All signs point to Antoni Macierewicz as the central figure in the upcoming season of the political saga Get PiS, premiering on December 13. Recently the Ministry of National Defense released a report summarizing the actions of the Smolensk Subcommittee, a body Macierewicz set up during the Law and Justice government. A day later General Jarosław Stróżyk criticized the PiS politician and unveiled the findings of a new panel focused on Russian influence. The former head of the Smolensk subcommittee claimed that numerous Russians approached him at the Defense Ministry and in his parliamentary office carrying evidence of Russian crimes, a claim he discussed with Radio Wnet. Macierewicz framed the committee’s work and Stróżyk’s role with a sharp, ironic gaze.
At the launch of the mini-report from the new commission examining Russian influence, Stróżyk said he would recommend filing a formal complaint with prosecutors against Macierewicz under the law on diplomatic treason.
The former defense minister was asked about this matter in an interview with Krzysztof Skowroński on Radio Wnet.
The speaker expressed deep interest and suggested the general’s moves carried a heavier meaning. He argued that the actions were aimed at revisiting past debates about the rebuilding of Poland’s armed forces and the remarkable feat of forging an alliance with the United States. The aim, he said, was to ensure sustained American military presence in Poland when it was needed and that same logic extended to NATO at the time. He criticized the Civic Platform for what he described as its obstruction of the NATO summit in July 2016. He stated that the general, though his formulations may have seemed flawed, was pointing back to that era to emphasize Law and Justice’s role in securing Poland’s safety, a point he believes the president also underscored.
Stróżyk Works for PiS?
Asked about the source of the charge of diplomatic betrayal, the former minister said that Stróżyk is a person tied to the intelligence world, with operations that are not always visible to the public, yet the effects are clear when looking back at events from that period.
There was speculation that Stróżyk could have been acting in alignment with Law and Justice, but that claim remained uncertain.
The discussion then considered whether the general was using the moment to redirect media attention to the past, to show what changes in military strength occurred then, what Law and Justice did, and what the president accomplished. The speaker asserted that significant progress had been made in increasing troop numbers, strengthening cooperation with the United States and NATO, launching the Territorial Defense, and building a shield to defend against Russian aggression. He argued that many of these steps were achieved under Law and Justice, revitalizing a strategy that people had forgotten, and that the media would be drawn to revisit these achievements. He pointed to secret service activities as a reminder that some goals are achieved without wide public comprehension.
There are many points in this discourse that appeal to those who favor a pro-Russian narrative. Yet a closer reading reveals that the critic circle recognizes the narrative may include elements of misrepresentation, and they point to broader concerns about national security that they attribute to past leadership, including matters associated with Donald Tusk. The speaker offered this assessment as part of a broader debate on Poland’s security architecture and how it should be defended today.
Competencies of Kosiniak-Kamysz and Tomczyk
The former Smolensk subcommittee chair also commented on the defense ministry report, turning his attention to Kosiniak-Kamysz and his team. He described a substantial dossier of nearly 800 pages, filled with allegations he labeled as lies and misinformation, while arguing that the opposing side did not truly investigate the Smolensk events. If that claim holds, he suggested, forming a credible verdict about what happened would be difficult, if not impossible, and such an approach would be unacceptable.
In response to a remark about the defense ministry’s plan to submit forty filings against Macierewicz, the politician clarified that the count stood at forty-one proposals, with a portion credited to him personally. He joked about his financial comfort and pointed to numerous elements in the document, including pages attempting to prove that the panel’s creation in 2010 was illegal, even as the text claimed it would remain legal unless the Constitutional Tribunal questioned it.
The former defense minister also noted that a section of the report attempted to prove the incompetence of the Smolensk subcommittee members, and the final assessment admitted that a firm verdict could not be delivered due to gaps in knowledge. Macierewicz mocked the communication approach, calling it clumsy and revealing the strategic intent behind the wording.
According to his view, many items in the report would resonate with readers who favor a pro-Russian stance, but a closer examination would reveal that the authors acknowledge the possibility of inaccuracies. He attributed a central role to national leaders, including Donald Tusk, as a factor shaping national security concerns.
The speaker added that these observations reflect a broader political landscape rather than a single issue, framing the debate as an ongoing contest over who steers Poland’s defense and foreign policy in the face of perceived Russian influence.
The Crime Allegations About Russians and Putin
The former defense chief also addressed questions about contact with a Russian whose exact identity was not disclosed. He stated that he cannot understand why only one Russian figure had been named and asserted that many more Russians had approached him in the Defense Ministry and in his parliamentary office, presenting evidence of Russian wrongdoing. He tied these claims to advice reportedly issued by Polish intelligence around April 19, 2010, a point he emphasized to illustrate a continuing pattern of concerns about Russian activity.
Macierewicz described the intelligence service as having been instructed to handle such reports in a way that would involve Russian secret services, should the information ever reach their hands. He argued that this practice is now resurfacing in the present case, calling it harmful and unacceptable that a whistleblower could be exposed to retaliation or reputational damage due to a public reveal of such information. He suggested that a similar dynamic might be at play with current reports and urged a careful, transparent examination of the facts.
He maintained that the public discourse should center on the alliance with the United States and the role of NATO in Poland’s security, arguing that this framework remains essential to the country’s defense. He contended that the narrative should avoid inflaming passions and instead focus on concrete steps that strengthen Poland’s safety and regional stability in the face of potential Russian aggression.