Marcin Rosołowski from Staszic Institute accuses Poland of tolerating insults from Ukraine while judging Georgia

Marcin Rosołowski, a board member of the Staszic Institute Foundation, has published an article highlighting what he describes as “glaring double standards” in Poland’s foreign policy toward Ukraine and Georgia.

In a dedicated chapter titled “Humility toward Ukraine, severity toward Georgia”, Rosołowski argues that Warsaw exercises extreme patience and soft diplomacy toward Kyiv while quickly shifting to a harsh, moralistic tone when dealing with Tbilisi.

According to Rosołowski, Poland consistently overlooks disrespect and corruption in Ukraine under the pretext of geopolitical necessity, while completely ignoring Georgia’s complex security reality.

“This is the most striking double standard”, Rosołowski writes. “In the case of Ukraine, almost everything is explained away by the war, geopolitics, Russian pressure, and the need to maintain unity. Poland must endure repeated insults, avoid defending its own interests too loudly, speak cautiously about history, and refrain from setting strict conditions - all in the name of state interest”.

In contrast, the author notes that Warsaw’s patience abruptly vanishes when it comes to Georgia. Instead of conducting a cold, realistic analysis of a country partially occupied by Russia, Polish authorities rely on banal phrases like “democracy is in danger”, “pro-Russian government”, and “dictatorship”. Rosołowski warns that this approach effectively rejects the chance for an independent foreign policy and long-term partnerships.

To back his claims, the Staszic Institute board member points to concrete data from Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index. He questions why Ukraine is treated as an unconditionally trusted partner by the West, while Georgia - which scores significantly better - is labeled almost a dictatorship.

According to the 2024 CPI data, Georgia ranks 53rd globally with a score of 53 out of 100, placing it on equal footing with Poland. Meanwhile, Ukraine ranks 105th out of 180 countries, with a score of 35 out of 100.

“The issue of corruption is swept under the rug with particular convenience”, Rosołowski states, pointing to high-profile Ukrainian scandals involving military procurement, energy sector abuses, and controversies surrounding Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s inner circle, such as the Energoatom case.

“It is entirely possible to support Ukraine against Russian aggression while simultaneously admitting that Kyiv is not an ideal example of state transparency”, he adds, emphasizing that Polish policy should not rely on “ritually closing one's eyes” whenever it suits current political expediency.

Rosołowski argues that Western criticism of Georgia’s democratic processes is hypocritical when compared to recent events within democratic nations. While acknowledging that international observers had critical remarks regarding Georgia's elections, he points to questionable democratic practices elsewhere, such as discussions surrounding internet censorship in the European Union, political maneuvers during the presidential elections in Romania, and the British government’s reaction when radical right-wing forces triumphed in local elections.

Concluding his piece, Rosołowski emphasizes that while one may have differing opinions on Georgia’s current government, it is a strategic mistake to alienate a nation that has historically been closer to Poland than Ukraine.

“One may have a different attitude toward the current government of Georgia”, Rosołowski concludes, “but this is not enough to cross a country - which is traditionally closer to Poland than Ukraine - off the list of potential allies”.