Political scientist and professor at the Faculty of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Warsaw, Tomasz Grzegorz Grosse is an important figure and one of the experts consulted by Polish President Andrzej Duda. We met with him to discuss Europe, as well as the renewed conflict between the Western world and Russia
Professor Grosse, let’s start with an extremely relevant question today, in the days of European elections: what is the future of Europe? Should we continue the integration of services, even imagining the creation of a potential European army, or should we remain a confederation of states often competing with each other, engaging in policies of dumping?
That is a complicated question. Generally speaking, everything is moving towards greater integration, to the point where some speak of building a superstate. This is happening because more and more competences are being transferred from member states to the European Union, including in the defense and security sector. Moreover, this goal is to be achieved through treaty changes that have already been adopted by the European Parliament and are likely to be implemented after the European elections. Therefore, this is the most probable path for the development of the European Union.
As for the idea of a Europe of confederated states, there is little chance of it being realized. It would be a more decentralized European Union, leaving competences to the member states. Regarding defense policy, the idea of integrating armed forces seems ineffective. Many projects have been announced but not implemented, or their implementation is very, very slow. Secondly, this integration is dominated by Western Europe, mainly to support the arms industry of some countries, especially Germany and France, but also Italy and Spain. So far, integration has mainly served to increase the capacity of this industry with the hope of boosting arms exports outside Europe and also within Europe. This is the main goal of this integration.
Today, we have entirely different geopolitical threats in the sphere of security, primarily Russia and the eastern flank of NATO. Now the question is whether this model of integration in the defense sector can meet the threats from Russia. In my opinion, it cannot. Firstly, the arms industry should be located on the eastern flank of NATO. It’s not about countries like Poland or Romania buying more weapons and ammunition from France or Germany, but about primarily supporting the defense industry with European funds in Poland, Romania, Hungary, and other countries. Secondly, Europe’s defense policy should not interfere with or duplicate NATO structures because currently, NATO is the best response to threats. If the European defense policy competes with NATO, it risks worsening the security situation on the eastern flank.”
If Trump wins the next election, is there a possibility that the USA will be less interested in investing in NATO, forcing Europe to rethink its defense strategy?
In my opinion, this is the least likely of all possible options. I do not believe that the United States would leave Europe on its own because they are aware that the European Union is not capable of stopping Russia from attacking. In other words, I anticipate that Trump’s actions will aim at strengthening European efforts, but within the framework of NATO.
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine continues, but do you believe that conclusions can already be drawn about the roles of the individual actors on the geopolitical stage?
Let’s say right away that if the conflict ends with the division of Ukraine, the war will not actually be over, because Russia will not be satisfied with that and sooner or later there will be a direct conflict between NATO and Russia. I do not believe that the end of the current phase of the conflict in Ukraine will be lasting in the long term. The conflict will continue for several years, perhaps with interruptions, and the West will have to prepare for that.
Conflict on the territory of Ukraine or the European Union?
I think it’s also on the territory of the European Union. From a strategic point of view, Russia will not be satisfied with just a part of Ukraine because it is already too involved in the confrontation with the West and NATO. A potential division of Ukraine will not end the confrontation, and I fear that there will be a military confrontation between NATO and Russia. I emphasize that in my opinion, any agreements that lead to a ceasefire in Ukraine will only be temporary, delaying the real NATO-Russia confrontation. The West must prepare for this showdown.
Could the scenario be different if Putin were no longer in power?
No, the ruling elite in Russia thinks similarly to Putin.
If so, will historians one day declare that the Third World War began with a Russian attack on Ukraine?
In reality, it began in 2014 because that’s when Putin first attacked Ukraine. As we’ve seen, subsequent freezes in the conflict didn’t prevent a major attack in 2022. Therefore, if there is a new ceasefire in Ukraine, I believe it will only be a temporary solution preceding the resumption of conflict. We’ll only have a few years of peace ahead of us. Some geopolitical analysts talk about a period of at least 20 years, while others argue that the NATO-Russia confrontation will not only be in Europe but also in Asia. So, we are only at the beginning of a broad geopolitical confrontation that will unfold across different continents. The West and Europe must prepare in every way, including industrially and in terms of training. Therefore, European integration must be a supporting element of this defensive effort, involving the entire West, countries that Russia and China are trying to divide, supporting ideas like the strategic autonomy of the European Union.
Will a new Cold War break out worldwide?
It’s difficult to predict the outcomes of this emerging confrontation. Will the world be divided into two blocs, as during the Cold War, or will there be a different outcome? Or perhaps there will be a winner and a loser? Currently, just as the Chinese and Russians are trying to divide the West and separate Europe from the United States, the West is also trying to divide China and Russia. There are thus many variables and unknowns.
Is the world, which until a few years ago largely relied on globalization and outsourcing production, heading towards decline? Is it no longer possible to relocate production anymore?
Today we can say that it was a serious mistake of the West. Outsourcing production outside the United States, outside the European Union, investing mainly in China, has led to a significant weakening of the West. China has become the world’s main factory, serving the interests of the West, major American corporations, and companies from Western Europe. It was a serious mistake that led to the deindustrialization of the West.
Isn’t it the other way around? Namely, that despite open trade with Russia, China is also heavily dependent on Europe and the United States in terms of selling what they produce? Added to this are uncertainties in the form of possible tariffs imposed by the USA if Trump wins, while the country is experiencing a certain crisis, and the war in Europe certainly caused a loss of market share. If a war were to break out tomorrow, dividing the world into two blocs, would China also suffer from this?
Referring to the deindustrialization of the West, I was primarily talking about what happened during the pandemic, namely that Europe was so dependent on China that there was a shortage of basic medical products, such as masks. In the current geopolitical situation, we need to imagine how much effort is needed to be able to produce everything in our countries again. Putin transformed the entire industry, preparing for a long-term confrontation with the West. He has already done that, which is why he is better prepared on the front line with Ukraine in terms of armaments. Europe is not able to produce a million missiles for Ukraine within a year. Among other reasons, because there is no armaments industry at the appropriate level. That’s what I was talking about.
As for the Chinese, firstly, they are doing everything to become independent of Western technologies, investments, and markets. This is their current strategy, which they have been implementing for at least a year. The Chinese are focusing on their own companies, and the Chinese market is mainly intended to serve Chinese production, not European or American production. Secondly, they are doing a lot to maintain their market in Europe, for example by blackmailing Europeans, saying “if you block the import of electric cars or their parts, solar panels, or wind turbines necessary for the climate transformation in the European Union, we will limit investments, economic activity, in short, the entire EU economic potential in China”. Germany, which is dependent on the Chinese market, is doing everything to prevent sanctions imposed by the European Commission on production or import from China. In this way, the European Union does not defend itself against the influx of significantly cheaper, state-subsidized products from China. As a result, many European companies, which should benefit from investments under the Green Deal, are now on the verge of bankruptcy. In other words, we have another problem arising from the fact that Europe has not developed an effective method of economically dealing with China and is losing on its own turf. In Europe, it is already difficult to withdraw from this transformation, and at the same time, Europeans are buying more and more Chinese solar panels, more and more Chinese wind turbines, etc. Soon they will also be buying Chinese electric cars.
.
Whether the European Green Deal is at risk of failure?
Yes. The European climate policy is harming our industries. Chinese companies can produce more cheaply thanks to state subsidies, which harms our firms.
What about the IZERA project, which involves the production of electric cars in Poland, a collaboration between Poles and Chinese? What will happen to it?
It’s hard to predict; there are indeed challenges with electric cars. We don’t know if it’s the right technology to invest in. It could quickly be discovered that these cars are not the best solution in terms of user experience, operational costs, short lifespan, and disposal costs of these vehicles. So, I believe that Poland should work on a completely different, more cost-optimal technology, which will likely replace these electric cars sooner or later. We should move towards technologies based on ammonia and fuel cells, rather than lithium batteries. That’s the first thing. Secondly, the Chinese are interested in their own product and technology markets. In other words, it’s not just about attracting a Chinese corporation – the art is in creating our own, European technology. The Chinese are also interested in strategic infrastructures, as was the case with the port of Piraeus, but they are also looking for investment opportunities in Polish ports. Meanwhile, Polish politicians are under pressure from the Americans. They are in a very particular moment because they are on the front line in confrontation with Russia, so they must try to maintain good relations with the Americans. On the other hand, there also needs to be some kind of contact with China over time, given Beijing’s significant influence on Moscow.
Are there significant Polish-Chinese relations?
They are far from the level of Chinese-Hungarian relations, for example, but in this geopolitical situation, the Chinese are not Poland’s main security ally. However, let’s remember that President Andrzej Duda was the only high-ranking Western leader present at the Winter Olympic Games in Beijing. So, some relations do exist..
Changing the subject. Today, we are all dependent on technology. It seems that as soon as we send an email, we immediately receive related advertisements. Do you think we live in a world similar to the one described by Orwell, where everyone will be monitored without privacy? Can we still defend our privacy
The possibilities of maintaining privacy are increasingly limited. So, for now, this direction is very clear and well-defined, exactly as you described. But the question is, what world will emerge after these geopolitical clashes, as that will be a powerful factor of change. Will people, politicians, continue to act as they do today, or will they completely change their philosophy and perspective? Today, we have American globalization, which is driven by the geopolitical interests of the United States, but also by the largest corporations. In other words, there is both an economic and political interest. A similar project was developed in the European Union. On the one hand, it was a project aimed at serving large corporations so they could thrive. On the other hand, there was also the idea of political integration, but at the cost of democracy, at the cost of ordinary citizens, their freedom, their ability to choose, their privacy, but also their ability to decide their own future. Under this concept, a European was not a citizen but a consumer. If nothing changes, the project of globalization or the project of European integration will go in this direction.
The problem with European integration is that managing this project is not as effective as one would like. If European companies are not benefiting from climate change but Chinese ones are, then something is wrong with this project. There are many other projects in the European Union that were supposed to serve the expansion of large corporations and the harmonization of regulations and policies, de facto centralization. All these actions are becoming increasingly dysfunctional. In many sectors, we do not see successes, only crises. For example, the so-called migration crisis. Firstly, it was supposed to provide labor for the expansion of companies in the EU internal market. Secondly, it was supposed to replace or weaken national traditions and nation-states through the mass influx of people who have nothing to do with Europe. This was supposed to serve technocratic and political integration. However, the migration crisis has caused many problems. The assumed goals of integration have not been achieved. On the contrary, we have a huge side effect in the form of all kinds of tendencies towards disintegration that were not foreseen when “the doors to mass migration were opened.”
So does European integration not work?
The problem with European integration is that the management of this project has not been effective. Many EU projects, such as the eurozone, climate policy, and migration policy, generate more costs than benefits. This leads to dysfunction and risks to the stability of the entire European project.
And borders have partially returned.
Borders have returned. At one point, even for economic exchange. Moreover, national traditions and identities, instead of disappearing, are re-emerging, leading to a significant rise in eurosceptic forces that reject the centralization project, which we call the globalist aims of large corporations and technocracy. There is a huge rebellion, to put it mildly, against this project. Even major projects that were beacons of unification are becoming dysfunctional, and instead of realizing the leading idea of integration, they risk the collapse of the EU project.
If such a scenario materializes, it would be positive for ordinary people. For family businesses, for local enterprises, for democracy. The collapse of such a centralized EU would paradoxically be positive. In this situation, it will be necessary to propose a different formula of integration, completely unrelated to these globalist or technocratic aims. It is necessary to return to the idea that through integration, Europeans should have a good life, have basic rights, have a voice in their lives. Integration cannot only serve large corporations or supranational bureaucrats. In our countries (in Poland and Italy), a huge part of the economy consists of family businesses, small and medium-sized enterprises, which today are simply marginalized, bankrupting. For small businesses in the eurozone, the common currency is lethal, just like Chinese competition subsidized by public authorities. I believe we are approaching a turning point, both in terms of European integration and geopolitics. European integration as we know it will disintegrate within a dozen or so years. There are too many mistakes, too many dysfunctional projects, such as the eurozone, climate policy, migration policy, and the Schengen area. There are too many projects that are too costly and ineffective. The positive aspects are dwindling, and they are few from the perspective of ordinary people. Costs outweigh benefits. Large Western corporations may still benefit from this European Union, but even they are benefiting less and less, because, as I repeat, Chinese companies are pushing European companies out of the internal market. Even the largest German companies cannot withstand Chinese competition. Additionally, there are the Russians, who want to completely change the geopolitics in Europe. Therefore, I believe that the European Union, as we know it, will not survive all of this. On the other hand, we must draw conclusions and create a different kind of European cooperation in the future.
Countries in Europe view Poland as a nation that has experienced remarkable growth in recent years, but also as a country that often seeks assistance. Has the time come for Poland to play an influential political role, presenting itself in a European context with a different approach? As a nation that does not only focus on its national interests but also champions a European vision?
I believe that Poland can propose an alternative vision of European integration, at least in Central and Eastern Europe. This stems from our tradition and political culture. It comes from the history of the First Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, formed by Poles, Lithuanians, and Ukrainians, a state structure entirely different from today’s Europe. It was a form of regional integration but highly decentralized. So we have a historical memory that can be very useful because the First Commonwealth existed for several hundred years. Ten times longer than the European Union has existed. And the European Union is falling apart today, isn’t it? So this decentralized formula of power was probably better in terms of durability. Of course, in those historical times, many mistakes were also made, from which lessons must be drawn.
So, Europe as a confederation of states?
Why not? There would still be an internal market, right? In the First Polish Republic, we had an internal market. Everyone could pursue their own interests; for example, there was a large Jewish minority with significant trading power in the Commonwealth, and there were investors from Germany as well. So, the internal market could function very well with significant profits. In other words, not everything needs to be centralized. Central regulation is, of course, beneficial in the short term because it can force some nations to pay more. For example, in climate policy, to buy German heat pumps or wind turbines. Integration must be done in a way that ultimately benefits everyone. I think ultimately, citizens must revolt. If they’re paying a fortune for heating, if they can’t afford electricity, what stage of development have we returned to? What quality of life are we talking about in Europe? And if, for example, climate policy makes agriculture disappear in Italy. Will we have to eat insects instead of meat? All of this goes beyond the understanding of the ordinary person. How is a citizen supposed to accept such a future?
Does the European problem also stem from the fact that countries in Europe are very different?
That’s true. However, the decision-makers in the European Union thought that to overcome these barriers, they needed to weaken the member states, national identities, and cultures, while at the same time bringing in a lot of immigrants, creating something akin to a new globalist culture that is completely new and has nothing to do with Europe. This project is imposed from the top. Even for this reason, it must fail because I don’t know of any project that cuts itself off from its own roots that has stood the test of time and crises. You need to have foundations. Therefore, integration in Europe must be carried out in a completely different way: respecting national cultures, national specifics, respecting the voices of voters in different countries. If someone doesn’t want immigrants, it should be accepted. And not prohibit, for example, Italians from defending against immigrants. I’ll remind you that the previous conservative Polish government was condemned for building a barrier on the border with Belarus against immigrants sent by Lukashenko and Putin. I remember that the European Commission, the Court of Justice, and the European Parliament criticized us for building this barrier. But who were we actually helping? Germany, France. Because all these immigrants were traveling to Germany and France. Yet we were criticized, just like Italian politicians who did not allow ships with immigrants to enter Italian ports.
We are a few days away from the European elections. Do you think there is a real risk that Russia will try to influence these elections in some way, control them, and select different people for the European Parliament?
Sometimes it is said that the Russians have a very strong influence in Brussels, in the European Parliament, that they corrupt various parliamentarians, not only Eurosceptics but also mainstream politicians. Russians had an agent in Willy Brandt’s inner circle. The Russian agent was his personal secretary, Günter Guillaume. Moreover, the problem of these Russian influences in European institutions is that they are only investigated in Eurosceptic groups, which do not have a decisive influence on the EU. Meanwhile, the most dangerous Russian influences are among the politicians who actually decide, because they govern, influence regulations. I mean, if I’m going to spend money on corrupting institutions, it’s more profitable for me to invest in those who are in power.
Are there any differences in the geopolitical vision between Duda and Tusk regarding the relations Poland should develop with the USA and China?
Donald Tusk prioritizes relations with the EU, particularly with Germany and France. Andrzej Duda is skeptical about contacts with Germany, as he has been disappointed by them multiple times. He finds Americans more reliable. Additionally, Duda believes that building a strong state and pursuing domestic investments are crucial for Poland’s development and security. Donald Tusk seems to rely mainly on EU funds and support from Berlin, overlooking the fact that Germany has many conflicting interests with Poland. When it comes to China, this partner is overlooked by Tusk but viewed differently by Duda. As I mentioned, the Polish President had the courage – as the only Western leader – to participate in the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Beijing in early 2022 and meet with President Xi Jinping..