Angry debate in Warsaw: why was Poland absent from the last summits for Ukraine? “The Americans don't want us, the European leaders don't want us”

Polish officials have been absent from the last two major meetings where the end of the war in Ukraine was discussed. The opposition blames the Tusk government, but the explanations are more complicated, writes Politico.

Poland is unhappy that it has been sidelined diplomatically in recent meetings on a potential peace deal in Ukraine.

When leaders from Britain, France, Germany and Ukraine met in London this week to align their positions on Washington's efforts to reach a peace deal, Poland was not on the guest list.

It was the second absence in as many months, after Warsaw also missed out on an invitation to the Geneva summit on November 23.

The camp around President Karol Nawrocki blamed liberal Prime Minister Donald Tusk for this failure.

“Poland's absence from London is yet another example of Donald Tusk's incompetence,” Marek Pęk, a senator from the nationalist Law and Justice party, said after the Downing Street meeting, calling Tusk “a second-rate politician in Europe.”

Warsaw has several arguments to justify its presence at these meetings.

Poland hosts 1 million Ukrainian refugees and acts as a main supply hub for Ukraine, while it is the biggest per capita defense spender in NATO and wants to double its military – already the third largest in the alliance – to 500,000 troops.

Tusk has an explanation

Tusk also expressed some frustration. After the Geneva meeting, he asked to be included in the joint European communiqué – a request designed to save appearances which, according to commentators in Warsaw, only highlighted Poland's absence.

Last week, in Berlin, sitting next to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, he tried to defuse the situation with a touch of irony.

“I don't want to stir up emotions, but let's face it: not everyone in Washington – and certainly no one in Moscow – wants Poland to be present everywhere,” he said.

Tusk suggested that Poland's absence from the latest meetings was related to Warsaw's firm stance in favor of Kiev and said he took it “as a compliment”.

The government at the same time insisted that nothing unusual happened in London.

The format “was proposed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer,” government spokesman Adam Szłapka said, arguing that “there are dozens of such formats, which are constantly changing.”

Not all formats work, and Poland doesn't – and shouldn't – participate in all of them,” he added.

“Then who wants us?”

Former president Bronisław Komorowski, a political ally of Tusk, argued that Poland's absence reflected geopolitical realities, not a diplomatic failure.

The London summit brought together “the three most powerful European countries” — politically, militarily and economically — those contributing the most to Ukraine's war effort, he said.

Poland, he added, “is simply weaker,” and while Europe appreciates Warsaw's role, it must be “in line with its real weight.”

Others had a different opinion.

“The Americans don't want us, the European leaders don't want us, Kiev doesn't want us – so who wants us?” former prime minister Leszek Miller said after the talks in London.

“Something unpleasant is happening and we should stop pretending it isn't,” he said.

Diplomacy in two voices

One of Poland's problems, writes Politico, could be the two-voice speech given by the government and the president, who are in different political camps.

While Tusk focuses on European coordination efforts, President Nawrocki has been traveling to Washington, cultivating contacts around the Donald Trump administration and speaking publicly about Poland's “independent voice.”

The two sides frequently criticize each other. Tusk recently reminded Nawrocki that the Polish Constitution entrusts foreign policy to the government, not the presidency.

Despite this conflict, both camps share the same hard line towards Russia. What they don't share is a strategy for dealing with the current administration in Washington.

Government officials acknowledge that Nawrocki now has more direct access to the White House.

Nawrocki's circle claims this gives him an influence Tusk cannot match. Without access to Trump, Tusk “adds nothing distinctive” to high-level Western talks, Nawrocki aide JacekSaryusz-Wolski told Politico.

Officials privately acknowledge that a channel of communication with Washington is important — and for now, Nawrocki owns it.

However, they warn that betting on an unpredictable US president is risky, especially after the new US security strategy has openly signaled that Europe must take much greater responsibility for its own defence.

The consequence of Nawrocki handling diplomacy with Trump, while Tusk handles Europe, is that it gives the feeling of a dual Polish foreign policy.

“The problem is not Poland's position,” said a senior Western diplomat, referring to the country's pro-Ukraine stance. “The problem is to know who speaks for Poland,” he said.