Adventures of an American woman in Wroclaw

Joanna Mosiej: You have said that your greatest dream is for the world to wake up and for us to have a future. Are we truly at the point of the Weimar Republic's decline? Is there no hope or way back for us? Must history repeat itself?

Agnieszka Holland: I fear it will be difficult to turn back from this path unless there is genuine will. Of course, hope dies last, but it must be a collective hope, not just that of individuals. At present, those who determine our fate lack both ideas and will. And they lack courage. At the moment, all right-liberal-centrist governments are decisively shifting towards reactivity in the face of what they perceive as an inevitable wave of brown populism. When nothing but even greater populism stands against this wave, the game of world destiny cannot be won. At least, not in the coming decade. At the same time, I do not see the diligence, determination or charisma that could persuade people that certain values are worth fighting for. This applies to all dimensions - in the way Ukrainians are fighting and in the way they forgo certain comforts for the sake of a better future and the expansion of rights for others.

At the same time, more and more people who were previously engaged are retreating into internal exile due to fatigue, disappointment and loss of hope.

Yes, they are withdrawing into a kind of oblivion and passivity, which is why the crisis of hope seems to me the deepest and most dangerous crisis. It manifests in many ways, such as the reluctance to have children in wealthier countries, which stems precisely from a lack of hope, from a lack of belief that the future has meaning. That it is good enough to project oneself into. And such immense disappointment, a sense of meaninglessness, and the desire to remove young or sensitive, idealistic people from politics - this is a phenomenon that is deadly dangerous to any attempt to preserve democracy.

We are also living in such a sombre time. In one way or another, what is happening in Poland is, to some extent, a reflection of what is happening in the world. What Donald Trump is doing, how quickly various authoritarian regimes are rising - it is all so bleak. One can react to this with fatalism, succumb to it and try to go with the flow, as most of the political class is doing.

This is an approach of peculiar, narcissistic selfishness that politicians like Donald Trump are very attuned to. They build upon it. They give hope to those who are so uncritical that they mistake any glitter for gold and are very easily tempted. They are not equipped with the tools of elementary criticism to resist modern means of communication.

In the era of the internet revolution, artificial intelligence, and social media with their algorithms, manipulating public opinion is trivially easy and hellishly effective

These monsters have absolutely incredible tools at their disposal. This is a great failing of the entire education system, as well as the media, which have succumbed so much to the pressure of clickability that they have essentially ceased to be an authority for anyone.

I have the impression that Ukraine's tragedy also lies in its attempt to join a world that no longer exists - the world of liberal democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. A world that is melting away like precious ore.

To some extent, that is exactly the case. Donald Trump's recent actions, particularly the freezing of USAID funds, directly harm their means of existence. They take away hope not only for a better future but even for the present. These funds financed the work of many NGOs and provided concrete humanitarian aid. Replacing these funds will be difficult. That is why we must rebuild independent NGOs and media on some other foundation. It will be a tremendous effort because the money is mostly on the side which all millionaires and great technologists belong to.

Trump and his surrogates, like some sort of sorcerer's apprentice, can be astonishingly effective precisely because they have no restraints. Until now, we were accustomed to the idea that there are certain rules and boundaries that must not be crossed.

We are undoubtedly on the defensive.

How will this end?

I think we more or less know. It will end in some kind of apocalyptic catastrophe, after which we will, hopefully, find our way home again

If we survive, we will return to some sense of meaning, but for now, things do not look very good.

How then can we provide hope?

I can only express my astonishment, because, to be honest, offering hope in a situation where I do not know where to find it would be highly irresponsible.

You are the conscience of Polish cinema, but whom would you consider a hero of our time - a kind of Citizen Jones?

Citizen Jones, the brave whistleblower, has always been my hero. Activists are also heroes - those who go against the tide, who are always guided by the most fundamental values. For me, they are the heroes of our time. It is difficult for them because they are a great minority. Just as there was a great minority of democratic opposition in communist countries, or as there was a great minority of early Christians. But I believe that this world is constantly being rebuilt, and that with each such upheaval, these liberties expand. Therefore, I hope that it will happen now as well.

In your film «Europa, Europa», there is a surreal scene in which Hitler dances in the arms of Stalin. I think today you could create a similar scene where Putin dances with…

Well, yes, I think you could form quite a large circle of dancing, deranged authoritarian narcissists who disregard any values other than their own immediate and grand victories.

«Europa, Europa», which was in a way a warning, becomes relevant again, as do all films or stories in moments like these, when it is about what happens to a person faced with the simplest choice - to save themselves.

And everything else ceases to matter.

We filmed it in 1989, and it appeared in cinemas at the turn of 1990-91. It was a time of great hopes, of great changes in our part of Europe. I was often asked why the double title. I replied that I was intrigued by Europe's duality, a kind of dichotomy reflected in the fate of the boy - the film's main character.

On one hand, Europe is the cradle of the greatest values - democracy, human rights, equality, fraternity, solidarity, and great culture. On the other hand, it is the cradle of the greatest crimes against humanity and the utmost cruelty

That is the duality. And now, once again, it is beginning to lean towards its dark side. We are entering darkness, and for now, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. But that does not mean we should not move towards that light.

We need to form a coalition against what is happening. We need to encourage those who resist. There are still many people of goodwill, and it is on their resistance that we must build the future.

At last, some hope.

And to my Ukrainian friends and acquaintances, I would like to say that light will appear. For now, we see darkness around us and feel as though there is no light at all. But that light exists. It is within us. We are the bearers of that light, and those fighting in Ukraine are, more than anyone, the bearers of that light. There are many forces around that wish to extinguish this light. We must protect them. All I can express is my admiration for their strength and solidarity.

Thank you very much. That was beautifully said. Lately, we have been telling ourselves that hope lies within us. Because when it seems there is nowhere else to find it, we must seek it within ourselves.

Exactly, you are right. That is precisely what I wanted to say - that the light, or hope, is within us.

A herald of apocalypse or a much-needed disruptor of the current world order? Donald Trump spent his first three weeks as US president in turbo mode. Dozens of decisions and executive orders, even more statements and extended interviews - he has dominated the global news space and is ready for decisive action.

The absolute priority of the new Administration is ending the war in Ukraine. Is a swift peace possible, and how long-lasting might it be? Senior fellow and adviser at the Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), British writer and journalist Edward Lucas answered these and other questions in an exclusive interview with Sestry.

A spring truce

Maryna Stepanenko: According to The Independent, Donald Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine by spring. How realistic is such a plan?

Edward Lucas: I do not think even Trump himself seriously believes he can end the war by spring. He may be able to initiate some negotiations. Perhaps he will manage to alter the current parameters of the war, but he will not end it.

The US president has repeatedly stated that he will exert pressure on Moscow, including through sanctions, should the Kremlin refuse to negotiate. We can see that the first threat - lowering the price of oil - has already begun to materialise. Trump said that reducing prices would affect Putin’s ability to finance the war. How effective could this approach be, considering Russia’s ability to diversify its energy exports, for example, to China or India?

A collapse in oil prices is a good idea in terms of increasing economic pressure on Putin. However, I doubt that it will be a decisive factor. I think the Russian economy has demonstrated remarkable resilience, both in terms of physical endurance against Ukrainian attacks on infrastructure and in terms of its export stability, import substitution capability, and overall ability to cope with sanctions. Thus, I would be surprised if low oil prices forced Putin to the negotiating table in a weak position. Nevertheless, I still consider it a good move.

Do you believe that Trump’s «carrot-and-stick» strategy - combining pressure on Moscow with open offers of negotiations - could force Putin to make concessions?

It is possible if you have the right sticks and the right carrots, but I am not an optimist.

I believe there is a significant risk of wishful thinking. It is entirely possible that Putin will irritate Trump to such an extent that the latter will return to supporting Ukraine with all the necessary weaponry, apply real pressure on Russia, and deal the Kremlin a decisive defeat on the battlefield. We would all be delighted by this, but I think the chances of it happening are rather low.

It is more likely that America will huff and puff but will not fundamentally change the situation. I think it is quite probable that Trump will tell the Europeans: «If you are so concerned about Ukraine, then fix the situation yourselves». Meaning they will have to provide more money and weapons instead of coming to the United States expecting Washington to solve all their problems.

This fully aligns with Trump’s worldview. He needs one major deal in the coming months because he wants to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. And this could be a deal that at least temporarily halts Russia’s war against Ukraine

However, it could also be a deal between the Israelis and major Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia. Thus, he is searching for a large-scale agreement, but it does not necessarily have to involve Ukraine. And I believe that a peace deal concerning Ukraine will be much harder to achieve than one in the Middle East.

So, if the new Administration fails to make progress in resolving the war in Ukraine in the coming months, what are the most likely scenarios? Could Washington lose interest? 

If Trump does not consider European security important for America and believes that Europeans should handle it themselves, then Ukraine, as a key issue of European security, may fall out of his agenda.

Europeans will have to make considerable efforts to convince Trump of Europe’s importance, as he perceives it rather negatively and seeks to exert pressure for economic and business reasons

Could one imagine Trump addressing Congress to request another 100 billion dollars for Ukraine? It is not impossible, but it is unlikely. Therefore, large volumes of American aid for Ukraine this year seem unrealistic. 

At the same time, Putin believes he has the advantage on the battlefield and that the West is losing unity. He sees a gradual decline in morale in Ukraine and is not inclined to negotiate. If he is convinced he can win by military means, why would he agree to talks? 

Coincidentally, in Putin’s recent statements, we hear that Russia is supposedly ready for negotiations. The Russian president is also flattering Trump, speaking about his «good relations» with the current US president. What signals is Moscow thus sending to the White House? 

I do not consider Putin an idiot. And he knows it is important not to offend Trump. Of course, he will say he is ready for negotiations. 

However, I do not believe that Russia currently sees a need for serious negotiations. I suspect that Putin will sit at the negotiating table and say: «We want a demilitarised Ukraine. We want guarantees that you will never join NATO». And another two or three demands, including the incorporation of temporarily occupied territories into Russia. 

Would Trump consider this unacceptable? Perhaps not. Would Ukrainians consider it unacceptable? Almost certainly. Would Europeans be willing to support Ukrainians in their continued resistance? Possibly. But I am not sure.

But I believe that this is the most likely scenario. From Ukraine’s perspective, we will see quite an unreasonable negotiating position from Putin. And this is not the same as the beginning of real negotiations

What can Ukraine do?

Trump has said he is ready to meet with Putin at any time. Is there a risk that Ukraine’s fate could be decided behind Kyiv’s back? 

There is always a risk of another Yalta (referring to the Yalta Conference of 1945, when the leaders of the USA (Roosevelt), the UK (Churchill) and the USSR (Stalin) determined the post-war world order, effectively dividing Europe into spheres of influence, leading to Soviet control over Eastern Europe, - Edit.). Trump may want to humiliate Europe and declare that he has decided everything, forcing others to accept his deal.

To prevent this, Ukraine and Europe must act as one entity and clearly state that they will not accept an agreement between Trump and Putin

Even if the US steps aside, Ukraine must demonstrate that it will continue to fight. This alone will strengthen its negotiating position. However, there are two realities: diplomatic manoeuvres and the situation on the battlefield. What happens at the negotiating table depends on events at the front. 

Ukraine is rightly asking its partners to guarantee its security to prevent another Russian attack should an agreement on a ceasefire be reached. Given the painful experience of the Budapest Memorandum, what should new guarantees for Ukraine look like, and what could ensure their real enforcement?

This is the key question: is a genuine truce possible, and how can Ukraine’s security and development be ensured? This requires strong military and security guarantees, but paper agreements do not work. NATO is not ready to accept Ukraine, and the deployment of 40-60 thousand troops to monitor the truce seems unrealistic. 

An alternative could be providing Ukraine with high-tech weaponry - for example, Taurus or Tomahawk missiles. But is the West truly ready to allow Ukraine to use them at its own discretion? This is a major question. 

My pessimistic forecast is that there will be a truce, but without reliable security. Russia will test these guarantees, they will prove weak, and the situation will eventually become even worse

The «Axis of Evil»

As soon as Trump concludes a peace agreement, a race between Russia and the West to prepare their armies for the next conflict will begin, - writes The Times, citing sources. Given the economic sanctions and the depletion of resources due to the prolonged war against Ukraine, will Russia be capable of competing with the West in modernising its armed forces? Could the Kremlin find support from a «new axis of aggressors» for this?

It is worth remembering that, ultimately, Russia has an economy comparable to or slightly smaller than Italy’s. And they have paid a terrible price for the first three years of the war. However, predictions of Russia’s economic collapse have turned out to be wishful thinking. 

Putin still has many options, both in terms of economic resilience and mobilisation. And as long as Russians believe this is an existential struggle for their country’s future, they will endure pain and sacrifices. Moreover, I think Putin sees that the West is still very weak, and he now has a great opportunity to capitalise on military successes in Ukraine, advance further, and possibly return after a ceasefire to completely eradicate the remnants of Ukrainian resistance, taking advantage of these, I fear, weak security guarantees.

He also has an opportunity to toy with NATO and the weakness of the Alliance’s northeastern flank, particularly in the Baltic states, where we still lack proper defences. There are plans, but no adequate defence capabilities. This is a very tempting target.

And it is not difficult to imagine that by the end of this year or next - Putin could secure a massive victory in Ukraine and dismantle NATO, making the economic and other pains caused by such a victory worthwhile.

Could a scenario arise in which Trump pressures China to, in turn, influence Russia into signing a deal with Ukraine?

China has a unique ability both to pressure and support Russia. But is Beijing interested in US mediation, after which Trump would take all the credit? Perhaps, if Beijing secures its own benefits.

However, China has no experience in international diplomacy that would suggest an ability to broker major deals. It prefers when Western countries ask it to influence Russia - this gives Beijing additional leverage

Given the trade disputes between the US and China, it is unlikely that Xi Jinping will consider providing Trump with a geopolitical favour regarding Ukraine a priority. 

Is there a tool for long-term containment of Russia? 

The only long-term hope is the transformation of Russia from an empire into a peaceful state. If this happens, resolving other problems will become significantly easier. However, as long as Russia remains imperial, the threats will not disappear.

NATO is no longer an effective response - it is too large, slow, and divided. Coalitions of countries that understand the threat and are ready to contain Russia in different regions are needed. This process should have begun 10-15 years ago. Now we are late, and perhaps even too late.

‍Do you believe that a coalition of willing countries could provide security guarantees for Ukraine? If NATO is not an option, could countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany and France collaborate by deploying their troops in Ukraine to prevent further Russian aggression? 

A coalition of allies could theoretically deploy troops in Ukraine as a deterrent force, but what happens when the time comes to actually use it? Are the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Poland ready to go to war with Russia over an Odesa blockade or a new offensive? 

It is doubtful. To make guarantees truly reliable, 100 thousand troops would be needed, similar to West Germany during the Cold War. Europe does not have such resources - even 50 or 10 thousand would be hard to find. 

European allies and NATO simply lack the capacity to mobilise the massive forces necessary to defend Ukraine. They could protect Ukraine through modern weaponry.

Theoretically, nuclear weapons could be placed on the frontline in Ukraine as a guarantee

However, this is associated with enormous political challenges, and I am not sure they are ready for such a level of risk. Without sufficient strength and willingness to take risks, providing truly effective security guarantees is extremely difficult. 

The future of Putin’s Russia

Russia propagates the narrative that its economy is immune to Western sanctions. The EU claims this is untrue. How do you assess the situation inside Russia? How much longer can Moscow sustain its war against Ukraine under current sanctions pressure? 

We tend to engage in wishful thinking when speaking about Russia. It has managed to mobilise its resources, even at a tremendous cost to its own future. The economy is suffering serious blows, financial system problems are accumulating, including a rise in bad loans in the private sector. Yet, despite this, Russia continues to wage war. 

We want it to collapse, so we are inclined to believe it is already happening. However, Russia continues to find ways to sustain the war: it receives drones from Iran, recruits troops from North Korea, and circumvents sanctions through China. Moreover, it still has unused resources. 

Future generations of Russians will be forced to pay for Putin’s imperial ventures. But at the moment, Russia is not backed into a corner. It is likely to endure for at least another one or two years, and even if the situation becomes critical, the Kremlin will find ways to adapt.

Has the West exhausted its imagination regarding sanctions? Are there still powerful tools that have not yet been applied? 

Of course. We have not even used all available options. The West is looking for sanctions that will strike Russia without causing pain to itself. That is why we restrict pipeline oil and gas imports but not liquefied natural gas. We block crude oil supplies but not petroleum products. As a result, sanctions create difficulties for Russia but also open up a business model for those who help circumvent them - from Russians to businessmen in Dubai. 

I would impose strict secondary sanctions, particularly against the «shadow fleet», bankers, lawyers and accountants who facilitate the evasion of restrictions. For example, I would strip them of visa-free entry to the US, Europe, and Britain. If you are a lawyer or trader in Dubai engaged in sanction evasion schemes, then to travel to the West, you will now have to queue at consulates alongside students, nannies, and asylum seekers.

A comfortable life for such people must come to an end

There are still many possibilities, but political will is lacking. And Putin sees this. Ultimately, the West has grown tired, frightened, and distracted - and Ukraine is paying the price. This fills me with both sorrow and anger. 

What might Russia’s economy look like in 5-10 years if international isolation continues? 

In the long term, Russia is increasingly turning into a dependent vassal of China. Chinese companies are buying up assets for next to nothing, investing in strategic sectors, and Russia’s economy is becoming ever more oriented towards exports to China. Trade and investment ties between the countries are only strengthening. In the end, Russia risks becoming a raw material appendage of the Chinese Communist Party - hardly the future Putin promised his citizens.

Cover photo: Deposit/East News 

The project is co-financed by the Polish-American Freedom Foundation under the «Support Ukraine» programme, implemented by the «Education for Democracy» Foundation

‍

‍

For the longest time it has been my dream to move to America but after living there for three years, I decided to move back to Poland. Just like my parents, I thought that living in America was going to offer me this big American dream, but that was not the case. I think due to the ways in which America is portrayed, I had this preconceived notion of what my life is going to look like but I was unaware of the jarring realisations that come with moving to the West. 

When I got there I wouldn't say that I missed my old life in Poland. Everything felt new and exciting and I felt like «I made it» but the longer I spent time in the US the more I realised the sad realities of America. Life in the East is highly focused on community: I know my neighbours, I get my fruits and vegetables from a local market stand, my friends buy me beers when I’m out of cash, but my experience in America was the complete opposite of that. Unless you’re in a borough where you grew up or have built a community, all your experiences are transactional. I found myself thinking that I’m forming a relationship with someone to quickly later on finding that they wanted something from me, blurring the line whether friendships can exist outside of work or status.

What was the most difficult for me when I was there was really understanding my identity in the realm of the US

In America, I am perceived as a white girl and my identity as a Polish person is not necessarily considered unless I bring it up in a conversation. This was really difficult for me to understand because I feel like I'm coming from a country that focuses on identity so much. I felt like that was just being stripped away. I couldn't really identify myself with where I lay in the US. Should I be considered an immigrant or should I be considered a Polish American? It was really unclear for me. I was aware of the privileges that I have in America due to being a white woman but I couldn’t identify or relate to the white American women around me.

I didn't really feel at home there unless I was in a neighbourhood such as Greenpoint where I was able to socialise with Polish people, and when it came to my university, I only met one other Polish person. It wasn't until I became friends with a Ukrainian guy who came from an immigrant family. He understood exactly what I was talking about. The Americans only perceived him as a white boy and he was unable to identify with white American men either. We would discuss our similarities and differences of being Polish and Ukrainian and the terror that's happening in the world right now that most of our peers in America seemed to ignore. I think that America is so centralised in its country and politics that a lot of issues outside that don’t concern people there just seem to be irrelevant and I think especially when you are an immigrant you can find yourself feeling lost. 

That friend of mine made me realise how much I miss my country and how much I miss my community because he was the closest to what felt like a community to me in America. It's a weird experience to be an Eastern European because, on one hand, most Eastern European countries have been historically oppressed but on the other hand, you do carry the privilege of being a white person and should hold yourself accountable for having that privilege. 

It's just not talked about enough how much history affected Eastern European countries and especially in the West I don't see many people being aware of what happened.

I remember how in one of my classes an American kid didn’t even know about what’s happening in Ukraine. «What war?» they said and I couldn’t believe what I was hearing

I got so angry, how can one not know? Everything there is centralised in their country, excluding anything that doesn’t focus on it or on their ideals of individualism. I couldn't take it anymore - «America this, America that», - no news about another country, while their country is one responsible for most war crimes in the world and is simultaneously one able to stop these wars.

In New York, I lived in the Ukrainian neighbourhood of the East Village, hoping it would bring me a sense of peace. Instead, I found it felt rather fabricated. I didn’t hear any Ukrainian on the streets, and most of the neighbourhood seemed to be gentrified by hipster white Americans and students looking for affordable housing. I often found myself wondering what this meant for those who once called the neighbourhood home.

The contrast between the original culture and the modern, more commercialised environment evoked a sense of nostalgia for what was lost, which was only enhanced by what is happening in Ukraine right now

Similarly, I saw the same thing taking place in Greenpoint. What was once known as a thriving Polish neighbourhood was no longer the same. Each month I’d go - another restaurant would get shut down and another person I’d known would move out since they could no longer afford it. What struck me most was the change in the people around me. Many residents who lived there for a long time were being pushed out due to rising rents, and the cultural landscape I had initially felt in a way at home, began to feel more homogenised. Both Ukrainian and Polish communities were pushed out of neighbourhoods they once considered their own, now they move a couple miles further away from Manhattan to another neighbourhood they will call home until it happens again. 

All my time while I was in America I questioned: why not choose the calmer, community life? Why is this the dream? Feeling isolated in the four walls of my New York apartment, waking up every day to the loud noises outside, seeing faces I don’t recognise every day. Why not move back home and have community, support and a sense of safety? I realised that as I was complaining about all of this I only had one option. I packed my things and I left. My dream is not to be surrounded by shiny things and a job that boosts my sense of self. I want to feel like I belong somewhere, a place where neighbours say hi to each other, a place where others take care of each other, a place we can call home.