I read Maciej Ruczaj’s commentaries on global, Polish and V4 politics with interest, and I value his insights. Two of his recent pieces in Postoj, however, contain factual claims and interpretations that I think deserve a public reply:
- Ruská stratégia: zničiť Ukrajinu, zastrašiť Európu, podplatiť Ameriku
- Otázka, kedy sa začne vojna, je v Poľsku čoraz menej abstraktná
Both are commentaries, and a commentary is entitled to a point of view. But these texts carry geopolitical misconceptions that are potentially dangerous. Predictions that rest more on feeling than on evidence can become self-fulfilling: false at first, yet materialising through constant repetition in public discourse.
„Criminals who understand only the language of force“
In the first article, the author writes of „rokovania s kriminálnikmi, ktorí rozumejú len reči sily“ („negotiations with criminals who understand only the language of force“). The whole Russian political establishment is thus labelled criminal.
Is this fair? More importantly, does it help end a long war with a nuclear power? What is the factual basis for calling, say, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov a criminal? One may dislike him, which is fair enough, but dislike is not an indictment.
The second half of the sentence is also doubtful. Russian representatives have repeatedly said they are open to negotiations, and some negotiations have in fact taken place. Being open to talks is not the same as being willing to compromise, and I do not confuse the two. But the claim that Moscow understands only force is, as stated, factually wrong.
More generally, Ruczaj’s commentary reflects neither analytical nor diplomatic language. An analyst would define terms and weigh evidence; a diplomat would avoid insulting the party with whom a settlement must eventually be reached. The text does neither.
A slogan is not an analysis
The author also accepts a simplistic narrative that presents itself as analysis. He cites the Polish government think tank OSW, which sums up Russian strategy in one sentence: „Zničiť Ukrajinu, zastrašiť Európu, podplatiť Ameriku“ („Destroy Ukraine, intimidate Europe, bribe America“). It is a memorable line, but a formula this neat should be examined before it is repeated.
Dugin does not speak for the Kremlin
In the second article, the Russian position is illustrated with a post on X by Alexander Dugin: „Nechajte nám Ukrajinu a my prestaneme eskalovať“ („Leave Ukraine to us and we will stop escalating“).
Dugin is not an official representative of Russia. Quoting him to explain Russian policy is like quoting Steve Bannon to explain current US foreign policy. The author seems to sense this himself, since he puts Dugin’s self-declared title of „geopolitician“ in quotation marks.
What „root causes“ means
The author then adds that „medzi ‚prvotné príčiny konfliktu‘ ruská strana vždy zaraďuje aj rozšírenie NATO v roku 1999″ („among the ‚root causes of the conflict‘ the Russian side always includes the 1999 NATO enlargement“).
This is not accurate. The issue is indeed NATO expansion, but above all the planned expansion into Ukraine. Russia was not particularly concerned about the accession of Finland and Sweden. The author indirectly confirms this in his first article, where he cites the former Finnish general Pekka Toveri: on the Russian side of the Finnish border there is almost nothing, neither people nor military equipment.
It is true that Russia’s draft treaties of December 2021 went further and demanded a rollback of NATO forces to their 1997 positions. But this can be seen as an initial negotiating position, a maximalist opening bid of the kind common in diplomacy, rather than a fixed condition. The consistent core of Russian demands, before and since, has been Ukraine’s non-membership in NATO.
Consider how Lavrov himself put it on 28 July 2025, at the „Territory of Meanings“ youth forum in Solnechnogorsk:
„We insist on what is our legitimate demand: ensuring our security. First, no involvement of Ukraine in NATO and no expansion of the alliance at all. […] These territories are not important to us – we have the largest country in the world. It is important for us that people who have lived there for centuries and are native to Russian culture, language, education […] are protected in their rights.“
(Full text on the Russian MFA website.) One need not accept this account. But anyone who wants to describe the Russian position should start from what its official representatives say, not from what a fringe ideologue posts on social media.
A request
I would like to ask editors and authors to use less inflammatory, less offensive, and more precise language, and above all factually and logically sound argumentation, even in commentaries.
We live in dangerous times.
The author and the editors of both Postoj and Echo24 were contacted before publication, but none of them responded.