The European Security System after the End of the Russian–Ukrainian War in the Political Conceptions of Law and Justice and Civic Platform

Abstract

The aim of this article is to present the political conceptions of Law and Justice (PiS) and Civic Platform (PO) regarding ways to bring the Russian–Ukrainian war to an end as quickly as possible and to outline a new European security system following the cessation of hostilities. Two research hypotheses are formulated: 1) both parties agree on the need to defeat Russia as swiftly as possible and to establish an international security system capable of protecting European states from further armed aggression; 2) the parties differ in certain respects regarding specific solutions related to the structure of this system. The following research questions are posed: 1) How do the two parties assess the armed conflict? 2) What options do they propose for ending it as quickly as possible? 3) What measures should be taken to prevent further aggression in Europe? 4) What role should Poland play in the future security system? The study employs the analysis of political thought as the primary research method, complemented by sys temic analysis, which reconstructs the European security system proposed by both parties, and compa rative analysis, which identifies similarities and differences between the political concepts of PiS and PO. According to both Law and Justice and Civic Platform, the new European security system established after the end of the Russian–Ukrainian war should guarantee peace and security on the continent by eliminating or minimizing the risk of armed aggression and violations of territorial integrity, sovereignty, or independence of any state. It should be based on cooperation between two international organiza tions: NATO and the European Union. The former, due to its military capabilities, would be responsible for protecting European countries from external armed aggression. The latter, owing to its economic strength, is perceived as the entity capable of supporting European states in raising their level of deve lopment and ensuring the prosperity of their citizens. Although the general principles and objectives of the proposed European security system are largely similar, if not identical, in both parties’ programs, differences emerge with regard to specific institutional arrangements. The first concerns their attitudes toward the European Union and their preferred vision of its future: whether it should function as an international or supranational organization, a union of sove reign states, or a federal entity. The second area of divergence relates to the relationship between NATO and the EU within the security architecture. According to one concept, NATO should retain a monopoly on the use of armed force to deter and counter aggression, while the EU’s role would remain primarily economic and technological. The alternative concept assumes an enhanced role for the EU in ensuring security in Europe through the creation of military structures independent of NATO.