Controversy surrounding the Centralny Port Komunikacyjny and conflicting expert opinions
A heated moment unfolded during a cabinet meeting when the Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, stated that all existing expert opinions questioned the very idea of the CPK. On the X platform, contextual notes from users quickly linked to the Prime Minister’s words claimed there was no publicly available confirmation from experts. Yet a large number of voices contend the opposite.
CPK represents a planned investment estimated at no less than PLN 155 billion. The assertion that every expert view doubts the project has dominated public discourse, particularly in voivodeships where regional airports operate relatively well. While the administration, together with the President, commits to strengthening communications, aviation, and railway infrastructure, there is also a clear emphasis on prudent management of public funds.
– these remarks were delivered during a cabinet briefing by Donald Tusk. Critics suggest the comment mirrors a tactic once used by a former minister to defend actions seen by opponents as harmful to public media independence. Some argue that expert opinions supporting these actions would appear in public forums too. In fact, two opinions were mentioned—one after a significant shift in public media control by coalition forces—but details remain contested.
Later, X users verified the Prime Minister’s statement by posting contextual snippets under messages from the Prime Minister’s Office that echoed the claim: there is no public record of any expert opinion challenging the investment. In contrast, other expert analyses exist, including documents prepared for the prior government, which allegedly advocated constructing an air hub in central Poland.
A storm on the internet after Tusk’s words
The debate did not end there. A lively outcry followed at the entrance of the Prime Minister’s Chancellery. Various users pressed for the disclosure of at least one expert opinion that would challenge the investment. Members of Parliament from Lewica Razem, including Paulina Matysiak, announced they had submitted questions to the Prime Minister about this issue.
There was a sense that the discussion was just beginning.
Remarkably, a 2010 expert opinion—nearly 230 pages long—appears to argue that the CPK is not only profitable but that alternatives to the project do not exist. Its executive summary is cited as evidence that the venture has strong justification. At that time, the PO-PSL coalition held power and Donald Tusk served as Prime Minister.
One line stands out: not all existing expert opinions questioned the project. Some analyses, including those prepared at the request of the previous government, reportedly supported the investment and even highlighted its potential benefits for the region.
People challenged the blanket claim that every expert opinion was against the investment. A recurring sentiment emerged: there is room for a broader discussion with more voices heard and more data available.
There were calls for public access to these expert opinions. Critics suggested that many opinions may have been delivered orally or relied on earlier work, and that government officials might be aware of their content but have not publicly shared them. The conversation also touched on audits and how they relate to the CPK project.
In the dialogue that followed, references were made to private sector analyses from PwC and Ernst & Young that reportedly supported the CPK’s construction. The broader point raised was that in today’s internet era, facts can travel quickly and be cross-checked, unlike the year 2000 when information could spread with far less scrutiny.
There were strong reactions: some characterized the stance as misinformation; others urged faster public disclosure to counter manipulation of statements about the CPK. The expectation grew that the Prime Minister would share more of the supporting material to allow the public to form independent judgments.
As the discussion evolved, questions looked for concrete responses: which expert opinions were cited by the Prime Minister in his quoted remarks? who conducted these opinions and when? how do these analyses relate to announced audits of the CPK project? The overarching aim was a substantive debate grounded in specific, citable sources.
A wider audience, including individuals and organizations seeking access to the expert opinions, argued that many findings might be oral rather than written and that some contents could have been forgotten or overlooked by officials. The conversation also touched on public statements by major firms about the project and whether there is a need for a robust public record to verify claims in the online era.
Debate continued about whether public institutions and political leadership should provide more context to counter perceived manipulation of the CPK narrative. There was a clear desire for accountability and for transparency around the expert inputs used to justify the project.
If authorities reference multiple expert opinions, supporters urged the public sector to release at least some copies so that citizens can draw their own conclusions. The call remained for comprehensive disclosure to support an informed, substantive discussion.
tkwl/X
[Citation: wPolityce]