Michał Kobosko: No Concessions for Lukashenka
- 2.09.2026, 12:30
The dictator has been deceiving the West for far too long.
Vice-Chair of the European Parliament Delegation for relations with Belarus and Polish MEP Michał Kobosko spoke in a major interview with Charter97.org about Poland’s role in the architecture of European security amid the reduction of the US presence in Europe, assessed the impact of sanctions on the Russian and Belarusian economies, and explained why supporting political prisoners in Belarus and maintaining pressure on the Lukashenka regime remain not only a political issue for him, but also a personal one.
— Given that the United States is reducing its presence and commitments in Europe, what role should Poland play in the future European security architecture?
— First and foremost, I hope and believe that the United States will not significantly reduce its presence in Europe. Europe needs the United States as a stabilizing force, as a source of support in peacetime, and as a force that deters a potential Russian aggressor from hostile actions. I believe — and I always repeat this to our American allies — that it is in the interests of the United States itself for Europe to be safe and for Americans to remain militarily engaged in Europe. Of course, this does not mean that the US is not making changes. We do not know how far these changes will go, but we have to take into account that the United States is shifting its focus toward Asia and the Pacific — a region it considers strategically the most important.
In this context, I believe Poland will inevitably have to become increasingly involved in building the international security structure and architecture. We are the largest country in the European Union and NATO on the eastern flank. We are a frontline country that invests heavily in its own defense and security. We often hear that we are a model for our allies in both NATO and the European Union, because we are not only spending a large percentage of our GDP, but are also rapidly modernizing and strengthening our armed forces and our security — and this is visible everywhere. So this is not about declaring Poland to be some kind of great power, but about showing by our example that we can and must invest much more in modernizing our defense and deterrence capabilities. We are not preparing for war; we are doing everything we should to make an aggressor abandon any plans for hostile actions against Poland by seeing that we will be capable of defending ourselves in cooperation with our allies, especially within NATO, while at the same time building and expanding our own defense capabilities.
This concerns direct action — defense spending and military modernization — but it is also connected to the political side, namely the need for Poland to play a more active role in negotiations on European security. We are one of the largest countries in the European Union, and for that reason alone we bear greater responsibility for the direction in which the European project develops. Today, the security situation in Europe has changed dramatically. My colleagues from other European countries understand that this challenge concerns the whole of Europe, not only countries such as the Baltic states, Poland, Romania and other countries in this region. Today, the whole of Europe is under threat. In this situation, Poland, which is a positive example, should also be at the table during political negotiations, raising certain issues even if other European countries do not perceive the situation as seriously from their perspective. We have a very active prime minister, the president of Poland takes part in many international forums, and the minister of national defense and minister of foreign affairs are highly active at meetings devoted to European security. I believe Poland should always be at the table wherever issues such as Russian aggression against Ukraine, the future reconstruction of Ukraine, its membership in the European Union and, in the future, NATO are being discussed.
“Constant Dripping Wears Away a Stone Effectively”
— Today, the Moscow Exchange index is close to its lowest level since 2022, when unprecedented European sanctions were imposed over Russia’s war of aggression. Over five years, major Russian companies have lost 44% of their value. Will Ukrainian strikes on oil infrastructure deep inside Russian territory lead to a turning point, or is this more likely to be a temporary and reversible phenomenon?
— I believe that constant dripping can effectively wear away a stone. On the one hand, there are political and economic measures, particularly on the part of the European Union. I mean the next package of sanctions against Russia. So, on the one hand, sanctions are being expanded with new elements, and on the other, the sanctions adopted earlier are being tightened. It is clear that there are loopholes and that Russia and Belarus are circumventing these sanctions in various ways. That is why these measures are necessary. On the other hand, through Western support, primarily from the European Union, we are helping Ukraine in its defensive war and believe that Ukraine has every right to defend itself against the aggressor, including by striking targets deep inside the territory of the Russian Federation.
In addition to the economic consequences, there are also social consequences in Russia. Until recently, Russians believed that this war was happening somewhere far away from them, that it did not directly affect them, that it was, on the whole, a victorious war and that it was only a matter of time before Ukraine would fall and surrender. Today, Russians are feeling firsthand the consequences of the war that Vladimir Putin started single-handedly. And although, as we know, the opposition in Russia has been suppressed and has no broad opportunities to act, ordinary citizens in Russia can see what the consequences of this war are. They spend hours standing in lines at gas stations, see prices rising, and see that the Russian economy is in terrible condition. I know that Russian society, having lived through tsarism and communism, is capable of enduring a great deal, but at the same time, these consequences are catastrophic for Russia, and the economic consequences are becoming increasingly visible in the form of a crisis in the Russian economy.
These Ukrainian strikes show that Ukraine, which was supposedly so weak, possesses technologies capable of reaching targets and inflicting damage far from the Ukrainian-Russian border. On the other hand, they show that Russia and its defense system are not prepared for attacks from outside. I think Russians are beginning to understand that Russia, with its dreams and self-image as an economic and military power, is today neither an economic nor a military superpower. It has a large population and a huge army, but no country can function normally, economically and socially, while suffering the kind of losses — killed and wounded month after month — that Russia is suffering today as a result of President Putin’s actions.
“Russia Is Now an International Pariah”
— Let us go back to the period before the start of Russia’s full-scale aggression — there was an impression that Ukraine was incapable of defending itself. Compare that with today, when Ukraine is on a steady path toward the European Union. Let us also look at Russia: before the war, Russia was considered the world’s second-largest military power, with ambitions regarding half the world. Where does Russia stand today?
— Russia is definitely in a much worse position than it was. The Russian Federation is largely cut off from the world, and this is the result of the actions of President Putin’s administration. Today, Russia is an international pariah, and Russian citizens, unfortunately, have to accept that when they travel around the world, they are looked at askance as citizens of an aggressor state that attacked its neighbor and carries out deadly attacks day after day, targeting civilian facilities — schools, hospitals and residential buildings in Ukrainian cities. This is not a war between Russia and the Ukrainian army; it is a war by Russia against the Ukrainian people, against an independent, sovereign state, and it is happening in the 21st century in Europe, when it seemed that Europe had no place left for such a way of resolving conflicts, disputes or the ambitions of individual states. So today, Russia is behaving like a country that is not in Europe and does not operate in the 21st century, but has been pushed back by entire generations.
Russia has been pushed backward by President Putin in every respect. Perhaps in terms of innovation and military technology, Russia has advanced, because during this war, which has been going on for more than four years, it has changed its tactics. At the beginning of the full-scale aggression, Russia wanted to wage war in a style reminiscent of 20th-century wars, with huge offensives involving soldiers, tanks, armored personnel carriers and aircraft. It turns out that this simply does not work on the battlefield today, so Russia is changing its tactics and improving its weapons, especially means of aerial attack — missiles and drones, developed in part using Iranian technologies. All of this is happening, but outside the battlefield, in every other sphere, Russia is losing.
The consequences, I believe, will be felt for decades. This is a setback for a country that already had enormous problems because it developed unevenly and was heavily dependent on revenues from the sale of natural resources, primarily oil, gas and other natural wealth that Russia had and still has. Today, Russia is a country that would need, if it were possible, a complete restructuring of its economy in order to have any chance of functioning. There are different scenarios. One is that Russia will completely close itself off from the world; another is that it will become a satellite of China and become increasingly divided into parts of the PRC. So all of these are bad scenarios for Russia, and in fact also bad for Europe. As Europe, we would like to see Russia as a partner that does not pose a military threat to all of us, that develops and wants to cooperate with us. But Russia has chosen a different path. Nobody provoked Russia, nobody threatened Russia, nobody wanted to take its natural resources or economic power, but Russia chose the path of aggression and, accordingly, chose the path of becoming an international pariah.
“I Wouldn’t Want to Be in Putin’s Shoes”
— Yet Putin is still not seeking a peace deal. As General Zaluzhnyi said, it was a mistake to hope that human losses would change the calculations in Russia. Economically, as you said, people are capable of enduring a great deal. So what could become the final straw that changes Putin’s calculations?
— At this point, I would say that Putin believes he has no way out, that he must continue the war. It is a kind of desperation — all his power in Russia is based on the fact that he is waging war, that he constantly uses propaganda to claim that this is a war to defend Russia against Western aggression, against an attempt to strip Russia of its identity and independence. But given the scale of the casualties and losses Russia is suffering, if this war ended today, I would say that I would not want to be in Putin’s place, because the Russian people would then come to him demanding answers — with so many people killed in the war, with so many veterans and people permanently physically and psychologically scarred. I am less concerned about this than I am about Ukrainian losses, which are also enormous and represent a colossal demographic blow to Ukraine, but I am speaking about it in the context that Putin has the impression that he cannot end this war — his power is based on waging war and deceiving Russian society into believing that he is fighting a defensive war, almost in association with the Great Patriotic War, that he is defending himself against external aggression. But when this war ends, people will say: fine, there is no more war, but what next? And Putin has nothing to offer the Russian people — absolutely nothing.
What could become the final straw? I think money. Money is what everyone is watching, and Putin pays close attention to it as well — both to his own enormous personal fortune and to the money of Russian oligarchs, who are losing out day after day: their companies are worth less and less, oligarchs and their businesses are being added to sanctions lists, and many have had to return to Russia because they can no longer travel to Europe or do business around the world. Sanctions are becoming broader and tighter. I think there could be a revolt among those who have money in Russia and see that Putin is leading them toward bankruptcy — both as a country and individually, as their companies go under. I often point to the case of Russian airlines and the entire aviation industry, which cannot develop without cooperation with the West and without spare parts — hence the record number of accidents and incidents in Russian aviation and the bankruptcy, or near-bankruptcy, of an aviation industry that was always a source of pride for the Russian Federation. Today it is clear that after being cut off from international cooperation, this sector is unable to cope, and it is only one of many industries in the world that are global and function on the basis of international cooperation, networks of partners, suppliers and technologies. Russia is in a critical situation in this regard. So today Putin clearly wants to continue the war, mainly because he has nothing else to offer his citizens.
“Europe Must Not Forget About Belarus”
— How important are sanctions against Putin’s closest ally, the Lukashenka regime, in maintaining pressure on the Russian economy?
— I believe they are just as important as sanctions against Russia. The Belarusian economy is very closely intertwined with the Russian economy. Belarus has also been used to circumvent sanctions imposed on Russian companies. Lukashenka has not directly involved Belarus in the war against Ukraine in terms of deploying the Belarusian army, but he is constantly balancing on the brink, trying to show that he is independent, while in reality he is now completely dependent on Russia. So as long as the situation in Belarus remains one in which a dictator who illegitimately calls himself the president of Belarus is in power, these sanctions must remain in place, and Belarus should be treated as an extension of the interests of the Russian Federation.
We see and appreciate the humanitarian role of President Trump’s administration in securing the release of people from prison, and we do not criticize it for that. But what raises doubts is that Lukashenka releases several prisoners and effectively buys the lifting of some US sanctions, even though we know that by releasing some people he is not changing his repressive policy toward his own society in any way, and new prisoners continue to be sent to Belarusian jails. Therefore, we cannot allow ourselves to be deceived by such tricks used by the Lukashenka regime, and in our view these sanctions must remain in force. Sanctions against Belarus must not be eased until democratic rights are introduced, genuine elections can be held and the KGB’s grip on people comes to an end, because this is a regime that treats its own citizens with extreme brutality, which is unacceptable for Europe.
— As Andrzej Poczobut said at the European Parliament, your voice is heard beyond the free world, breaking through prison walls. What are your priorities in your role as Vice-Chair of the European Parliament Delegation for relations with Belarus?
— First of all, I must say that I have been fortunate — I have never been a prisoner, I have never been in jail, so I will not pretend to know what it is like behind prison walls. But I am convinced that when prisoners held by the regime, whether in Belarus or Russia, receive information that there are people who constantly think about them, who call for their release and take action and adopt new resolutions, it brings some relief.
That is largely how I see my role in the delegation for Belarus in the European Parliament. I prefer to call it the delegation for a free Belarus, because we do not maintain relations with either the “parliament” of Belarus or the Lukashenka regime. Our role is to ensure that Europe and the world do not forget about Belarus and about the political prisoners who are still in prison. Without criticizing my colleagues from Western Europe, I often have the impression that Belarus has largely been forgotten, that there is a widespread view that it lies within Russia’s sphere of influence and is therefore not worth addressing separately, while the Ukrainian issue naturally draws attention away from Belarusian matters.
Warsaw is only 200 km from the border with Belarus — but not only because Belarus is our neighbor and because I am a member of the European Parliament from Poland — I believe Europe cannot forget about Belarusian affairs. That is why we constantly remind people about Belarus by adopting new resolutions, organizing Belarusian weeks in the European Parliament and inviting Belarusian opposition politicians. We always try to remind people of Belarusian problems, of the fact that in the 21st century, in Europe, right on Poland’s border, there is a regime that seems to come from a bygone era, completely out of step with the reality in which we live, and that violates fundamental human and civil rights, is anti-democratic, and whose leader usurps power on the basis of yet another fraudulent presidential election in Belarus.
This needs to be constantly emphasized, while at the same time convincing Western politicians to maintain the sanctions imposed on the regime and not to give Lukashenka any concessions, because he is playing a fairly simple, cynical game with the West: he releases several people from prison and expects sanctions against Belarusian enterprises to be eased in return. But without a change in political policy and without democratization in Belarus, we will continue our work. There is not a particularly large group of European Parliament members working on Belarusian affairs, but we are all active and understand how important this work is.
— You once said that a free Belarus is a matter of conscience, not just politics. What did you mean by that?
— Politics in the modern world is often understood and interpreted as a rather cynical game — a game of interests, a game for power and control, in which some basic values and what all of this is supposed to serve are forgotten. It is a game, like a chessboard, in which one person outmaneuvers another, someone wins, someone loses, and sometimes the goals themselves are completely forgotten.
When I spoke about conscience, I meant the same thing I mentioned a few minutes ago. For us, this is a matter of conscience — we cannot accept the fact that in the heart of Europe, in our time, there is a dictatorship, a country that denies its own citizens basic rights, that drives out of the country everyone who thinks differently and everyone who wants to develop — people who, in essence, are the elite of Belarus. They see no prospects for a life or for their families to develop in Belarus.
Although Poland was not part of the Soviet Union, we were part of Central and Eastern Europe, the Comecon and the Warsaw Pact. We remember perfectly well the times when we did not have basic rights, when crossing the border was a real miracle for Poles, and I remember how you would approach the border and never know, when leaving the Polish People’s Republic, whether you would actually be able to enter other countries. We have come a long way, and it is the story of Poland’s success, the success of democratic change. All the more reason why we believe that for us this is a matter of conscience — to help Belarusians follow a similar path so that one day we can all find ourselves within one common bloc of democratic states.
We do not all necessarily have to be together in NATO or the European Union, although that is one scenario I would gladly see. But I would like all the countries of our part of Europe to form a bloc of democratic states where people can choose their representatives and their president, where no one is thrown into prison for criticizing the authorities, and where people can watch and listen to whatever they want and access whatever internet they choose. Democracy is not something brilliant, and today we see a crisis of democracy and democratic institutions in many countries, but one can say: this is what people have chosen, and people must be allowed to choose rather than being suppressed and deprived of their basic rights. That is why this is a matter of conscience, not politics — it is not a political game, but a question of a just struggle for freedom and support for those Belarusians who dare to fight.