Is Poland Really Planning To Send Troops To Ukraine Like Kellogg Claimed?
Poland wants influence and profits in Ukraine, but it’s unclear how far it’ll go to obtain and secure them.
US Special Envoy on Ukraine Keith Kellogg told Fox Business that “We are talking about a ‘resilience force’… This involves the British, French, as well as Germans, and now the Poles, who will place forces west of the Dnipro River, which means they are beyond Russia’s reach”. Polish Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz and Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski rebuked him on X, however, reminding everyone that Poland repeatedly declared that it has no such plans. Here are five background briefings:
* 15 December 2024: “Poland’s Participation In Any Ukrainian Peacekeeping Mission Could Lead To World War III”
* 29 December 2024: “Five Reasons For Poland Not To Directly Participate In Any Ukrainian Peacekeeping Mission”
* 30 January 2025: “Poland Won’t Send Troops To Belarus Or Ukraine Without Trump’s Approval”
* 20 February 2025: “Poland’s Refusal To Dispatch Peacekeepers To Ukraine Imperils European Warmongers’ Plans”
* 21 February 2025: “The Polish Defense Minister Told Europe To Prioritize Ukraine’s Reconstruction Over Peacekeepers”
To summarize, Poland fears being manipulated into doing the heavy lifting in any such peacekeeping operation, which could make its forces the top target for both Russian strikes and ultra-nationalist Ukrainian terrorist attacks. It’ll facilitate others’ operations in Ukraine, including from the Rzeszow logistics hub that the US withdrew from in April, which is now operated by the Europeans and still used by the US, but it’s reluctant to stick its neck out and risk being left in the lurch if the going gets tough.
Nevertheless, some speculate that the ruling liberal-globalist coalition might reverse its stance on this sensitive issue if its candidate wins the upcoming presidential election to replace the outgoing (very imperfect) conservative incumbent. The first round will be held on Sunday while the second will take place on 1 June if needed. Three recent moves detailed in the following briefings suggest that Poland might soon obtain more tangible strategic stakes in Ukraine that could lead to mission creep:
* 16 April 2025: “Evaluating Poland’s Informal Proposal To Lease Land & Ports From Ukraine”
* 23 April 2025: “The Political Implications Of Poland Explicitly Planning To Profit From Ukraine”
* 6 May 2025: “Ukraine Unexpectedly Invited Poland To Help Rebuild Its Maritime Sector”
It should also be mentioned that the latest scandal surrounding the conservative presidential candidate, which involves a questionable apartment arrangement between himself and a senior citizen but didn’t prevent him from obtaining security clearances for 16 years, might not be all that it seems. Some suspect that it was timed by the ruling coalition in collusion with corrupt members of the security services to ruin his appeal among his party’s elderly base and thus help his liberal-globalist rival win.
Considering the geopolitical context, the aforesaid scenario might have just as much to do with Poland sending troops to Ukraine after the election as with domestic politics since the President and Prime Minister must both agree to the deployment of their country’s forces abroad. If the conservative wins, then he might obstruct the liberal-globalist premier’s speculative plans, whether for partisan or principled reasons, but an allied president could foreseeably go along with them, if they exist, that is.
Therein lies the question since no observer can say for certain whether Kellogg let the cat out of the bag about Poland’s reported plans to send troops to Ukraine after the election if the liberal-globalist candidate wins or if he simply slipped up and got confused about exactly what was discussed. In any case, the authority with which he made his remark as Trump’s Special Envoy on Ukraine lends credence to speculation about the ruling coalition’s post-election geopolitical plans, which might help their rival.
86% of Poles oppose sending troops to Ukraine so it’s possible that Kellogg’s comment could tip the scales against the liberal-globalist frontrunner if more voters believe what this American government representative said over their own Defense and Foreign Ministers’ rebuke of him. There’s also a chance that some might be led to believe that Kellogg lied about Poland’s plans as a “plausibly deniable” form of “meddling” in support of the conservative and thus double down on support for the liberal-globalist.
It might also ultimately be a non-issue, but that won’t be known until after the exit polls conducted during the first round of voting on Sunday, which will shed more insight into voters’ priorities. For the time being, the jury is out on whether Poland is really planning to send troops to Ukraine, but it would be understandable in hindsight if this happens sometime after the scenario of a liberal-globalist victory. Poland wants influence and profits in Ukraine, but it’s unclear how far it’ll go to obtain and secure them.
If Poland does end up sending troops to Ukraine post-election, it won’t be about peacekeeping. It’ll be about power projection. Let’s be clear: the stakes aren’t ideological; they’re strategic. Poland sees a chance to carve out influence in a fractured neighbor and reap long-term economic gains through reconstruction deals, port access, and leased land. But it also knows the risks of being the one holding the bag when the bullets start flying.
That’s why Warsaw is hedging. Its leadership understands that acting too boldly, without airtight backing from bigger players—especially Washington—could leave it isolated, overexposed, and expendable. The push-pull we’re seeing isn’t confusion; it’s calculation. Poland wants a seat at the table, not to be left cleaning up the mess while others write the checks and set the terms.
Whether or not Kellogg's remark was a slip or a soft launch, it touched a nerve because it cut close to a truth that matters.
The Russians will view these so called business adventures from Poland, the USA or any other NATO states as a covered military operation. At the same time the discussions from various NATO countries I am looking at in the last month are controversial. Highly aggressive statements about closing the Baltic exit or blockading Kaliningrad are alternating with statements that they have nothing more to give to Ukraine. I have just seen a video where Macron stated that France is at the end of the rope, they were not prepared for this high intensity warfare and nothing more to give. NATO and USA are unwilling to admit defeat and they are pushing Russia around to lower demands against Ukraine. Putin will be able to figure out what the reality is and set his plans accordingly. NATO will attempt to win a war at the diplomatic conferences that they lost on the battlefields, a rather difficult task. It seems they are running out of cards to play. NATO is trying to maneuver Poland and Romania to the frontlines but both nations display unwillingness to be herded there. If Trump and the deep state want to pivot toward China they better force peace on the comedian with limited talents. If NATO jumps into a war that would be an optimal moment for China to take Taiwan and maybe even send a million men to Ukraine. Can NATO forces hide in Western Ukraine? Not in the 21st century.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3z1OwxqJgw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt0sbcADHSM