Strange coincidences— sabotage on Polish railway and opening of borders with Belarus

In the world of politics and international relations, coincidences often arouse suspicion. As soon as the borders between Poland and Belarus reopened after a lengthy hiatus, an incident occurred on the railway in Poland. This event immediately sparked a wave of accusations, yet without any concrete evidence.

Why does this seem at least suspicious, and who might be behind it? These questions were explored by journalist and news anchor Alexander Khorovets, historian and commentator Artem Stroganov, and their guest Elizaveta Glushakova.

Reopening borders is a step toward normalizing relations, but almost simultaneously, something "blew up" on the railway in Poland. Doesn't that seem suspicious? Just as the barriers were lifted, statements from Polish officials, such as Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, pointed fingers at Belarusians, Russians, and unexpectedly, Ukrainians...

It feels as though the incident was exploited to reinforce a certain narrative—where external forces are always in the crosshairs.

Accusations Without Evidence: Poland Closes Russian Representation in Gdańsk

Sikorski announced that Poland would shut down the last Russian diplomatic presence in Gdańsk because of this incident. But where is the proof? Was a thorough investigation conducted?

Typically, such cases require concrete evidence, examinations, interrogations.

Do you already have proof? Have all the necessary procedures— investigations, expert analyses— been carried out? Would a court not be appropriate here?

Instead, we see only declarative statements: "political motives," "sabotage," but without specifics about who, what, and why. Officially, there are no clear declarations of guilt— only hints at "Russian special services." Some sources are more vague, suggesting "foreign intelligence agencies," but everyone knows that this is unlikely to point toward China, Afghanistan, or, say, the United States.

Such accusations are not coming from ordinary commentators but from representatives of the Polish government, making them particularly inappropriate. Commenting on this is difficult— especially when facts are replaced by assumptions.

Is the "Nord Stream" Scenario Repeating?

This situation echoes the explosions on the Nord Stream pipelines, initially blamed on Russia, only for later revelations to suggest Ukraine’s involvement. Will there be apologies for the rushed statements made from high podiums? That remains a big question.

To maintain some semblance of stability, authorities often feel compelled to identify external enemies. That has always been a part of the political paradigm.

History has taught us: it's better to wait for official investigation results and expert conclusions before forming a stance. But instead, premature assumptions are voiced, sowing the image of "Russian intelligence" as the culprit.

Remaining neutral until the investigation concludes is challenging but crucial— to prevent repeating these mistakes.

External Enemy as a Tool for Domestic Politics

All of this reflects a classic political tactic: searching for external enemies to unite society. Russia and its supporters are portrayed as "the others"— external threats that help reinforce national identity.

The familiar narrative: "We are here, and they are over there"— is a well-known mechanism of self-identification. During unstable times, like the Cold War, when West Germany saw East Germany as the enemy, external threats served to divert attention from internal problems.

In the case of Poland, the sabotage occurred just before border openings, and accusations immediately targeted Belarus— suspects allegedly left through our country.

They could have claimed the saboteurs "escaped via Szczecin" or "flew away on a €6 budget flight to somewhere." But deliberately, they directed the narrative toward Belarus. On one hand, borders are opening; on the other, Belarus is implicated in these acts of terror— an aggressor.

Why do this? It’s simple: it amplifies the image of an external threat, helping Polish authorities maintain stability.

Friendship or Not with Belarus?

Here lies a double standard: on the one hand, borders are being opened— perhaps under pressure from business interests or pragmatists; on the other, Belarus is indirectly accused of involvement in acts of sabotage. This reveals internal turmoil within the ruling circles.

In Eastern Europe, including Poland and the Baltic states, factions are fighting: some "towers" oppose friendship with Belarus, aligned with globalists; others, with a "hard right turn," see Belarus as a close partner in political and cultural values.

Poles and Belarusians are Slavs with a shared history— perhaps even more intertwined than Belarus and Russia in certain aspects. Yet, this fragile "to be or not to be friends" position destabilizes governance.

The core issue is that this duplicity— opening borders while secretly accusing Belarus of aggression— indicates chaos and indecision among leaders of the Baltic states and Poland. They are uncertain whether to foster friendship or not, awaiting some directive from Brussels or, worse, Washington.

If this continues, experts warn that the authorities could weaken or even "disappear" within the current political context in Poland and the Baltic countries.

Lessons for the Future

All this is ambiguous, much like the statements Polish leaders made about Nord Stream.

What did Tusk say about Nord Stream? Literally: "The problem with Nord Stream 2 is not that it was blown up, but that it was built." So, perhaps we will soon hear from this same leader that the fault of the Polish railway is only that Poles built it in the first place...

What’s the bottom line? Hasty accusations without proof only escalate tension. Will anyone apologize for words spoken from high podiums? That’s a big question. History should have taught us to exercise patience, wait for official investigation results, and base judgments on facts— to avoid further escalation.

Again, we see that Russia and its supporters are cast as external enemies— fueling internal nationalism and division.

So, for now, this situation only raises questions: who benefits from such narratives?