The latest episode of the series “Reset” dives into new, compelling findings about the ties between Donald Tusk and Vladimir Putin. A recently revealed note from a phone conversation between the two leaders sheds light on discussions tied to the clashes involving Polish fans during Euro 2012, offering a fresh perspective on how the event was handled at high political levels.
The featured document is a transcript from Tusk’s call with Putin on June 19, 2012. The Russian side initiated the dialogue, and the central theme was the evolving situation surrounding the incidents that occurred before the Poland versus Russia match. The note underscores the gravity of the pregame tensions and the broader political climate surrounding the incident.
In addition, the episode introduces a firsthand account from a Legia Warszawa supporter nicknamed “Waiter,” who was detained twenty-four hours after the match against Russia. His testimony provides a stark, on-the-ground contrast to official narratives and adds texture to the broader discourse about crowd control, security responses, and the lived experience of fans during a highly charged international event.
One quoted remark from the supporter describes a harsh comment overheard by a guard in Mokotów: a warning that the detainee might end up in Moscow if the arrest had occurred there, a sentiment echoed by others who followed the case. The statement is accompanied by recollections of the prison environment, where some claimed there was a lingering, toxic atmosphere toward those perceived as hostile to Russia. The memory is further illustrated by the fan’s remark that, over time, a teacher mentioned the prison as a place where those who opposed the Russians were often condemned, highlighting long-standing tensions tied to the region’s history.
“Waiter” does not spare Donald Tusk from criticism either. He openly characterizes the former prime minister in strong terms, arguing that the public rhetoric around anti-Polish sentiment and perceived betrayal is not just harsh but deeply personal for many fans. The fan asserts that the published material confirms suspicions about political maneuvering and the suppression of dissent, using the phrase that those who claimed Putin orchestrated the arrest were proven right by the events themselves. The testimony is presented as a corroborating piece in a larger debate about political accountability during a period of intense national sentiment.
Commentary from Slawomir Cenckiewicz, a noted historian, adds another layer to the discussion. Cenckiewicz and another interlocutor emphasize that attempts to disrupt or distort the flow of information during the “reset” period did not succeed, according to their interpretation. They suggest that the fans’ issue became one more illustration of alleged contacts between Polish security services and their Russian counterparts, fueling speculation about how information was shared and how influence was exercised at a strategic level.
The episode does not shy away from controversy, and it revisits several claims about the role of intelligence services and the handling of fan-related tensions in the broader narrative of Poland’s political landscape. The participants in the discussion characterize the events as part of a larger pattern of attempts to influence public perception and to manage international relations through discreet channels. The juxtaposition of personal stories with political analysis invites viewers to consider how memory and history intersect with contemporary journalism.
For viewers seeking further context, the program alludes to other analyses and reflections that have surfaced since the events in question, inviting a broader discussion about how political leaders, security services, and sports culture intersect. The conversation illustrates how a single international match can become a focal point for debates about national identity, legitimacy, and power. The episode thus positions itself as a catalyst for ongoing examination of the interplay between sports events, media narratives, and state interests, encouraging audiences to weigh multiple viewpoints and assess the reliability of various sources. (Source: wPolityce)