POLAND FOREIGN POLICY:

Reinforcing Economic, Politic and Military Policy in response to Russia’s

Annexation to Crimea

Subject: Foreign Policy

Lecturer: Anak Agung Banyu Perwita

Ni Putu Ardilayanti 016201600113

Olivia Dwi Nastiti 016201600011

Qatrunada Daysa Fitri 016201600022

Friday, December 15, 2017

Class: Japanese 5 International Relations Batch 2016

 Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 3

RESEARCH QUESTION ....................................................................................................... 3

THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................... 4

ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................... 4

Poland Military Development after the Rise of Crimea Annexation ......................................... 9

Poland International Relations with United Nations ............................................................... 10

Poland Regional Relations with European Union and NATO................................................. 11

Poland Bilateral Relations with Russia .................................................................................... 17

CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 20

REFERENCES

2|Page
INTRODUCTION

Russia Federation foreign policy to annex Crimea was unprecedented decision made
by Vladimir Putin in his 16 years power. By exploited Ukraine’s instability condition, Russia
deployed its forces to Crimea and, eventually, joining Crimea into its territory in March 2014
(Matzek, 2016). Long period of insecurity disseminate throughout Ukraine region due to the
massive wave of demonstration by Euromaidan trailed by Kyiv, capital city of Ukraine. The
protests aim to overthrown Ukraine’s President Yanukovych whilst civil unrest was
everywhere.

Russia pragmatic approaches to Crimea conceal the notion that Russia does not accept
its loss from Cold War. Notorious plan to bring back the former Soviet Union region and gain
its glory is the major driven factors that urge its act. Furthermore, Russia also needs Crimea to
secure its Western border by moored its naval bases in Crimea which famous by Russia’s Black
Sea Fleet (Schuman, 2016). Regardless of Russia’s actions, Poland foreign policy in rejecting
the idea of independent Crimea has a major influence in determining the course of this issue.
Bilaterally, Poland-Russia relation is not quite well considering Poland is one of the former
Soviet Union (SU) territories. The fear of being confronted as well as invaded by Russia has
made Poland strongly opposed Russia stances instead support Ukraine to gain its territory back.

Therefore, this paper is going to discuss about Poland’s foreign policy in reinforcing its
economic, politic, and military policy towards Russia’s annexation of Crimea. In order to
approach Crimea issues, this paper is divided into three sections. First sections will focus on
Poland international cooperation with United Nations (UN). Second sections will focus on
Poland regional cooperation with European Union (EU) as well as North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO). The latter will focus on Poland bilateral cooperation with Russia.

RESEARCH QUESTION

1. How Poland reinforcing its economic, politic, and military policy towards Russia’s
annexation of Crimea?

THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

3|Page
Realism Theory by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith
To begin with, great powers fear each other. There is little trust among them. They worry about
the intentions of other states, in large part because they are so hard to divine. Their greatest fear
is that another state might have the capability as well as the motive to attack them. This danger
is compounded by the fact that states operate in an anarchic system, which means that there is
no night watchman who can rescue them if they are threatened by another country. When a
state dials the emergency services for help, there is nobody in the international system to answer
the call (Dunne, Kurki & Smith, 2010). The level of fear between states varies from case to
case, but it can never be reduced to an inconsequential level. The stakes are simply too great to
allow that to happen. International politics is a potentially deadly business where there is the
ever-present possibility of war, which often means mass killing on and off the battlefield, and
which might even lead to a state’s destruction.
Great powers also understand that they operate in a self-help world. They have to rely on
themselves to ensure their survival, because other states are potential threats and because there
is no higher authority they can turn to if they are attacked. This is not to deny that states can
form alliances, which are often useful for dealing with dangerous adversaries. In the final
analysis, however, states have no choice but to put their own interests ahead of the interests of
other states as well as the so-called international community. With this approach, the author
will analyze the importance of Poland foreign policy towards Russia annexation to Crimea.

ANALYSIS

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s seizure of the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in
early 2014 was the most consequential decision of his 16 years in power. By annexing a
neighboring country’s territory by force, Putin overturned in a single stroke the assumptions
on which the post–Cold War European order had rested. The question of why Putin took this
step is of more than historical interest. Understanding his motives for occupying and annexing
Crimea is crucial to assessing whether he will make similar choices in the future—for example,
sending troops to “liberate” ethnic Russians in the Baltic states—just as it is key to determining
what measures the West might take to deter such actions.

Three plausible interpretations of Putin’s move have emerged. The first—call it “Putin
as defender”—is that the Crimean operation was a response to the threat of NATO’s further
expansion along Russia’s western border (Board 2014). By this logic, Putin seized the

4|Page
peninsula to prevent two dangerous possibilities: first, that Ukraine’s new government might
join NATO, and second, that Kiev might evict Russia’s Black Sea Fleet from its long-standing
base in Sevastopol.

A second interpretation—call it “Putin as imperialist”—casts the annexation of Crimea

as part of a Russian project to gradually recapture the former territories of the Soviet Union.
Putin never accepted the loss of Russian prestige that followed the end of the Cold War, this
argument suggests, and he is determined to restore it, in part by expanding Russia’s borders.

A third explanation—“Putin as improviser”—rejects such broader designs and presents

the annexation as a hastily conceived response to the unforeseen fall of Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovych. The occupation and annexation of Crimea, in this view, was an impulsive
decision that Putin stumbled into rather than the careful move of a strategist with geopolitical
ambitions.

Over the past two years, Putin has appeared to lend support to all three interpretations.
He has suggested that Ukraine’s accession to NATO would have been intolerable and has also
claimed that Crimea’s history had made the region “an inseparable part of Russia,” “plundered”
from the country after the Soviet Union’s disintegration. Yet Putin also told me, at a reception
in Sochi in October 2015, that the operation to seize the peninsula was “spontaneous” and was
“not at all” planned long in advance. (Putin’s other explanations for the intervention—that he
ordered it to protect Crimea’s Russian population from Ukrainian nationalists and to respect
Crimean’s right to self-determination—should be taken less seriously, since the nationalist
threat in Crimea was largely invented and since Putin had shown little interest in self-
determination for the peninsula for most of his previous 14 years in power. (Martin Nunn 2014)

So what was the annexation—a reaction to NATO’s expansion, an act of imperial

aggression, or an impromptu response to an unexpected crisis? The truth might involve
elements of more than one theory, and some of the details remain unknown. Nevertheless,
information that has surfaced over the past two years and insights from recent interviews in
Moscow suggest some important conclusions: Putin’s seizure of Crimea appears to have been
an improvised gambit, developed under pressure, that was triggered by the fear of losing
Russia’s strategically important naval base in Sevastopol.

NATO’s enlargement remains a sore point for Russian leaders, and some in the Kremlin
certainly dream of restoring Russia’s lost grandeur. Yet the chaotic manner in which the
operation in Crimea unfolded belies any concerted plan for territorial revanche. Although this
5|Page
might at first seem reassuring, it in fact presents a formidable challenge to Western officials:
in Putin, they must confront a leader who is increasingly prone to risky gambles and to grabbing
short-run tactical advantages with little apparent concern for long-term strategy.

The other reason will be about Russia have a naval base in Crimea. Geographic
limitations and ambitions: Russia's capacity to reach the sea is limited by geography, so ports
in the north and south sea, leading to larger waters, are crucial. As the map below illustrates,
Sevastopol is a strategically important base for Russia's naval fleet, in addition to being Russia's
only warm water base. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a 1997 treaty with Ukraine
allowed Russia to keep its Black Sea Fleet pretty much intact (with 15,000 personnel currently
stationed) and lease the base at Sevastopol (extended to expire in 2042) (Board 2014).

Crimea was bound to be the focus of the Russian backlash against the Ukrainian
revolution, for more than 20 years, ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, its rule by Kiev
has been a major source of Russian resentment – inside and outside Crimea – and a major thorn
in Ukraine's relations with Russia.

The Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation – by which Russia rents its naval base
at Sevastopol from the Ukrainian government – is so far-reaching in the rights it gives the
Russians to exercise their military powers that it is seen by many in Ukraine to undermine the
country's independence. In 2008 the Ukrainians said they would not renew the lease when it
expired in 2017. But they buckled under the pressure of a gas-price hike and, in 2010, extended
the Russian navy's lease until 2042. Besides, Sevastopol has been an important hub to project
Russia's naval power on a global platform. The Black Sea Fleet has seen a flurry of activity
since 2008: during the war with Georgia that year, the fleet staged blockades in the Black Sea.
The Russian navy was actively engaged with Vietnam, Syria and Venezuela (and up until
March 2011, Libya) "for logistics and repair services in their principal ports" (NATO 2015). It
has also been alleged that Sevastopol has served as the main source in supplying the Assad

6|Page
regime during Syria's civil war and proved useful with Russia's role in dismantling Syria's
chemical weapons last year. After Syria's civil war forced Russia to stop using its naval base
in the Syrian port of Tartus last year, Sevastopol became even more crucial.

The other possible reason why Russia really wants to annex Crimea is, if the President
of the Russian Federation is to be believed his whole campaign is driven by the need to protect
ethnic Russians from neo-Nazi extremists that they claim have infiltrated the new temporary
government in Kiev. That sounds laudable - until you look at the wider picture of how Russians
are actually treated in their homeland today. Russia has very serious social problems with drug
and alcohol abuse and HIV Aids, but the state does virtually nothing to help. Ethnic minorities
are treated with disdain whilst the gay community has been forced underground. Those close
to the Kremlin enjoy limitless wealth whilst real poverty now affects over 20 per cent of the
population. Clearly support for ethnic Russians in Russia is not a Presidential priority (NATO
2015).

As for protecting ethnic Russians in Ukraine from neo-Nazis, well, there is another
conflict of interest. Some would say that there are more neo-Nazi politicians in the Russian
Duma than there are in Ukrainian Radar and that they have been there since the Liberal
Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) was founded 20 years ago. So it would be natural to ask
why all sudden the interest in Crimea, as well as South and East Ukraine. Crimea is a part
desert, part mountainous region most famous for its history, tourism, vegetables and sweet
wines - as well as the Sevastopol port Russia uses as a naval base. The South of Ukraine is
primarily farmland whilst the East is home to the former Soviet mining, coal and steel industries
- all of which are in need of massive investment and are a major competitor to similar industries
in the Russian Ural regions.

To date President Putin has wasted the £33 billion that he spent on building the image
of a new Russia at the Sochi Winter Olympics; his aggression has caused the Ruble to slump
requiring the Central Bank to step in at a cost of £7 billion, and the Russian stock market seems
to be in a nose-dive. The total cost to Russia of this Crimean adventure might reach £43 billion
and that is without the longer-term damage of potential targeted sanctions (Jalabi 2014).Why
go in? The answer, we think, is simple: oil and gas. Putin’s whole campaign against Ukraine
could be nothing more than a land grab to ensure that Gazprom, a company in which he has
considerable personal interest, controls who, how and when exploration and extraction will
begin.
7|Page
 According to Kremlin insiders the annexation of Crimea has been 6 years in the
planning. By annexing all the land adjoining the Black Sea, Russia would also annex the
offshore rights and anything found therein. It doesn’t matter that as of today the discoveries
have been relatively small. If serious quantities of oil and gas were to discovered it will be too
late - and that is a risk President Putin would not be prepared to take, as it would undermine
his entire economic structure. Frankly it doesn’t matter if the Crimea never produces a drop of
oil. Stopping production alone would preserve the Kremlin’s domination of the supply of
energy from Russia. However all the signs are that the onshore and offshore fields will live up
to expectation? Exploration of the Black Sea off Crimea has gone into overdrive. ExxonMobil,
Chevron, Shell, Repsol and even Petro China have begun to show a real interest in working
with Kiev to develop the entire Ukrainian sector. Offshore magazine reports that Exxon and
Rosneft have already made encouraging finds in the Russian sector near Novorossiysk whilst
in the Romanian sectors test drilling by ‘OMV’ has found interesting deposits, so much so that
the major oil companies are now bringing in serious deepwater drilling technology. Trans Euro
Energy has already found commercially viable resources of natural gas on the Crimean
mainland. This would give another reason for why Putin wants to hold onto the port of
Sevastopol – also an important naval base - as it is a perfectly-located deep water port capable
of servicing the oil fields and the massive drilling technology, and it’s barely 100 kilometers
(60 miles) from the exploration zones (Jalabi 2014).

But it’s not just the offshore energy resources that could be of interest to
Putin. Included within Southern and Eastern Ukraine are the major export terminals in the port
of Odessa. The military ship building yards at Nikolayev, a major oil refinery, massive
chemical plants and grain export silos, hydro-electric plants along the Moldavian border in the
Russian controlled the Transnistra region, two of the largest nuclear power stations in Europe.
Three huge solar power stations in Crimea, the extensive coal-bed methane gas fields in the
Donbass basin, plus the largest resources of magnesium on the planet and huge stocks of coal
and iron ore (Martin Nunn 2014).Add to this is the £12 billion saving he would make by
running the new South-stream gas pipeline overland through Crimea and Southern Ukraine as
opposed to under the Black Sea to Bulgaria and you can see that £42 billion is quite a cheap
price to pay - especially when the West has such a short and selective memory.

Poland Military Development after the Rise of Crimea Annexation

8|Page
 Poland has responded to Russia's belligerence by raising its defense budget by 18 per
cent, achieving the biggest increase in military spending of any country in Europe. Haunted by
memories of Soviet invasion, Poland is set to join the handful of NATO members who meet
the alliance's target of investing at least two per cent of national income in defense. At present,
this club consists only of America, Britain, Estonia and Greece. On present plans, Britain is
likely to drop out of this group next year – exactly when Poland is due to join. Party divisions
were swept aside when the Polish parliament decided to meet NATO’s two per cent target from
2016 onwards, with 402 MPs voting in favors and only two against."This is one of the most
important days of my term," said Tomasz Siemoniak, Poland's defense minister, after the vote.
"This is a very good and important decision given the current security situation."Poland's
defense budget jumped from £5.6 billion last year to £6.6 billion in 2015, an 18 per cent
increase that is almost unprecedented in Europe since the Cold War (Day 2015).

Poland views itself as being on the "front line against Russia", said Marek Matraszek,
a defense consultant. Thanks to its 130-mile border with the enclave of Kaliningrad, Poland is
a direct neighbor of Russia. Meanwhile, Ukraine's Crimea has been annexed by the
Kremlin and a third, Lithuania, feels directly threatened. As a country with 38 million people
and a long martial tradition, Poland is the only one of Russia's European neighbors that could,
in theory, become a significant military power (Day 2015).The Polish armed forces have fought
more wars for national survival than most, but they remain burdened by ageing Soviet

9|Page
equipment. The air force still flies MiG fighters; the army relies on T-72 tanks. About 70 per
cent of Poland's armory dates from the era when the country was in the Warsaw Pact and Only
30 per cent meets NATO standards.

An ambitious rearmament program aims to reverse that ratio by 2022.Whether that goal
can be achieved is open to question. Already, the government stands accused of wasting money
on high profile weapons of little military value. Poland has ordered eight Patriot missile
batteries from America, costing at least £1.7 billion. The aim of this defensive system is to
counter the threat posed by Russian missiles in Kaliningrad, just 142 miles from Warsaw. But
the Patriots, which will not be operational until 2025, may not be able to do the job.
Poland International Relations with United Nations

The League of Nations is considered a failure to prevent the outbreak of World War II
(1939-1945). To prevent the outbreak of the Third World War, which was not wanted by all
humankind, in 1945 the United Nations was established to replace the failed League of Nations
to maintain international peace and enhance cooperation in solving international economic,
social and humanitarian problems.

The Court declared: The Organization (UN) intends to exercise its rights and
obligations, and in fact can perform obligations and accepting certain rights which may only
be explained if it has a large international capacity of personality capable of operating in the
international realm. Thus, the Court has concluded that this Organization (UN) is an
International Legal Entity (UN, 2014).

Indeed, United Nation is holding four main principles, which are first; it is based on the
sovereign equation of all its members. Second, all members shall fulfill their sincere obligations
as stated in the UN Charter. And all members shall resolve international disputes in peace

10 | P a g e
without jeopardizing peace, security and, justice. The last is in international relations; all
members should avoid the use of threats or violence against other countries. In the other hands,
United Nations have some goals to maintaining world peace and security, developing friendly
relations among nations based on the principle of equal rights and self-determination of nations
and taking other appropriate measures to strengthen world peace, achieve international
cooperation in solving international economic, social, cultural or humanitarian problems and
in promoting and promoting respect for human rights and freedoms for all without distinction
of sex, language, or religion and become a place to harmonize the actions of the nations in
achieving common goals (UN, 2014).

Regarding the case of annexation of Crimea, the United Nations General Assembly
agreed on Resolution 68/262. Poland also uses their diplomacy to persuade the GA Resolution
with 4 other states to propose in response to the Russian annexation of Crimea and entitled
"Territorial integrity of Ukraine (UN, 2014). The resolution was introduced by Canada, Costa
Rica, Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine. UN has continued to press for a diplomatic
solution to the crisis, with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Deputy Secretary-General Jan
Eliasson and other senior officials having visited the region, including Moscow and Crimea
(UNGA, 2014).

Poland Regional Relations with European Union and NATO

To react the problem of Annexation of Crimea by Russia, Poland not only using their
hard power towards this problem, but also using soft power that is diplomacy. Poland uses their
diplomacy system to persuade the regional organization in the Europe, as well as the global
security organization until the global organization which is United Nations.

One of the scholar, Hickerson argues that if the United States operated alone without
any support and help from the independent European organization(Hickerson, 2007). Then the
target of maintaining the security and stability in Europe would be hampered, it is all same as
if the European organizations were formed or stands alone without any support and help from
the United States, then it will be useless.

NATO or The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is an international organization for

collective security which established in 1949, the support of the North Atlantic requirements
itself signed at Washington, DC on April 4, 1949. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization also
have other official names in the language of France which is “I Organisation du Traite de

11 | P a g e
I’Atlantique Nord” or simply called OTAN. NATO as an international organization has a great
influence not only for its member countries, but also in the global world. As we know that
NATO is highly respected by United States of America dominance, it is look like NATO
become the tool to achieve the United States interests. The main objective of establishing
NATO as a collective security in the international world has been expanding, now NATO also
become one of the defense organization to keep the and help to maintain the peace within the
international world. The level of success or failure from NATO is depends on the NATO’s
official institutional rules in NATO instruments, such as membership issues, decision-making
systems and organizational financial mechanisms (Teacher, 2013).

The North Atlantic Treaty accommodates the individual rights of each member country
as well as regulates their obligations under the United Nations Charter. As the perambulatory
said that, “The parties to this treaty reaffirm their belief in the purposes and principles of the
United Nations Charter and their desire to live peacefully with all nations and all governments.
They are determined to preserve their freedom, common heritage and civilization, founded on
the principles of democracy, individual freedom and the rule of law. They seek to improve
stability and well-being in the North Atlantic region and decide to unify their efforts for
collective defense and to maintain peace and security.”(Zuesse, 2016).Thus, this North Atlantic
Treaty wishes that every member states to commit and obey the articles which purposes and
principles are adapted to the contents of the United Nations Charter for freedom of the security,
and it is all based on the principles of democracy and individual freedom through the collective
defense.

However, if we look at the foundation of NATO, NATO is not just a military alliance
to confront the Soviet Union, but also an organization that aims to ensure the integrity of liberal
democratic values in the Euro Atlantic. At that time, Britain, Canada and the United States
discussed with the Pentagon on the security sector about the creation of a formal transatlantic
institution under the Pact of Brussels or the Rio Treaty as an alternative to replacing the
paralyzed UN role in the cold war(Times, 1997).Therefore, Europe, since the very beginning
of the establishment of NATO which emphasizes on article 4 which states about “If every
member becomes an object of attack in Europe, then the other members will be in accordance
with provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of United Nations which acting collectively to
avenge the war with all military assistance and the power they have.” Then, the treaty
emphasizes again in Article 5 that “An armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or

12 | P a g e
North America will be considered as an attack on them all.” Which means that if European
countries under attacks it will be every member responsibility (Harsch, 2015).

Basically, the member states of NATO or the alliance is not yet fully prepared to carry
the mission of securing the European states and the United States territory due to the lack of
the troops and military equipment and no direct command to control the defenses in Europe.
But then, in the 1950s, the Korean War also chancing the direction of the NATO itself, in that
time, Korean War was pushed, and forces allied states to step up their defense efforts starting
with creating an integrated military structure will all of NATO command in all regions of
Europe, especially in Western Europe (NATO, 2007).

Thus, NATO held some basic role as the security organizations, here is NATO role and
functions;

1. Resolving the Disputes Peacefully

The World War I and World War II have already shaken the world that took
many victims. These bloody events have the same common threads that are disputed
between countries that are not resolved properly. Disputes that are not resolved by
negotiation are finally settled on the battlefield. So, to prevent a repeat of the
tragedy of the big war then of course the dispute between countries must be settled
in a peaceful way that is by way of negotiation. That's where NATO's role is needed
by each of its members. NATO has the power to organize each of its members with
some agreed notes or agreements. It shall be binding on all members not to solve
any problems arbitrarily alone and not to be the cause of the act of abuse of
authority. This cannot be separated from the background of the formation of NATO
which has a lot of history.
2. Helping and Defending NATO Member States
Since the beginning of NATO formation, it aims to provide a sense of security
for the World, especially for states who are members of the organization. Because
since the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact collapsed in the period of the 90s in fact
some countries increasingly interested in joining NATO. So, the members of NATO
more and make the power of the organization is also increasing. So, another
function of NATO is to help each other and defend NATO member countries. If
there is one member’s country attacked by another party then the attack is
considered as an attack that is shown to other member countries even to the NATO

13 | P a g e
 itself. So other NATO members will volunteer to provide assistance, especially
military assistance to the attacked country. The end of the Cold War does not mean
that the role of NATO is considered one-sided or simply disappeared. Because some
state conflict events require the presence of NATO there.
3. Avoiding the Use of Violence and Military Threats
Each country in the world would want to achieve prosperity and economic
stability for the country. To be able to make that happen then doing International
relations with other countries is something that cannot be avoided. Because by
doing so the wheels of the economy of the country can spin faster. But International
Relations is not without risk because there is often a dispute in a problem
experienced by two or more interconnected countries. And if not resolved properly
then the settlement of the dispute can use violence and even military power of each
country. That is where the function of NATO as a security guarantor for each
member is needed. With NATO's power, it can avoid the use of force by prioritizing
the values of negotiations in International Relations.
4. Eliminating Political Dispute for International Economics
With the occurrence of International Relations then the political and economic
sectors must be part of it. The two sectors are arguably the main sectors and
important sectors for each country. So that the abolition of international economic
politics disputes is important to maintain harmony of relations between countries.
NATO with a foundation for maintaining peace and security has the authority to
abolish the dispute, especially for countries belonging to its members.

We cannot avoid those role from NATO are very beneficial for the countries, especially
European countries, but regardless the role of NATO, they also facing new threats or challenges
which are the terrorism, mass murder weapons like missile, threats from the countries where
civil war and anarchy happening.

Regarding the cases about the Annexation of Crimea by Russia, we will analyze from
the Poland’s point of view. Poland was doing diplomacy towards this problem. As the member
of NATO, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia were the central pillar and
guarantor of their national security in NATO (Review, 2014). In this case, NATO will be
protected all the members from the Russian Aggression even if that means open war. NATO
is supporting Poland because NATO is trying to strengthen their presence in Poland as the

14 | P a g e
military alliance seeks to allay fears along the Ukraine’s western border over the Russia
annexation of Crimea (Traynor, 2014).

Not only that, Poland also trying to persuade NATO to make both parties, which are
Ukraine and Russia to seek a peaceful resolution through bilateral dialogue. NATO also giving
sanction to the Russia because of the aggression that Russia did. Indeed, Crimea is going to be
the subject of long negotiations within the countries in that around Crimea (NATO, 2017).

Not only form the security organization that involved in this problem, EU or called with
European Union is also one regional organization that persuaded by Poland in the problem of
annexation of Crimea by Russia. Initially, the EU was formed for several reasons. However,
the most underlying formation of the EU itself due to World War II or the European War has
had a devastating impact on all aspects, include the economy. At that time, Europe suffered a
very depressing economic depression. In addition to losing the war, countries in Europe must
also pay the cost of war issued by war-winning countries (Rosamond, 2000). Almost all
government bureaucracy and its infrastructure are not carried out properly. As a result, there is
a macro and micro economic downturn. Famine and shortage of employment causes crime
rates to rise. The chaos in postwar Europe invited more attention from each leader who then
agreed to slowly improve the state of the European economy that will gradually evoke Europe.
When the economic aspects of Europe are judged to be getting better with that cooperation will
be established, then the expansion of cooperation is no longer in the economic field alone but
extended to the political, defense and security fields, as well as fields others(Europa, 2007).

The European Union (EU) itself is an international organization of European countries

formed to promote economic integration and strengthen relationships between member
countries. A unique form of cooperation because not only melting the boundaries in a narrow
sense. However, this cooperation is more to the establishment of a governmental structure in
Europe. The emergence of aspirations post-war in Europe or World War II formed an
organization supranational Europe that has motives of both political motives and motives
economy. The political motive is based on the belief that the organization supranational can
eliminate the threat of war among European countries, while the economic motive is believed
that if Europe is under one supranational organization then Europe will have bigger market and
this market will increase competition as well as rising living standards European citizens.

The assumption of a merger between economic motives and political motives is that
economic power is the basis of political and military power as well as an integrated economy

15 | P a g e
is believed to reduce possible conflicts occurs among European countries. Another goal of the
EU is to implement Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) by introducing one European
currency that is Euro for all EU member states. It is still being developed in the EU because
until now there are still some countries that do not use the Euro as their currency even though
they are EU members.

From the earliest history of the EU formation which began with the issue of
development economy, we will see that the main policy of the EU is the economy. But along
with the formation of the European Union as a government, then we knows if the EU has now
become a political unity of course the policy will be based on the political interests of its
member countries. Policy making by the European Commission which is subsequently brought
to Parliament Europe is based on the political economy needs of the EU itself.

In the eyes of the world, the EU is a powerful economic power against the global market
after the United States. Much of what the Union does Europe as an economic and political
unity. Among other things, aid funds to developing countries and member states. In tax and
customs matters, EU member states fix one tariffs and equality in agreements or negotiations
international.

In addition to the economic and political fields, the EU is cooperating in the field
defense and security. Although not classified as a great power state, EU can be classified
already advanced in defense and its security. This is reflected in cooperation in criminal
matters, including sharing intelligence through EUROPOL and Information Systems
Schengen, and an agreement on a common definition of crime and extradition procedures. The
EU also established a policy common security as a common goal, including the establishment
of Units European Fast Reaction to safeguard world peace, EU military staff and a EU satellite
centers for intelligence or reconnaissance needs (Peterson, 2008). The EU has also set about
asylum and immigration policies. Restrict the number of immigrants and the requirements of
being EU citizens.

As explained above about the roles of EU, Poland is one of the members in EU that
also hold the big impact for European countries. Then, regarding this problem, Poland
persuades EU to give sanctions to Russia. The EU has strongly condemned Russia's illegal
annexation of Crimea and does not recognize it. In the absence of de-escalatory steps by the
Russian Federation, EU remains ready to reverse its decisions and reengage with Russia when

16 | P a g e
it starts contributing actively and without ambiguities to finding a solution to the Ukrainian
crisis.

In 2014 Poland confirmed its role as one of the European Union’s foreign policy
leaders. The Russian-Ukrainian conflict hit Poland’s interests hard, and Warsaw was put in the
driver’s seat of EU diplomacy almost by default. Poland played an instrumental role in forging
the EU response to Russia’s actions against Ukraine, especially in the initial phase of the
conflict. Poland stood in the first rank of countries demanding a bolder EU response to the
annexation of Crimea (Baczynska, 2017). It supported from the very beginning personal and
economic sanctions against Russia – despite the economic costs for itself, especially in the
agricultural sector.

Poland Bilateral Relations with Russia

Poland bilateral relations with Russia become more intricate since the annexation of
Crimea. Both nations are Slavic; they speak similar languages, and have lived in relatively the
same way throughout history. Over various periods of history, both Poland and Russia have
conquered each other's territory. Despite all the similarities, however, there are sharp
contrasts. Poles are Roman Catholics, and therefore use the Latin alphabet in their script, as
well as being a very Western-oriented country; Russians are of the Orthodox religion, which
has a centuries-long hatred of Roman Catholicism, and therefore write using the Cyrillic
alphabet. In addition, Russia is oriented towards the East, towards Byzantine for its religious
history, and the hordes of Mongolia for its political history. The centuries of conquering each
other, as well as totally opposite ways of thinking, have left a long mark of distrust between
the peoples of these two countries.

In more recent history, relations between Russia and Poland have been even more
complex. Poland has found itself caught between two powerful countries, and the center of a
tug-and-war game between the capitalist and socialist superpowers of the world. Throughout
most of the 20th century, Poland projected a political image of an ally of Russians and the
whole Soviet Union, but behind the scenes, quite a different situation existed. After a
combination of World War I and the October Socialist Revolution in Russia, it seemed as if
Poland would be left alone by both of its powerful neighbors. Germany was destroyed during
the war, and Russia was in the middle of devastating civil wars during the construction of the
Soviet Union. During the 1920s and 1930s, however, Poland found itself stuck between two of

17 | P a g e
the most powerful leaders of the entire century - Germany's Adolf Hitler and the Soviet Union's
Josef Stalin.

World War II saw Poland invaded from all sides, and eventually moved to a different
place on the map when its borders were shifted to the west, taking territory away from Germany
and providing more land for the Soviet Union. The country was first invaded from the west by
Hitler's Nazi soldiers. While laying waste to Poland, Hitler had his eyes on the USSR. Despite
a tentative non-aggression pact signed between Germany and the Soviet Union to give Stalin
some feeling of protection, Hitler had no intention of keeping his word. In 1941, Hitler began
his massive invasion of the Soviet Union. So massive was Germany's attack against the USSR
that the war is not just known as World War II in the Soviet Union - it is named the Great
Patriotic War, in reference to the massive suffering of the country, followed by a miraculous
buildup of defensive and offensive military power, culminating in Soviet liberation of Europe
all the way to Berlin itself.

This is where the most serious and current problems in Polish-Russian relations begin.
As a result of the Soviet liberation of Germany, Poland had been overrun by soldiers of both
the Nazi army and the Soviet Red Army. Germany was again defeated, the Soviet Union was
a victorious superpower, and Poland was caught in the middle. The passionately anti-
Communist American president Truman tried to prevent any Soviet influence in Poland,
knowing he needed the support of Polish Americans to keep him in office, as well as refusing
to allow the socialist Soviet Union to have any upper hand over the United States, but
ultimately, failed. After breaking a series of promises to Stalin during the war, which resulted
in heavy Soviet losses, Truman was now powerless to prevent Stalin from exacting his
reparations. After being invaded for centuries by Western European powers, Stalin decided that
the borders of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and the whole Soviet nation, needed to be protected.
For the first time in all of history, this was accomplished by the creation of a political buffer
zone across all of central Europe.

Since the October Socialist Revolution that brought down the autocratic Russian
Empire, communist parties came to existence throughout Europe. However, before World War
II, only the USSR could claim communism as its ruling mandate. After the war, Stalin needed
to create a buffer zone around the European borders of the Soviet Union to provide a guaranteed
defense against any further invasions into Soviet territory from the west. For the entire country,
this idea received widely popular support. The Great Patriotic War was especially devastating

18 | P a g e
for the Soviet Union, and no one wanted to see a repeat of the death and destruction caused by
World War II. Having started the war not only totally unprepared militarily, the USSR was also
seriously behind the West in technological and economic advancement. By 1945, however, the
Soviet flag was flying over the Reichstag, Soviet military power was admired and feared the
world over, and the Soviet leadership was finally in a position to ensure that such a violent
attack against the USSR would never happen again.

To create this buffer zone, Stalin needed the unquestioning political support of his
western neighbors. This especially included Poland, which has always been the gateway to
invasions of Russia from the west. To get this needed political support, the Soviet Union
assisted the existing communist parties to come to power throughout all of central
Europe. Within a few years, socialism and alliances with the Soviet Union had been established
in the Soviet zone of Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, Yugoslavia,
Romania, and, of course, Poland. This was a major change for these countries, most of which
had been Western-oriented for quite a long time. To have their political, economic, and social
influences now coming from the East, especially from "backwards" Russia, was quite a shock
for the citizens of these new socialist territories.

For Poles especially, this was not a change that was going to be accepted
willingly. Even though Poles and Russians are both Slavs, and practically neighbors, I already
mentioned that Poland is Roman Catholic, and therefore Western-oriented, and Russia is
Orthodox and Eastern-oriented. On top of the territorial disputes of the past, this created an
environment hostile towards Russia, and especially the Soviet Union, in Poland. For the Soviet
Union, though, it was a guarantee of a stable western border, and most importantly - protection
from the conquering armies of Western Europe.

Poles felt this "conquering" of their country by Russians, as well as the implementation
of socialism, which ran contrary to the established Western way of doing things, to be the
ultimate indignity. Thus, Poles felt that they had lost even their homeland. Soviets, as well as
most Russians today, however, have a very different view on things, all resulting from
experiences from the Great Patriotic War. Not just villages, but even major cities, such as Kiev
and Minsk, were entirely wasted during the war and had to be totally rebuilt from scratch.
Leningrad endured unimaginable suffering during the 900-day blockade imposed by Hitler,
and Moscow itself was in danger of being overrun by Nazi forces. Further south, the region of
the Volga River also sustained tremendous damage and death. It is here, though, especially in

19 | P a g e
the cities of Stalingrad and Kursk, where the Soviet Army was finally able to begin defeating
the "invincible" army of Hitler's Third Reich.

It is this suffering, as well as the fact that the USSR was ultimately victorious in the
war, that leads Russians to think that the creation of a buffer zone was the right thing to
do. Poles, however, will never be able to forgive the Russians for what those in Poland consider
to be half a century of occupation and domination by their neighbors to the east, over a border
that has been uneasy for centuries.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Poland reinforcement of politics, economics, and military policy mainly

drive by its neighboring countries such as Russia and Ukraine. Russia in one hand was Poland
biggest fear of colonialism as well as poverty. Ukraine on the other is Poland eastern frontline
to confront Russia that is why Ukraine situation has to be stabilized. Globally, Poland has had
persuade United Nations to act towards Crimean crisis. However, due to the diplomatic
constrain the world needs bigger attention than just Poland’s security as well as national
interest. Then, Poland tries to find a reliable alliance in NATO with the help of United States
in terms of military assistant. In terms of economics as well as politics, Poland has built strong
relations with Germany and succeeds on joining European Union with its famous Weimar
Triangle. Therefore, with the three elements of cooperation in bilateral, regional as well as
global, Poland tries its best to reinforcing its foreign policy towards Russia in Crimean crisis.

REFERENCES

Baczynska. (2017). “EU Extends Crimea Sanctions, Same Seen for Curbs on Russia.” Retrieved
December 10, 2017, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-eu-
russia/eu- extends-crimea-sanctions-same-seen-for-curbs-on-russia-idUSKBN19A1BW

Board, William J. In Taking Crimea, Putin gain a Sea of Fuel Reserve. May 17, 2014.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/world/europe/in-taking-crimea-putin-gains-a-sea-of-
fuel-reserves.html (accessed December 14, 2017).

Buras, P. & Balcer, A. (2016). “An Unpredictable Russia: the Impact on Poland.” Asia & China.
Retrieved December 18, 2017, from
http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_an_unpredictable_russia_the_impact_on_poland

20 | P a g e
Day, Matthew. Poland increases military spending in response to Russia's belligerence. May 31, 2015.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/11641852/Poland-increases-
military-spending-in-response-to-Russias-belligerence.html (accessed December 14, 2017).

Dunne, T., Kuriki, M., & Smith, S. (2010). International Relations Theories: Discipline and
Diversity. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 80-81.

Harsch, M. F. (2015). The Power of Dependence: NATO-UN COpeeration in Crisis Management.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hickerson. (2007). United States v. Hickerson. Retrieved December 10, 2017, from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1382767.html

Jalabi, Alan Yuhas & Raya. Why Crimea Is So Valuable To Russia. March 7, 2014.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-crimea-is-so-valuable-to-russia-2014-3/?IR=T (accessed
December 13, 2017).

Martin Nunn, Martin Foley. Oil and gas could explain Putin's costly attempt to control the Crimea.
March 14, 2014. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/oil-and-gas-could-explain-
putins-costly-attempt-to-control-the-crimea-9193464.html (accessed December 14, 2017).

Matzek, J. (2016). Annexation of Crimea by Russia Federation. Retrieved December 14, 2017, from
http://www.politikaspolecnost.cz/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Matzek_Annexation-of-
Crimea_EN.pdf

NATO. The energy dimensions of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. 2015.

https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2014/NATO-Energy-security-running-on-empty/Ukraine-
energy-independence-gas-dependence-on-Russia/EN/index.htm (accessed December 13,
2017).

Peterson, J. (2008). Enlargement, reform and the European Comission.

Rosamond, B. (2000). Theories of European Integration. Milan: Palgrave Macmillan.

Schuman, R. (2016). The Annexation of Crimea: Lessons for European Security. European Issues.
Retrieved December 14, 2017, from https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/doc/questions-d-
europe/qe-382-en.pdf

Teacher, L. (2013). Role of North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Retrieved December 10, 2017, from
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/international-law/role-of-north-atlantic-treaty-
organization-international-law-essay.php

UN (2014). Backing Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity, UN Assembly Declares Crimea Referendum

Invalid. Retrieved December 10, 2017, from
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47443#.WjKmjv6cHIU

UNGA (2014). General Assembly Adopts Calling Upon States not to Recognize Changes in Status of
Crimea Region. Retrieved December 10, 2017, from
https://www.un.org/press/en/2014/ga11493.doc.htm

21 | P a g e