Geopolitical Roundup: Polish Elections, Singapore Conference, NATO Attack On Russia

We’ll start with the simpler stuff, but we’ll be leading up to the really big question on most people’s minds—who controls Trump?

So, good news for Trump out of Poland—the Law and Justice party won the presidential election over the EU candidate. Trump had sent Kristi Noem—fresh from doing kowtow to some stones in Jerusalem—to Poland to campaign for Karol Nawrocki. For those wondering about the propriety of this, countries with large expat voting populations in a sense bring this on themselves. In some countries—and Poland is one of them—the expat voting population is a critical swing bloc. So, in a very real sense, Noem’s appearance in Poland was heavily directed at Polish-Americans who vote in Polish elections. It was a more efficient way to reach out to those voters than trying to barnstorm America—which would have raised domestic concerns.

Now, CTH yesterday addressed the meaning of Nawrocki’s win (which we predicted here). In general I agree with the assessment, but regarding the war on Russia there needs to be more nuance.

Nawrocki does not support war against Russia, is strong on deporting migrants out of Poland and not supportive of the European Commission making rules for the Polish people. Nawrocki is generally in alignment with President Donald Trump and the MAGA support base. This is a win to counterbalance other leftist states within the EU.

Probably the most important aspect of Nawrocki’s win has to do with the support it offers to Hungary and Slovakia in opposing an imperial EU. For the rest, I’ll quote again re Nawrocki’s foreign policy positions—which do represent a significant shift from the previous Law and Justice position. I believe that shift may represent a reaching out to younger Poles:

Nawrocki opposes the federalisation of the European Union and stresses the need to maintain Polish national identity within the European Union, adding that "Poland does not need a centralised state populated by EU citizens of Polish origin".

... Nawrocki is opposed to Ukrainian membership in NATO or the European Union until Ukraine accepts responsibility for the genocide of Poles in Volhynia.

He supports ending the Russo-Ukrainian War by a peace agreement, but argues that the issue of territorial cessions should be decided by the European community as well as Ukraine itself. He demands World War II reparations from Germany to Poland, and states that they are needed for Germany to prove that it has peaceful intentions towards Poland. He also strongly opposes the Russian Federation and has stated that "Russia is imperialist in its foundation whether it is white terror, red terror or modern terror."

So, Nawrocki is in no sense “pro-Russia”, but his position does reflect a growing weight of Polish opinion that NATO and the EU have used Poland for their own purposes. I see Nawrocki attempting to craft a nuanced position that could, in future, lead to some sort of working relationship with Russia, a lessening of tensions and hostility but not any sort of BFF thing. Still, it seems like progress and is an undoubted FP win for Trump.

I want to draw attention to what seems to me an important development at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. That’s the annual conference at which Hegseth made all sorts of bellicose threats attacking China’s supposedly “imminent” plans to launch regional war. Macron from France was also there, comparing tensions between China and the Anglo-Zionist Empire over Taiwan to a conflict of democracy against autocracy and citing Ukraine as some sort of related matter. China, contrary to its past practice, did not send its defense minister. However the Singapore defense minister did speak out on Macron’s idiocy—and by implication on Hegseth’s crazy talk. Singapore is, of course, a very important strategic country, so his very pointed remarks are worth quoting:

Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand

This illustrates just how badly Macron f*cked up with his Taiwan/Ukraine comparison: https://x.com/xuqinduo/status/1929052601334546465/video/1…

Even the host of the Shangri-La forum, Singapore's Defense Minister, is directly criticizing him, calling his comparison "simplistic", "unhelpful" and "scary", which is extremely rare.

That's the exact quote: "It scares me to hear attempts at simplistic explanations [that] draw unhelpful parallels between Taiwan and Ukraine"

…

Comparing Ukraine to Taiwan is so profoundly ignorant. The Taiwan issue is in fact the exact contrary of Ukraine.

For one, there is not a single country on earth, not one, that recognizes Taiwan as an independent sovereign country, unlike Ukraine.

And, as the French president, Macron should know that France doesn't either. According to international law, Taiwan is part of China.

Heck, Taiwan themselves, in their own constitution (a reminder that the country is officially called "The Republic of China") do say that they're part of China, and they haven't declared independence.

And that's the key issue: whether or not they'll one day declare independence. Which makes Taiwan a *separatist* challenge to China's internationally recognized sovereignty; the very opposite of Ukraine which is an issue of *annexation* of part of a sovereign state.

Which means that supporting Taiwan independence therefore means endorsing the very violation of territorial integrity that is condemned in Ukraine's case, an unbridgeable contradiction.

Which is also why, by the way, China never recognized Russia's sovereignty over Crimea and will likely never recognize their sovereignty of the annexed oblasts: because they know that any deviation from the principle of territorial integrity would be weaponized to justify Taiwan independence.

The overall significance of this statement by Singapore is that there is very little regional support for the aggressive Anglo-Zionist preparation for war on China.

Now, turning to NATO’s attack on the Russian airbases.

There’s a very important aspect to these attacks that needs to be understood clearly. That is the question of why the Russian bombers—like our B-52s at Diego Garcia as well as elsewhere—were left out in the open, uprotected. The answer is that this was done in compliance with a treaty between the US and Russia. Trump will presumably deny authorization to Ukraine, but we know that’s a lie. What Trump did was to abuse a strategic treaty dealing with nuclear weapons to attack Russia’s nuclear triad. Via a proxy.

Can you say: Betrayal? When you read people calling this “Russia’s Pearl Harbor” or “Russia’s 9/11”, do they understand all this? How close this corresponds to the US making a “sneak attack” on Russia? A limited US first strike on Russia via proxy. Think about that.

Megatron @Megatron_ron

…

The attack on only two bases was successful, the other two have failed.

Why did Russia keep those bombers unprotected?

Because of the New START Treaty Requirements:

"The New START Treaty, signed in 2010 and extended through February 4, 2026, includes provisions for the verification of strategic offensive weapons, including heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments. The treaty mandates that these bombers be based at locations VISIBLE to national technical means (NTM) of verification, such as satellite imagery, to allow monitoring by the other party.

This implies that strategic bombers should be stationed in a way that makes them observable, typically at designated airbases, to confirm their status (e.g., whether they are nuclear-armed or converted to conventional use)."

3:58 AM · Jun 2, 2025

Alastair Crooke addresses these issues in has discussion with Judge Nap this morning. I’ve rearranged these remarks for my own purposes, but the general thrust, IMO, remains unchanged:

Alastair Crooke : A Storm is Brewing in the West.

Certainly the CIA was at the apex of this [operation].

Other countries, such as the UK, were probably also involved. However, it remains that the CIA is in overall direction of the war on Russia.

This is really important because, in a sense, … Ukraine supported by its allies in the West has now bombed directly a part of [Russia’s] strategic deterrence—which has got to be visible and out in the open under the [START] treaties. So it's an attack on the main treaties—which are not with Ukraine but which were negotiated by Russia with the United States.

And, of course, the big question is that in the last few days Mr Trump started talking about, ‘Look, if Russia doesn't do what I'm telling them, something really really bad is going to happen to them.’ And then, shortly after that, this happened. The Russians are furious at this. They're furious in many ways, but think what that means more widely for all of us?

[The Russians] will never trust [Trump] again. … But also, you know, we live in an interconnected world. What do you think the impact is on Iran?

Or any other country? How does this affect the ability of any president to reach agreements with other countries, other than by coercion?

Finally, Judge Nap asks about Mossad involvement (it’s interesting to note that Zelensky spoke of turning Ukraine into “Big Israel”). It’s all connected:

Judge: Why would Mossad be involved? Doesn't Mossad have enough to do with what's going on in the Middle East and with all their spying over here in the US?

Crooke: There's a long history going back to the Tsarist period of [Jewish] antagonism for supposed anti-semitism in Russia. We saw that with the Troskyites in the United States, who formed the backbone of the Neocon movement in in the US [and were adamantly hostile to Russia/USSR]. They have also a common alignment with the Deep State and its objectives of destroying Russia, because they want to see American hegemony continue. Israel depends on American hegemony, and if Trump is going to disrupt it by having a relationship with Russia, that is going to change many things. That is ultimately going to affect Israel, because it is America that backstops the hegemony of Israel across the Middle East.

Speaking of Iran, as Crooke did, reports are that they will reject the Anglo-Zionist “deal”:

MenchOsint @MenchOsint

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Esmail Baghaei:

"The Zionist regime has always been a threatening presence for the countries of the region, and any reckless action by it against Iran will undoubtedly be met with a decisive response. Its hasty reaction to the latest IAEA report is clearly an attempt to escape and mislead public opinion. An entity that possesses dozens of nuclear warheads and stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction is currently carrying out genocide in occupied Palestine, occupies the territories of two countries, and does not abide by any international arms control agreements, including the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)."

Here’s the Israel Firster who replaced Mike Waltz in Congress, and who openly advocates nuking Gaza. Endorsed by Trump:

MenchOsint @MenchOsint

US-made Randy Fine dirty bomb

Again: Who’s really in charge? We like to say that Biden was a sock puppet. Undoubtedly, Trump is not Biden when it comes to mental competence. But just what is Trump’s relationship to the actual ruling class? It’s not totally straightforward, but it’s also not what we’re suppposed to think it is—that Trump is unambiguously the CinC.