Marcin Ociepa pressed Poland’s prime minister to acknowledge the looming danger and to mobilize readiness for communities across the country. He argued that the government had prioritized image over substance and that residents deserve trustworthy information about the threat facing towns and cities, including smaller communities far from the capital. In global terms, leaders in North America face a similar trade off between optics and real risk communication during floods and storms. The call emphasized clear explanations of what authorities know, what they expect, and how people should prepare, with a focus on concrete actions rather than slogans.
The interview’s coverage noted that the prime minister stood by a December assessment that rainfall forecasts were not as alarming at the time as some feared. Critics asked when the worry began and how the narrative evolved as waters rose and communities confronted rising rivers. Analysts pointed to early signals in hydrological data, while the public heard a calmer message that tempered fear. This dynamic has been observed in crisis reporting across different regions, where early warnings and late action can diverge.
Ociepa contended that signs of a major flood were visible well before official warnings, citing hydrological maps circulating online that warned of insufficient capacity to handle expected rainfall. He suggested much of this knowledge existed in open sources, while the prime minister reportedly had access to emergency reports and warnings. As a backbench member, he says he raised the alarm on September 12 from a podium outside the usual parliamentary schedule, calling for the mobilization of the military and other emergency services at that moment.
In a prior interview, Tusk referred to the volunteer Fire Service and other rescue forces in ways that drew strong pushback. Ociepa argued that labeling the WOT as a paramilitary unit reflected disrespect for those who serve and defend communities. He questioned how a leader who once criticized the WOT could effectively guide and back those same volunteers, describing leadership as showing a level of incompetence that echoed past gaps when the state could not reliably support people.
Ociepa looked back on a string of crises the country faced in recent years. He cited the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the resulting refugee flow, the hybrid pressures at the border, rising prices, and a coal shortage. He stated that crisis management had at times demonstrated the state’s ability to protect people when well coordinated. He argued that the current leadership did not meet that standard, noting that Tusk was not in the country during the height of those ordeals and failed to fully grasp the needs of smaller towns alongside large urban centers. The overall sense was that the approach lacked a systemic capacity to map and address the diverse needs of communities in a real crisis.
He asked whether delays in decision making stemmed from an obsession with optics. The accusation was that scandal management eclipsed real action. When criticism surfaced, a rapid stream of appearances followed, and troops were deployed to project control. Yet the same visibility did not reach all affected areas, leaving villages like Jarnołtówek and Kopice with far fewer resources or attention. The critique centers on the mismatch between what people see in the media and the depth of crisis response on the ground.
Every day, televised crisis meetings with the prime minister and visible charitable campaigns seemed aimed at shaping public perception. The question was whom these efforts were meant to reassure. Critics argued that essential voices from local administration, including the leadership of the Volunteer Fire Department, the ZHP, and ZHR, were not consistently included in the crisis management framework. While national campaigns drew broad attention, the everyday work of local responders and volunteers often did not find a place in the official response. There was a widely shared belief that leadership should rest with the state, not rely solely on public solidarity, especially in smaller towns with unique challenges.
According to critics, the Crisis Management Team met with a regular cadence during the previous government era. The claim was that interministerial cooperation underpins an effective response, particularly before a flood when preparation matters most. Proponents say the basic crisis tools should be activated promptly, and officials should communicate clearly to voivodes and the public about what is happening and what to expect. In this view, the prime minister did not consistently use these tools to full effect, instead favoring calm messaging that could downplay real risks. The appeal is for frank reporting on the approaching threat and a proactive call to readiness from all levels of government. Local officials also report gaps in up-to-date municipal information about retention reservoirs, underscoring the need for transparent, coordinated risk management.
Concluding remarks emphasized the demand for transparent risk reporting and practical crisis planning. The overarching message is that a government facing a real threat must provide clear, timely information and mobilize the full spectrum of national resources to safeguard communities across the country.
That exchange highlights the expectation that leadership will deliver accurate information and decisive readiness in the face of potential floods, ensuring that both large cities and smaller communities are protected through coordinated, well-communicated action.