever. We do not need to conquer, right, in order to be from sea to sea, as was the case. We don't need colonies. We need state thinking, similar to the thinking in Taiwan, which is a tiny island of 24 million compared to 37 million Poles, which is unimaginably rich. Unimaginably rich. It's hard to put it into words. You have to be there to see and compare. It is in a very unfavorable situation, geopolitical conditions, and in this unfavorable situation they were able to create incredibly rich, powerful states. This is this is this is a giant. And that's why, because they have the mentality of great Taiwan, and we have, we have to develop, recreate the mentality of great Poland as it was historically, because that mentality existed. Once upon a time, the king rode at the head of the army, but now kings hide. In the past, the nobility, i.e. the elite of the state, was the first to go against the enemy, to stand against the enemy. She prepared her own weapons, took her squires whom she supported and went to fight, it is true, only to sometimes perhaps not return, very often not return, but this was the consciousness of the great Poland, of the elite, and we must restore this consciousness. I once said this during one of the podcasts, when someone asked me if I was prepared for war and to what extent. I said yes, I have three backpacks, that's true. I have all three pieces of equipment, three backpacks. They are all in offensive specifications and on the first day that Poland is attacked, I will join the ranks to go east to defend our Poland, because that is the way of thinking about the Polish state. That's what my grandfather did. That's what my second grandfather did. This is what my five-times great-grandfather did, who worked, who fought with Kościuszko, Sylwester Sokół, by the way, during the Kościuszko Uprising. And that's what we must do. And that's how I teach my son. I am terribly sorry, but I have to take you up on your very specific words, which are of great interest to me and our viewers as well. You said, you will go east, excuse me, from whom to defend Poland. in front of everyone, in front of everyone, in front of everyone who just comes in. And why did he think it was? Because the plant is complex, but I understand the depth of your question, but because I also often showed this to students for probably less than 12 months after the outbreak of the Ukrainian-Russian war again. This document was still available on the Internet. Later it disappeared, and it was a note from Polish intelligence from the territories of the situation in Ukraine, and it came from, if I remember correctly, it was published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, certainly 10 days or 7 days before the start of the war. And what this note said about, that in Ukraine, in many cities, and there are people, people, there are processions of people with torches, who are shouting that they are Poles. At that time, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a note on its website, on its official website, in which it warned against traveling to Ukraine due to extremely anti-Polish, not anti-Russian, extremely anti-Polish, anti-Polish statements. And I showed this note as long as it was available online. I showed it to my students, and I'm sure several hundred of my students saw it, which they will undoubtedly confirm if they watch this program. Later this note disappeared because the war broke out and it became insincere. On the one hand, it's a disaster, but on the other hand, there's a very sincere Polish-Ukrainian relationship. On the Polish side, I think she was honest to the point of absurdity. On the other hand, as it turns out, she was absurdly insincere. what the last few weeks have shown and this makes me think that if the Russian-Ukrainian war had not happened, we could probably already have the seeds of a conflict on the eastern border, because this is not talked about in Poland. Are you suggesting, excuse me, are you suggesting that Ukraine or Ukrainians are not only dishonest towards us, but also mean to us ? they are offensive for sure. Yes, yes. Certainly even before the outbreak of the second war, the second one after this, this second opening of the war, the Ukrainian-Russian war, nationalist organizations were openly demanding the surrender of Przemyśl. Please remember, just google it. it was um, let's remember that these moods were very um, directed at in two ways. One is very strongly pro-Nazi and the other is very strongly anti-Polish, one could even say anti- Latvian. Um, let's remember that uh, the famous first regiment, which was almost completely wiped out at Mariupol, well, uh, basically almost the entire regiment, almost 100% of the personnel had uh, Nazi emblems on their skin . Let's remember this. In my opinion, it was not by accident that they did not receive support at that time, because remember that they were basically wiped out there almost to zero and they had a grudge against their own government for that. And it seems to me that this government simply understood the dangers it posed. I'm sorry, but now you're suggesting that the Ukrainian government, which was exactly the same government, that is, at least it had the same head, then, let 's say nicely, got rid of the nationalists or Banderites, neo-Banderites, with the help of the Russians. And at this moment, this government, or rather this head of government, of state, is actually fond of Banderites, the successors of the UPA. Yes. And here, paradoxically, there is complete consistency, because let us remember this action and a kind of, I would say, downright brutal pragmatism from the Ukrainian perspective. Let us remember the situation in Ukraine at that time. That is, it was in such a situation when it was not yet saturated with international troops, although it was not officially saturated with international ammunition. Are there any international troops in Ukraine now? Oh, of course they all are. All of them, starting from Polish ones, and on a gigantic scale. I mean, there were and there were. Do you have any information on how many Polish soldiers there are in Ukraine? I will venture to say that I will venture to say, so to speak, a supposition that we should be more careful . I risk assuming that the Polish army was in Ukraine from the first week. Let me put it this way. I understand the observers, but are you suggesting that the Polish army as such is currently or even since the beginning of the war in Ukraine and is participating in this war? Well, I would be naive if I thought that wasn't the case . I would have to be extremely naive. I would have to be extremely naive. Well, but what we are being told, what the government is officially telling us, is that you are suggesting that it is not true, that someone is deceiving us? Generally, whether in a state of peace or war, or on almost any topic, governments introduce their citizens into a state of half-truths or understatements. I cannot imagine a situation where there would be no Polish military in Ukraine at very different levels, planes, and dimensions of intelligence, counterintelligence, expertise, advisory or operational activities. I can't imagine it, but it's mine, it's a matter of my imagination. Maybe I'm imagining it wrong. Can we assume, of course it's certainly not true, that these strange accidents that have occurred over the last three years among senior Polish commanders, whom I don't know, let's say one choked, another fell ill, a third had a heart attack, or drowned, or whatever happened, he had the flu, you're suggesting that perhaps they died in Ukraine. Let me put it this way, even if I had detailed knowledge in this area , I would not want to answer this question. No answer is also an answer, right? I wouldn't like to answer. Okay. Professor, if you had to answer the question, who is our greater enemy, Ukraine or Russia? Would you answer such a question? Yes. I believe that the greater enemy is anyone who at this particular moment destabilizes the situation in Poland and at this particular moment attacks Poland on various levels. So who? T means everyone, I mean I believe that the Polish enemy in strategic terms is the Germans who have had only one and unchanged concept since the time of Bismarck. Let us remember the myth of Europe. It has not undergone any revision in the slightest. Simply the European Union. The European Union is a creation, it is essentially the result of a German concept. In fact. Well, let's remember not who creates the European Union, but who leads it. And then we will know what kind of power and what we can expect from a given narrative. Since Bismarck's concept of the Mitel of Europe, Germany has had no other strategic direction and has nothing else to offer its citizens except to conquer the East in various ways, and they are doing so, because we said that Poland lost all its resources, tractors and so on after 1989. What did we buy when we joined the European Union? Well, we bought German cars, we bought German buses, German trucks and so on. Everything we could get was highly processed, we bought German ones. We even bought German laundry chemicals. Such simple things. So the Germans just do it in a different way. An enemy is anyone who acts against the Polish state. I see it in a different dimension, because when we talk about the enemy, we often think about an enemy, a military enemy. And this is an incredibly simplified and, I would say, not necessarily caloric and intellectually sound way of bringing this discussion down. Let us remember that the world is based on a game of interviews. It is based on the intelligence game and I think a month and a half ago, two months ago there was a report that indicated that Poland is the focus of the greatest intelligence activity in the world at the moment . Not Iran, when there was a war there and so on. Not Ukraine and Russia. Poland. This is logical again why this historical and geopolitical situation. So, you know, I don't see friends in those categories. For me, an enemy friend is not at all the kind of values ​​that we understand in the way we use them on a daily basis in relationships with family, and incidentally with friends and neighbors, right? This is a completely different category. So who am I afraid of? All of them. Well, we're talking about Americans. Well, let's remember how the Americans treated their allies in Afghanistan, who fought against them and then abandoned them, even took them on their own planes and left them at the mercy of them, their families, their children. Did the politicians behave? He simply has no friends. Correct. No, no, there isn't. I am absolutely sure of this. This is pure pragmatism and we have a duty to behave in the same way. So what does this obligation mean? I come back to this intelligence and counterintelligence again. I mean, I think we should increase counterintelligence resources, I don't know, 30 times, not 100% true, but maybe by a few thousand, it can't be otherwise. No matter how many intelligence officers there are now, there should be 30 times as many. This is the first decision that should be made, I'm talking about both at the level of counterintelligence, at the level of civilian counterintelligence and military counterintelligence. 30 times as much is the starting point, because first we need to have defense capabilities, and then expand them, and also expand our intelligence and economic intelligence, because that's how the whole world behaves. Why should we behave differently from the rest of the world? Sorry to hold up two fingers so politely, but I'm not in the habit of interrupting. You say it so interestingly that I have to ask for clarification, and, Professor, you are a very wise man, so I will ask you this question. What does the enemy really mean by the definition I have, the enemy wants something from me, has some grievances or I want something that I have. What does Russia want from us? A very specific, concrete question. And then, what does Ukraine possibly want, if it wants something, and if you mentioned a third country, a superpower, Germany. What do the Germans want from us? I answer. As far as Russia is concerned, the matter is extremely simple. First of all, Russia has obvious historical discomfort. Poland is basically the only one, you could say, in the last few hundred years, because even earlier the Mongols occupied Russia, but in the last centuries the only country that has conquered Moscow and of course that is a shame. Well, there is no way that such a thorn would not exist in a country that considers itself a superpower. But what exactly does Russia want from Poland now? Why do I think that Russia's attack on Poland is not full-scale? Not full scale, what does not full scale mean? I mean, with several missiles it is possible, and I am even absolutely sure that it must be considered at the level of Russian strategists. because if the first Russian drone or the first Russian missile falls on Polish territory, Poland immediately goes to the rating basket with unstable countries. This means that immediately all Polish economic parameters, or at least most of the key national and international ones, fall. This means that Poland's situation is worsening because budget revenues are decreasing. This means that there are fewer funds for both aircraft fuel and healthcare. And this means that it destabilizes the country internally because it generates dissatisfaction, it sows chaos, and Russia is certainly playing into this in its plans, and there is no way it could not play into it. Now in the second, so Russia is simply profitable not to have a full-scale, not to have a full-scale, I emphasize war with Poland. There is one more parameter. Well, let us remember that if Russia attacks Poland on a limited scale , it will prove that NATO will not react at all. And this means that Russia will demonstrate the ineffectiveness of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which, incidentally, as I have often shown my students, does not stipulate that other NATO member states are obliged to respond to crimes. It only says in this article that other NATO countries can react in a way they deem appropriate. For example, the Germans can arrive with transporters and distribute leaflets. Poles, we sympathize with you and this will also be a reaction and filling in the article Friday, let us remember. So Russia has many reasons why it might want to attack Poland on a limited scale. In my opinion, a full-scale war against Russia is not profitable at the moment for various reasons . Russia has no way to accomplish this. I'm not talking about the nuclear version, because that's a completely different kind of giant. What is on the Ukrainian side? On the Ukrainian side there is, one could say, a national-historical desert. This means that Ukraine is not a nation, it has no sense of nationality in the Polish sense. TSC years of history as a Christian state, several hundred before Christianity. Ukraine does not have this. What does Poland have? What does Great Britain have? What does Hungary have? yyy and trying desperately to build it. Y, because there are no alternatives, tries to create a slightly artificial enemy. After all, Poles are not enemies of Ukraine. In fact, history has shown the exact opposite. Therefore, Ukraine has a lot to gain from this conflict , because under the guise of the conflict with Poland it has good relations with Germany to gain . And now please note that this is exactly what is happening, I mean with Germany, with the United States. Please note that if we look at these foundations and large businesses that are being run in Ukraine, there are no Polish businesses there, and if there are, they are treated very badly, not accounted for, and not in accordance with the agreements. However, international businesses, including American ones, are doing very well. Therefore, Ukraine needs such a conflict a little bit for the sake of such a conflict, so to say create an artificial narrative, an artificial friendship with Germany, for example. Especially since historically this friendship has worked out very well for Poland and unfortunately for Poland. For Poland, however, this is something very unpopular, as I will say, but I have repeated it many times in various media. This Russian-Ukrainian war is a kind of salvation, because these anti-Polish forces, well, they were, they were partially slowed down by this war. But Dymowski once said that Poland can only cope with one large country, with one such, one could say, strong, powerful center of power, like Germany itself, but it cannot cope with two at once. And now the situation is such that it is profitable for Poland to weaken Ukraine partially, not to the collapse of Ukraine, but to its weakening. This is pure pragmatism. I do not wish bad things for Ukrainians, please understand this well. I do not wish Ukraine any harm. I'm just talking about a certain idea of ​​Dmoski's, very pragmatic, that it would be profitable to weaken Ukraine to a certain extent , because Ukraine is, if I remember correctly, eight times larger than Poland, which means that territorially it is much larger. It is true that at the beginning of the war this did not have such a direct impact on the population, but when it comes to the wealth of Ukraine's wallet, so to speak, its potential, it was huge and Ukraine was growing, whether we like it or not , it must be said that it was growing into one of the tigers of Europe. On the other hand, we had Germany as the fifth largest economy and Poland cannot find itself in such a situation and we should not end up in a situation where Poland finds itself between two superpowers. Two powers, whether economic or military economic military . It is very good for us to have such buffer zones on the eastern side , i.e. a strong Ukraine, but not so strong that it could threaten Poland. Belarus is strong, but not strong enough to pose a threat. Besides, history shows that perhaps you will correct me, but I do not recall Belarusian tribes ever attacking the crown. Maybe it was different, but it's just me, maybe it's my historical imperfection, maybe even for sure, but even if such cases did occur, they were so incidental that I simply do n't remember them. On the western side, however, we had very strong Germans. Now the situation is changing radically for Poland, because we have an incredibly weak Germany as a result of its own irresponsible and impractical policies. Um, Germany is basically a demographic ruin. As far as the economic situation is concerned, it is not much better. As far as religion is concerned, it is a disaster. And when it comes to historical, it is a result of, uh, demographic factors. So Germany is weak, which it never was. Well, I think it may have been since the time of Bismarck. Well, I'm leaving aside the end of the war, of course, but Germany emerged victorious from World War II, not defeated. And on the other hand, we have a weakened Ukraine, which will return to its pre- war state in about 15 or 20 years, I think, if this war were to end suddenly. Well, the investments that will have to be made for reconstruction are, no matter what you say, enormous. Demographic losses are enormous and this is an opportunity for Poland. And this is a huge opportunity for Poland. We have to look at this very pragmatically. No, not as, not in order to wish bad things to Ukraine or Ukrainians. No, we wish them the best. And not to wish bad things to the Germans. We also wish them the best, because there are people, but this is a historic opportunity, a historical window for Poland, right? When we are exceptionally strong, exceptionally objectively strong despite everything, sorry, and there are fresh ones so we live in other in other countries. You say we are exceptionally strong, right? I am so sorry. Is it so down-to- earth? Military power. How many divisions did we give up to Ukraine? Is this something else you ask? Extremely strong. More on the economy in a moment. I do, but I'm saying it again, please pay attention. Yes, yes, but let me explain. I will address this on two levels. We are exceptionally strong relative to the potential of both countries before the war. I said this very precisely. Please pay attention to what Germany was like 10 years ago or 8 years ago and what it is like today. What was Ukraine like before the war and what potential does it have today? Now, yes, I will address the second issue regarding this military part . Mhm. Um, this is a very far-reaching simplification, because of course it hurts me personally when we give away equipment for free. This is an area very close to me. for various reasons. And now we have to divide, so to speak, all this military aid into two boxes. Such a box, when where we give away perhaps on unfavorable terms, for example a cannon of chałmice crab. For example, a cannon with a crab chalummice. perhaps , perhaps we are giving it away for free, but since I do not have access to official documents, I would prefer not to speak categorically, and it seems to me that the editor's audience is sophisticated enough to understand this rhetorical device. But there is also a second box that is not mentioned, Mr. Editor, that Poland also showed a bit of cunning in transferring this equipment to Ukraine. For example, it donated, yes, for example, it donated MIG 29 fighters. Well, few people know that Poland donated them. She handed over the batch of these fighters she received from the former DDR. They were planes, they were wrecks. Honestly, they were wrecks. Poland couldn't use them anyway, because it did n't have spare parts, it didn't have engines for spare parts, it didn't have engine parts, it didn't have components. And in addition, they had some, you could say, post-DR equipment, because we had some MIG 29s from DDRU, and some we received from the Czechs in exchange for Sokółs. And now Poland has kept all of that entire first batch, the one that Poland bought anyway in that first basic version, and basically got rid of what was non-volatile. Of course, it gave them away as spare parts, but let's be honest, Poland has not been able to purchase spare parts for these planes for several years now, nor has it been able to sell them, because we had signed such an end-state clause with Germany . I mean, we received these fighter jets for €1, but according to the end nation clause we couldn't sell them anywhere, for example to Africa. Well, Poland has requested, as far as I know, a modification of this clause, but note that Ukraine's friends, Germany, did not agree, as far as I know, to the delivery of these aircraft as well as the sale of these aircraft outside Ukraine, so Poland handed them over as spare parts, disassembled, by the way . So Poland also showed some kind of, I would say, cleverness here . There is nothing to defend. So, one last sentence in the context of these MiG-29s. Well, they were great planes in the 1980s in the version we had, but they are wrecks. Nowadays it is scary to fly in it, fear, and in fact a series of catastrophes involving depressurization of the cabins. This is one topic that is brought up very often, and I think it is not explained well. However, regarding the transfer of all the remaining equipment, Mr. Editor, ladies and gentlemen, I absolutely agree. Poland had its gold and the Polish Underground State paid for the equipment it received during World War II. Unfortunately, we didn't get it for free without any criticism. And here, even if we give away scrap, why for free? Even if we do give away scrap, it is probably because its disposal would cost more for us anyway, because we won't do anything with it . But I perfectly understand the depth of the editor's question, because I feel exactly the same way, Mr. Editor. There was complete clarity. Exactly the same thing hurts me, Professor. Basic. First, an introduction. We surrendered one and a half to two divisions of the four weapons we had. yyy of the four owned half. This is behind Mr. Hoga. And further if we gave it away, it doesn't matter that no one 29 as scrap. It does not matter whether we gave away and how many tanks, artillery shells or any other weapons. Yes. By the way, we didn't just give away uniforms. I do n't know why. Maybe because they didn't like the cut. But the fundamental question is how long will they remember, do Ukrainians still remember, how much we gave them? Question and answer. Well, they won't. Do they still remember anything? Even if you and even if the citizens remember, the state no longer remembers, as evidenced by the change of name, right, of one of their units to y renamed after the UPA. But more, Mr. Editor, they didn't remember it during the wired times, when a rocket flew over them, killed two Poles, and no one said sorry, just a simple sorry, but is it entirely the fault of the Ukrainians who are the way they are ? I think it's ours by our wires, but let me think a little differently. If the Ukrainian flags suddenly disappeared after the wire, so suddenly because of the lack of an apology for the killing of two Poles, we know that it was not intentional, perhaps it was not intentional, perhaps it was an attempt at provocation to drag Poland into the war. Well, it's intentional. The provocation is intentional, Professor. But yes, but let's even assume, because this is our assumption, even if it was not intentional, everyone would behave in a dignified manner and say: "I'm sorry." this was not there. We should have taken down those flags and said: "They will come back, maybe those flags will come back after an official apology and there would be symmetry. We don't have symmetry." Of course, what you're mentioning about these divisions, because I have to go back to the military part, you're mentioning, among other things, the TP91 Twardy, fantastic, as it turned out, ridiculed before the war, but as it turned out, in wartime conditions, one of the best-performing tanks of the war thanks to great modifications, including engines that are drastically more powerful, greater dynamics, fantastic reactive armor, and so on and so forth. And I can't understand why we gave away the hard TP91s, which weren't scrap unlike the parts of the planes we gave away. They were, as you can see, working great, so we gave them away for free. There is a narrative that I really don't like. I really don't like it because it shows naivety that it's worth it for us to keep Ukrainians at all costs, because this voivodeship, because Ukrainians are fighting for Poland, not Ukrainians are fighting for Ukraine, they are not fighting, they have no fighting, they have no intention of fighting for Poland. This is a very naive thesis in general . The second issue is this, of course I know where it comes from, even some uniformed officers probably often say this, because uniformed officers are educated, among other things, on American doctrine, and the first point of the American doctrine says that war will never be fought on the territory of the United States. And now, of course, it makes sense to achieve a situation where war will never take place on the territory of the Polish state and providing a certain amount of oxygen, so to speak, to the state that fights and accepts destruction within its borders is in the interest of the Polish state. But there must be symmetry and pragmatism in all of this. It cannot be that we maintain basically everything on a gigantic scale. Internet, because TP links, we pay, loans, we pay interest on Ukrainian loans and so on. We are providing equipment, but there is no symmetry, because if only this narrative could somehow defend itself, if only there were some symmetry at the government level, if only Ukraine showed us understanding for our historical sensitivity, for the immeasurable injustices. which Polish children nailed to tables by their tongues before being murdered were experienced by Polish women, Polish mothers, who experienced not only the Volhynian massacre, because let us remember that in fact five voivodeships experienced these various types of attacks from the Ukrainian side and it is not just Volhynia and this is a problem, but it is a problem on the Polish side. But you know, Mr. Editor, do you know why I think this is so? Because in my time, in my time at school, in primary school, compulsory reading was Luny w Bieszczadach. That was the name of this book. Luna in the Bieszczady Mountains. Where did this book suddenly evaporate in this so-called new Poland? Where did it evaporate and why and how on earth did it evaporate from required reading? After reading this book I have never watched the movie Volhynia. I never watched it because I was unable to deal with this film on a psychological level, because I expected what it must be like after reading the book. All Polish children used to read it and build a historical picture. They did not build hatred, they built a historical image, a historical awareness. And currently there is no historical awareness. After all, where do politicians come from? Come on people. And then who becomes ministers? Well, such people were brought up without having read, without having read the obligatory glow in the Bieszczady Mountains, without historical awareness, without the immensity of injustices, without the feeling that we have a moral obligation to give back to those who were dramatically murdered there in the worst possible atrocities. I won't list them, because these were disgusting and terrible scenes, not at all like they were flattened in the media. And in the name of these sufferings, we have the duty to demand symmetry for those who died then, because when they were dying, they perhaps believed that someone would one day claim them. So what? And now what kind of society do we have? What kind of politicians do we have who cannot stand up for symmetry? Because, please, Mr. Editor, ladies and gentlemen, this is not about provoking a Polish-Ukrainian war or conflicts, or Polish-Russian or Polish-German. I'm talking about symmetry. The Germans have to pay back the money for the destruction of Poland, because they destroyed Poland for us. If a thief comes and steals and destroys something, he then goes to court and, in a compensation claim, is required to return what he destroyed, along with the costs of rebuilding it. And that is why the Germans have a moral obligation to return this money plus what they stole from the works of art. Ukraine has a duty to apologize, and we have a duty to demand it. We have a duty to speak up. Our authorities, our politicians have the duty to stand up for the memory of those murdered in Volhynia and not only in Volhynia, let us remember, in Ukraine. And they are obliged to demand reparations in Germany for damages and they are obliged to demand reparations in Sweden for loot that was stolen during the flood. And we have an obligation, no, it is serious thinking about the state. This is my space and I am responsible for it. I am demanding it because I have an obligation, I am aware, I have a deep sovereignty awareness, that I am demanding it not for myself. After all, a prime minister who will demand reparations in Germany or a prime minister who will demand respect for the dignity of Polish children and mothers who were murdered there in unimaginable torment . This does not claim itself for itself. He stands up for the future of the entire country. He is standing up for the future of his grandchildren, his children, his grandchildren, people who are not even there, but who constitute our community in this space of ours. Professor, I have to thicken and at the same time ask if we can count in case of any problems? Of course, I would like this to be made clear. No one is scaring anyone with any war. Um, I'm just asking if we can count on our tried and tested French or English friends if we need anything? Well, I see here, I see that the editor has introduced a humorous thread after this difficult one. Well, let me see, Mr. Editor, at what point in history we could count this thread from which we started the story. He simply had his own pragmatic interests to pursue. We have our pragmatic interests to pursue. I will tell you what it is like to have a base of American military forces in the United States, because perhaps most of you are not aware of this. This is also an element of lectures for students of special services. Well, we have to remember that after World War II, Germany formally lost, but we had the Iron Curtain and at that time the Bundeswehr was being rebuilt with money, mainly from the West, primarily from the US. there was such an inspection, because you must know that initially there were two attempts to establish a defense pact, but without the participation of the United States immediately after World War II . It was unsuccessful every time, until one of the representatives of the British government went on an inspection to Germany and after returning there, he prepared a report which showed that 100% of the generals of the new Bundeswehr, i.e. after 1945, and their colonels were former Wehrmacht soldiers and 100% former SS soldiers . Then the British realized that this could not happen, that history had to repeat itself. This means that if you build on such a foundation, because who else were the Germans supposed to build on, given the demographic destruction, you could basically say they built on what they had, then it couldn't have ended differently. And that is why the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was first established with the participation of the Americans. And note, the Americans have located their bases there, but where have they located them? In Germany. Why not in France as a rule and not in Great Britain or not in Spain? Well, in order to, in a sense, use a metaphor, to keep the Germans at bay, to prevent the Americans from turning their turrets from the east to the west, to prevent their troops from entering Great Britain or France, or from flying into Great Britain, or from sailing into Great Britain. And this is the deeper meaning of these bases in Germany. And this is both, and here you see again how pragmatically the British and the French approach politics . Yes, they concluded a pact with Germany and accepted the act of capitulation. Well, the Polish one didn't accept this one, let's remember. and well, because there was no Poland at that time, that was the point, but they accepted the capitulation, formally erased the bad memories, and in fact pragmatically reached an agreement with the Americans that the Americans would keep an eye on the Germans, and they have been doing so to this day. So what Germany has been wanting to do for a long time, i.e. liberate itself from American military bases, is nothing else than, again from the German perspective, a very pragmatic action. That is, they want to gain military sovereignty, because they, the Germans, do not have military sovereignty. my grandfather, my grandmother's brother too, well, front-line soldiers always said, as far as I remember since the 70s, they said that there will be war any moment, war any moment, war any moment. And they expected this war all along. When my mother was a child, she also said that my grandfather always said that the war would break out within two or three years. The then, so to speak, former front-line soldiers were wrong because they did not take into account one key variable, namely that there were powerful military bases in Germany, and powerful American troops were stationed in those bases, and they did not allow the Germans to expand in any way. The fact that we had, in fact, 100 years of peace from this direction, we ensured that, precisely, precisely that American bases are stationed there and stabilize this region. Therefore, what the Germans are doing in their efforts, please pay attention to what two factors they are doing in parallel. That is, on the one hand they are trying to get rid of these bases, and on the other hand they are trying to get rid of them outside the territory of the Polish state. This means that they should not be stationed on the territory of the Polish state. That is why Poland now, without a doubt, even if Germany were to regain its sovereignty after 100 years , which I do not fully believe in for various reasons, because I believe that Germany is as weak as ever since the war, since the war, and actually since the reconstruction. Well, they are very weak on various levels, because they are not the same Germany anymore. Just go to Germany and look for Germans in Germany. There may be other threats there, but for now we are not threatened by the ones I would say were threatening us 20 years ago. But generally speaking we must not allow these Americans to withdraw completely from Germany. And even if they withdrew, we must undoubtedly have very strong contingents here. A very strong contingent, and by no means deployed only in the east as at present, but also in the west. because it must be a clear zero-one signal to the Germans that nothing much has changed. Sorry, I'll get lost in words again. You said contingent. Whose contingent? American. Of course, in this particular case I mean American. I'm terribly sorry, but have American troops ever, anywhere, that were stationed and that malicious people say were guarding a given country, ever caused a conflict that was about to break out not to break out? First of all, secondly, I apologize profusely, but isn't it the case that in many countries throughout the history of the world, American troops that were stationed there rather looked after American interests? I'm sorry, I'm answering, I'm answering both questions one by one, because they were two questions. Firstly, yes, of course it is a great example of a conflict that, historically speaking, was almost begging to happen, but it never happened. This is the relationship in Western and Central Europe after World War II to the Polish-German conflict, revision. After all, let us remember that Germany did not accept the border on its eastern border with Poland. they still refer to the treaty, claiming that the border formally runs here close to Opole. Let's remember this. If I remember correctly, it is written in the German constitution that a German is someone born between the ages of 30 and 8, so even more. treaty, treaty, at the level of international treaties, this area from Opole, one could say to the west, is in a formal sense in the temporary use of the Polish state. So, ladies and gentlemen, I must ask you right away whether we, as a country, have the ability to secure our interests in this area, whether it is still a Polish state or only temporarily, formally, or do we actually have it, and as you can see, how we actually do, how we actually do, I mean, first of all, we were lucky, meaning that the British realized that the new Bundeswehr was being built on the basis of the former Wehrmacht ISS, and they moved it there together with the Americans, with the consent of the French, and they were running massive American bases. So this is an example of the kind of war that was almost inevitable, but it didn't happen. I speak Polish-German, right? Because in the formal sense it had to happen , or could happen, that Poland did not have secured purely formal relations. could not have them secured because it did not exist when Germany announced its capitulation. So this is a very complex element. However, in a formal sense we currently do not have such an opportunity. Perhaps we can reach an understanding with the Turks and the Albanians and other nations that are beginning to take power in Germany, so that we can achieve such a treaty in the future. I say this half-jokingly, but completely seriously. Well, if we look at Great Britain, who governs and 100% of those councillors in London or in any of those in any city are not British. Even if it's not London, please don't take my word for it, but if one of the leading countries is not British, then perhaps we will reach an understanding with some other nation sometime in the future, but we will not reach an understanding with native Germans in this respect . You have to be realistic. And that means we need to have a backbone that gives us a greater probability, a bit like in a casino, a greater probability that we won't be attacked than that we will be attacked. So I tried to answer these two questions one by one, and indeed, let's not underestimate the role of the Americans in the region, because for 100 years there was no Polish-German war, among others, for the very reason that they were not able to function at the military level as a sovereign state offensively, and even defensively, in principle to a very limited extent. Let us remember that Germans were allowed to perform on the international stage. Mhm. In this context, how can we interpret plans? This is already happening. Germany is arming itself massively. Heavy industry is being redirected towards armaments production on a scale unseen since World War II . Does this mean that And one more thing, most importantly, according to this safes, this arms production will be financed by us, among others. Yes, you asked two questions again. I will refer to another one again. First, let me address the fact that Germany is arming itself. You know, Germany has been disarmed on an unimaginable, unimaginable scale in recent years as a result of its own, its own non-sovereignty policy. Um, remember they were able to produce two tanks there, if I remember correctly, per month. Two leopards a month. Um, on paper the Germans had an army, but they did n't have the crews for the combat vehicles. In reality, the German army was, and in a sense still is, an illusion. It's not that I don't appreciate it, but you also have to keep your feet on the ground and look at some hard numbers. The second question is why is Germany arming itself so heavily? Yes, they are arming themselves massively, because as you rightly pointed out, who wouldn't arm themselves if they were in Germany's shoes, when other countries are taking out loans, which they declare whether they want to or not, and the conditions are composed in such a way that these purchases will basically support mainly the German military potential, not only German ones, but mainly in a huge part. disproportionately greater than the arms potential of Poland. Besides, what is Poland's arms potential? Well, here you have to divide it into two parts. on this according to the old war, which is no longer taking place, in principle, to a large extent there is no place in the Ukrainian times and the new potential of new technologies, which what they look like was shown by the war in Ukraine and even better showed by the American-Ireland war, where Iran only showed what war looks like to the states, modern war to the United States and Israel. So this is the first one. Secondly, this war is still smoldering, because you have to remember that it is still smoldering, and the Germans still have someone to produce these 155 calibers for. They have someone to produce this equipment for, because Ukrainians will be using it for some time to come. The next thing is to buy. An important word. Buy buy fundamental buy from Germany exclusively. buy. Let's remember that Germany, if I remember correctly, I might be here again, it may be hyperbole, but it captures the essence well. The only thing the Germans gave away for free, as I remember, were helmets. And I still remember and remember. I see. They even gave away infantry fighting vehicles, but it was an unimaginable piece of junk. They also handed over grenade launchers, but they were grenade launchers from Demobilus, probably from the 1970s, which they didn't even try to determine or test because they were afraid to use them. So the Germans provided this equipment , just to be on the safe side. The rest actually had to be bought by Ukrainians. And their gun helmets too, which we handed over and the Germans sold. But now something else has happened in the Ukrainian war, which is also not talked about in Poland and politicians do not like to talk about it. Neither option one nor option two, that is, neither the current government nor the previous one. For example, please note that Radom supplied Grot carbines on a very large scale of this version A. They were not, or were not, perfect, let's put it that way. And currently, as far as I know, Poland is not delivering a single rifle in this third version, the improved one, not even the second one, but the third one. It's just not because he's not good. It's great, it's improved, it has a whole range of advantages and benefits, advantages over what is used, but certain business, commercial and political threads have been severed. We return to the starting point. The state and man in general, or at least a valuable man, are not there to be liked. And the state is not there to be liked. The state is there to be respected. If sometimes respect is gained through fear, then from the perspective of every state, including the Polish state, all the better. So we did not earn any respect for ourselves thanks to the submissive policies of both governments. It's often the case that I see such rolls playing on YouTube, right? These are short videos, shorts of some politicians from the previous government who say that this government is up to something in its relations with Ukraine, right? And where were they? I'm sorry, I don't want to offend anyone here , if someone wishes well in the previous government, because I wish every government well in the sense that anyone who thinks in a pro-sovereignty way, well, I wish them well, because I am a citizen of the Polish state, so if anyone thinks in a pro-sovereignty way, well, I wish them well. So I don't flatten myself, I don't want to flatten myself towards this statement, towards this government or something. Well, I'm asking, well, well, how did you care about respect in Polish-Ukrainian relations during the previous government? Did you give away this equipment or sell this equipment? Did you sell the equipment, saying that there must be apologies and exhumations and that the Orlenta Lviv should be appreciated, or did you simply, uncritically, excuse the colloquialism, for the sake of rympał, give away whatever was available. Well, silence. Usually silence. If I ask or talk to these politicians of this site, silence. Nobody, right? They look in all directions up and to the side, they look in all directions only not in the direction of truth. As you asked, where is the truth? The truth is where it is. And that is the truth. And this is not a political attack. Someone hasn't reduced me to such a simple box of a political attack, because I'm not attacking anyone politically at all, let alone Anderson as a human being, and I'm not taking away anyone's dignity. I'm just asking, where were the interests of the Polish state taken care of ? How was it cared for? Well, if this was not taken care of in advance, then I now agree with Leszek Miller, it is strange that currently one of the most soberly sober voices and valuable and caloric voices of common sense is presented by Prime Minister Miller. So where are these so-called right-wing politicians? As we return to the first question, which I always have such a problem with, with this qualification, where are these right-wing politicians that Leszek Miller had to, so to speak, get out of the dust , right, dust himself off, come out into the public debate to defend the interests of murdered children, mothers, women and men in general. Well, well. Where are our politicians? And this is how it has been from the very beginning, from the first week. This is not, this is unworthy of great Poland. These politicians, who are probably wonderful people, do not have the mentality of a great Poland. They do not have the mentality of great Poland. They are afraid to think like a great Pole. They are afraid to think sovereignly. A great Pole is a sovereign Pole. This is a good man. Empathetic, as the editor said so beautifully. empathetic, full of goodness, big heart like a dragon. A heart like a dragon, because why? Because he grew up on the Ten Commandments, which we also talked about in some part there, and he grew up on this story. A country that had no colonies, not like the French, through 299 years of colonialism, we enter France, we admire their beautiful tenement houses there. It was 299 years of murdering people. No. 299 years of plundering the state. Great Britain similarly, Spain similarly, Portugal similarly, the Netherlands similarly. Are we supposed to be amazed there? What should we compare ourselves to? Why should we compare ourselves to the blood-soaked walls of the Louvre? Well, I don't really understand this. We have, we have our own beautifully embedded culture and we cultivate it and this culture . And now the thing is , we have created a great country. Objectively, this is the best, probably one of the best places in the world right now. One of the best places in the world. Well, we have earned it through hard work and we need to maintain it. But to maintain this, we must think in terms of great Poland, great Poles. This is not nationalism, this is common sense. This has nothing to do with any nationalism or right-wing ideology. It is neither left-wing, nor center-wing, nor right-wing. It is sovereign. This is, so this is reasonable. So what is sovereignty? However we would say it differently, define the word sovereign, it is common sense. Well, this is common sense, pragmatism. Well, pragmatism, well, let's break down the word pragmatism into prime factors. Well, this is common sense, this is a set of logical actions, in a purely scientific sense, as if we were to approach it purely scientifically. A set of logical actions, a set of logical operations. illogical, i.e. those that are conditioned to the detriment of the Polish state, and are not sovereign. Well, they are not a manifestation of sovereignty. And those that are logical in the sense that they aim to improve the functioning and our well-being in every area, come down to building sovereignty. That is why I generally think that what I said, we talk too much about such politics in these categories, such categories, I would even say Machiavalistic, a bit primitive in the current world. Hence I propose something different. For example, I founded and organized the My People association to connect people whom I do not ask if it is ecumenical politically, but I do not ask these people at all what is in their hearts about this political thing. We build certain projects, we fight for what hurts people. We have created the My Entrepreneurs association and here we are creating a government of entrepreneurs, to which I cordially invite you, to the government of entrepreneurs, if someone is an entrepreneur now, and to the My Entrepreneurs association and to the My People association. If you are not entrepreneurs and we have projects there, we look at what projects, for example, destroy Poland or do not build sovereignty. For example, we have a huge budget gap, so we propose a set of activities and actions that will strengthen Polish entrepreneurship, because 94% of all revenues from taxes and indirect public levies are generated by entrepreneurs, including, of course, state-owned enterprises. 94% means that we are building the state ourselves. And now we focus, I try to teach people. I have been doing this for 16 years because I have over 400 interventions, and I want there to be not 400, but 40,000 or 140,000 of these interventions. I am learning, teaching Poles, wonderful people, entrepreneurs, to unite and connect around a certain project, for example, building entrepreneurship, which ultimately always results in building sovereignty. Well, if we have strong entrepreneurs who provide 94% of revenues and there are a lot of them, there will be very large revenues to the budget, provided, of course, that the conditions are favorable in accordance with the principle of the Lafer curve. Because if the state continues to rip off entrepreneurs like it is now, the worst in history since 1989, then we will have lower revenues, I would say we have high taxes. So let's think in these categories and this is what I'm trying to do, this is what I'm proposing to you, I'm not proposing politics to you. I don't want to be a politician, I don't want to be, I don't want to be a member of parliament, a senator, a president, or anyone like that. I have no such ambitions at all, as we established at the very beginning. But I want to be an ordinary plankton in the Polish state, which is great, and I want to be the sum, an ordinary plankton, which is the sum of great Poland. And that is why, ladies and gentlemen, I invite you once again to take the liberty of advertising this social movement that we are implementing, entrepreneurial. I cordially invite you to join the We Entrepreneurs association. Um, we are building powerful structures that will allow us to co-manage the state from the bottom up. Powerful, ladies and gentlemen, this project is developing on an unimaginable scale . Honestly, I'm surprised at how completely apolitical it is. Is anyone of you now closer to this government, that government, this one or the future one? It's great, brilliant that the state is politically close. And I propose something completely different for you. I propose a project action at the level of meritocracy. We will build tens of thousands of improvements to individual regulations ourselves. We will build a state ourselves. Is this an idea fix, ladies and gentlemen? NO. I've been doing this for 16 years. 400+ interventions. I think 70% effective. And so that you know what kind of regulations we have introduced, how freedom-oriented, I will just say that an employment contract for Polish farmers has been in force for 9 years. It's called the harvest assistance agreement , which I proposed, invented, proposed 16 years ago, and together with this wonderful, tiny association of soft fruit and blueberry producers and with the wonderful president, Mr. Komorowski, I proposed a legal solution to which I convinced the members of parliament, senators, the prime minister, and later the president, because he didn't want to sign it either, and it's still in force today . Do you know what the conditions are like there? There are three such: we pay an employee PLN 500, PLN 5,000, PLN 15, PLN 50,000 per month, the total gross amount is only PLN 300. 300 PLN gross sum. The most liberal, most pro-freedom and pro-economic form of employment in the European Union. we came up with it, I proposed it 16 years ago and with joint efforts we introduced it into the Polish legal system. After all, when we started, when I said what I intended, what structure I was going to introduce, everyone was shaking their heads and said, "Sir, you'll never introduce this, it's unenforceable." Less than a year later, it was in force in the Polish legal system and is still in force today, to the benefit of everyone, because when the gross-up costs are low, the same blueberries, the same raspberries, and the same strawberries are cheap on the shelves. At the same time, we pulled several hundred thousand people out of the gray zone every year. We have insurance, and the former uninsured farmers can afford to employ them, but they couldn't . This means that farmers' children have money for school, for holidays, for a decent life, and the Polish state has received 2 billion zlotys, which until now had been escaping from the grey economy. We all won. Why? Because we came together around a certain project and, believe me, there were people there from Solidarity and there was MP Maliszewski who did not interfere. Maybe even if he didn't help, because he was from the opposition party at the time, he didn't hinder, because he was from the Polish People's Party, as you probably know, maybe some of you know, he didn't hinder, because he was smart enough to know that something big, something extraordinary was going on. And do you know how many such projects we have implemented over the last 16 years? 400 similar interventions of a similar scale. All of them are described year by year, month by month on the website najlepszy droga www.nalepszydroga.pl. This was the first association that I founded, and later I founded and initiated the founding of the entire, entire cascade, one could say a chain of subsequent associations. Ecological Building Association, National Shield Association, My People Association, My Entrepreneurs Association. And now we will create the biggest project, the biggest project, ladies and gentlemen , a social one, that is, we entrepreneurs and we people, a grassroots democracy in which we will function parallel to the state, exactly as the state functions. Hence the name, we entrepreneurs, is not accidental, because we are creating structures exactly parallel to the state structures, which will perform very similar activities to those performed by the state 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, and will feed our thoughts, we the people, not the politicians who, from time to time, sit in their desks and wake up between taking the mileage allowance and taking the mileage allowance and wonder what to vote on, and most often they don't know, because they vote in blocs, so they don't know what they are voting on at all. Very often I would not want to offend anyone, any MP or senator, because there are many wonderful people, truly wonderful, and many know what they are talking about and voting about perfectly, but there are many who do not really represent us, but are simply fingers to press the button. And now my point is that we are creating a completely new quality, a new narrative, but if I ask someone what they are like , what color they are, if they have a booklet, a party card, or if they even have one, what does that interest us? Was anyone really interested in building any large-scale project, whatever the political circumstances, whether in Poland, China, the United States, or anywhere else? people are not interested in people are interested in competences. And we have a situation now where, please pay attention, you are going on vacation, you are going by plane, I give this example very often because it illustrates it very well. You are flying in a plane and maybe someone would like to start piloting this plane and will make a beautiful stand up and make a beautiful speech and say: "Yes, I will be the pilot." You would then say: "My dear friend, you are a wonderful person, but if you don't have the competence to fly a plane, then you should sit here, eat, right, a very good meal, have a drink and continue your rest," because a pilot has the competence. The problem is that in Poland our politicians do not have the competences to manage such hard matters, which means that their education is not adapted to the positions they hold and the functions they perform. Is this a thesis? NO. I once conducted such a study, in fact it was my colleague Karolina, an economist, whom I asked to do it, who conducted such a study at my request and she determined that the match in various years since 2000 based on hard competencies was approximately 50%, which means that every second minister is not matched in terms of competencies to the positions they hold . For example, the Ministry of Labour. The Minister has one educational qualification: pedagogy. She is certainly a great teacher, and from a human perspective, she is probably a very nice person and we should and should not deprive her of her dignity as a human being, but her first education certainly has nothing to do with the job market, and her second education is probably a philosopher. I mean, from the second one, I mean with a doctorate, well, well, he has no competences. This means we are not taking anything away, we do not want anything, we are not attacking the dignity of this minister, we are just stating the factual situation. has no competence. So why does it manage the labor market, which is pure mathematics and requires an unimaginable understanding of the mechanisms involved in labor law, because it manages 17 million people, 15.5 million with employment contracts and 2.5 million with civil law contracts, 17 million people. So what does this anti-entrepreneurship policy implemented by this ministry look like? Well, that's exactly what it looks like , because it's not managed by practice or by a person who has the competence. Let's move on. Well, someone could not have hard skills, that is, someone could not have a specialized education, but for example, they managed a large enterprise very well for 10 years, with positive results, they did not go bankrupt, they built some value over 10 years, then okay, we understand that they may not have a specialized education, but they have management skills. So what has the situation been like in terms of competence among Polish politicians since 2000? and even worse, but in this case it is already dramatic. How is it that subsequent prime ministers are historians? Yes, some of them later acquired various additional educations, of course, but in principle they were supplementary, but in principle you can say that the current prime minister is a historian, the previous prime minister was a historian, I have nothing against a historian. Wow, brilliant people. What a great thing, a story that is fundamental to the Polish state. Not that it's great or fundamental. Well, a state without history loses its national component without any awareness of history. But no, but respecting historians, they cannot usurp the right to the competence of managing the state, i.e. a giga- enterprise. No giga enterprise. And this is what the Polish state looks like now. Yes, that's how it's managed and that's why we have record public debt, record funding gap. That's why we borrow and pay 100 billion in interest. That's why we take out 1 billion in loans every day. I could go on and on . That's why, that's why, that's why , because we are not managed by competent people. we wouldn't allow ourselves to be on a plane carrying 200 passengers, we wouldn't allow anyone other than a pilot, a person with the highest competences, who has completed training courses, is constantly monitored, tested in simulators after simulators, and we feel relatively safe and we don't allow a random person who simply looks nice and presents well to suddenly sit at the controls, that's why we as a society agree. Why do we agree to exactly the same thing? In what way is it that we 37 million people should be managed by such and such a person as a wonderful person, full of dignity, so that it sounds good. Probably a great man, but without competence. So why do we agree to this ? Well, ladies and gentlemen, it is because we believe in something that does not actually exist. Like politics and political divisions, it doesn't exist. This is not there. It doesn't exist. Mr. Editor, where is the truth? Where it is. So where is the economic truth? Wherever it is on the Lafer curve, there is political truth. The budget is political. There is truth in the budget. Either there is money or there is no money. If there is no money, it means that it is not untrue that the government is managing well. When there is money in the budget, it is not at the cost of destroying society and destroying businesses. Which means that it is true that he manages well. This is true and the truth is where it is and various empirical evidence proves it, confirms it, that this, that this, that this, that a given statement about, for example, right and proper management is true or not true. In connection with the above, you know, it is and it is very important that we learn to think in terms of design, that we give up on design thinking, that we give up on this thinking of such a simple pr, it is even unworthy to think in these categories of these political divisions. People sit at home at the table and are afraid to open their mouths on political topics, lest some tensions arise immediately, because we, ordinary people, wonderful people, caused this, right? Yes, that's how it is , that's the narrative, that's how the venom is dripped in all these subsequent media that we're supposed to be so different from each other. And the question should be this, the conversation should be here, listen, I work here in the hospital, what would you do to make things better in this hospital, to make people earn more and better and to admit patients faster. This is how conversations should look. If someone has competence in this area and someone has competence in another area, then they should probably talk about something else at the table, but people should talk about design issues on a person-to-person basis. And besides, please note that politics, the conversation about politics, has introduced a false narrative to you, that the proportion is more or less such that 94% of all revenues come from entrepreneurs, meaning everything, airplanes, airplane fuel, health care, education, police, everything, in fact the entire public sector, roads, sidewalks, is maintained by entrepreneurs. So the proportion should be such that we talk, let's say, 80% about entrepreneurship, about how to create well-being, 20% about other elements. And what does this so-called discourse look like? This is an oxymoron when, as they say, political discourse is an oxymoron. What is this so-called political discourse? That 80 to 90% of the conversations are about alternative topics. When the Polish state is sinking, when it is hyper-bankrupt, where there is no money to buy this fuel, because in order to buy fuel for the planes that have flown over, you have to take out a loan to have enough money for the fuel. Well, we are the ones who are sovereign, when we have to take out a loan to buy, to refuel the planes that arrived. The minister arrived, the generals are thanking him there, right? Whether directly or almost directly they thank politicians. Which politicians are they thanking? What are they thanking politicians for? In one or another option of the first or next government, these generals and politicians thank you among themselves . Ladies and gentlemen, we bought it, the editor bought it, you bought it, each of you bought a fraction of it, Polish entrepreneurs bought it, who first had to pump 90-something percent of these revenues into the budget. We bought it ourselves. Politicians didn't buy it, they just redistributed what we worked for. That's all and nothing more. Of course they signed contracts, ultimately they signed better or worse ones, more on their knees or more with their necks held high, they signed these contracts. But they should thank us. This does not mean that it is only for us entrepreneurs , employees, employees who work in our companies, because for us, the employees who work in our companies are like family and the closest family to us, because very often, especially in SMEs, we spend much longer with our employees than, unfortunately, with our family. Unfortunately, I regret this. This means that employees are like family to us, they are someone very, very close to us, and that is why we will not allow, we cannot afford to impose such a narrative, such an artificial division into employees, entrepreneurs, and workers. No, we employees and entrepreneurs give 94% of the private and public sector entrepreneurship. We give 94% of our revenues to entrepreneurship. Of course, because why am I saying entrepreneurship? I am not mentioning, ladies and gentlemen, these revenues from the public sector. After all, every złoty of tax paid by a public employee was previously paid by us entrepreneurs and our wonderful, wonderful employees, ours not in the sense that they belong to us, but that they are like family to us. In this sense, these wonderful people, employees and employers of the private sector, must first earn this zloty so that it can go as remuneration to the public sector, and then so that the public sector employee can pay it back again. But initially, in order for him to have something to pay her back, we had to earn that zloty. So we are the greatest treasure of this Polish state, workers. We, employees and employers, are entrepreneurs in this sense a financial treasure, because the greatest treasure in health is wonderful nurses and wonderful doctors and so on and so forth. I could list every single person who is a human being performs certain, to a greater or lesser extent, but valuable work, or most people do it. I don't want to take anything away from anyone here, but you understand, the proportions are like this, the truth is where it is, and the truth is that we give 94% of the revenue. Someone will say, and someone once told me that it is not true that it is 94, because statistics show that only about 80% from taxes. Well, from taxes yes, but I add all the other components, I add all the quasi-taxes, concessions, license fees, even traffic fines that entrepreneurs pay, all the elements, taxes on public sector salaries, right? Because they come from, they don't come from any minister or from any budget, because this, because the budget is one of the biggest lies of the system. The budget is us, the employees of companies and employers, including the owners of these companies, including the state treasury, because the state treasury owns, for example, Orlen, and so on and so forth. So all companies, after all, we are the budget. We should have T-shirts that we could wear that would say, "We are the budget, we are the budget." This is our budget. Every employee should have such a T-shirt and wear it proudly , saying: "I am a budget employee, an SME employee or someone working for enterprises in general ." Please, doctor, I'm sorry, because maybe it's like this, Professor, please don't apologize to me, it's me who has to apologize to you. 107 minutes. That's how long this initial conversation took us. I hope we didn't bore our viewers, but you were n't offended by me personally either. for uncomfortable questions perhaps. Well, I'm incredibly happy that I could perform. Ugh, I didn't expect to receive this honor. I already told the editor before the broadcast that since I happen to be lecturing at our university on Chopina Street, the Nicolaus Copernicus Main School, to which I cordially invite students and future students, I naturally try to watch the local media when I'm in Lublin, so it would never have occurred to me that I would have the honor of appearing with you, so this is a great, great honor for me . Professor, right behind me, wings are growing, starting to grow, sprout. Thank you very much for your kind words. Good man. But Professor, by the way, please let us know when you will be in Lublin. such a small town in the east, but I think it will be very important in history. Ladies and gentlemen, your guest is, of course, Professor Mariusz Miąsko. Thank you very much. I hope we didn't bore you. Man is, as you see, a human orchestra. in love with himself, as you can see, like every lecturer, but I think he has something to say and it won't be the last time on our air. It was a threat, professor, thank you very much, Mr. Editor. Thank you very much, thank you for your understanding. If I accidentally offended someone with some phrase, it was never my intention. Please remember this and take it deeply into consideration. Yes, heart. Deep down, Professor, it's not like that. Please do not apologize for offending anyone, because as the quote says, military language is blunt but true. So please don't be shy in the future and tell it exactly as it is. Our viewers like it very much, they appreciate it, and honestly, I appreciate them for it too. Thank you very much, sincerely. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Grzegorz Zawadzki. As always, I bow very low to you for wanting us to continue to be here . If you don't know how, look under our video, it's written exactly. I kindly ask you, I suggest you subscribe to us, try to break through the glass ceilings with us. Yes, 100,000 sounds good. I hope I live to see that moment. This is my little goal. Ladies and gentlemen, as you can see, it's already getting dark outside the windows and I hope to see you next time. Thank you very much. I bow .