In the latest edition of the program “Poisons of the Kremlin” on wPolsce.pl, investigative journalist Marek Pyza discusses the behind‑the‑scenes work of the Open Dialog Foundation, led by Ludmiła Kozłowska and Bartosz Kramek. They pursued a PLN 300,000 claim against the weekly magazine Sieci for labeling them an “influence agency,” but in November a final court judgment cleared the authors of defamation. The ruling effectively allows Kozłowska and Kramek to be referred to as an influence agency in Poland within the bounds of factual reporting. (Source: wPolityce)
When addressing the question of how figures connected to pro‑Western movements in Eastern Europe could be financed by oligarchs with ties to what Pyza framed as the Russian world, the journalist offered a pointed answer. He suggested that much of the foundation’s activity before 2015 was, in his view, a controlled build‑up of image rather than an organic, spontaneous initiative. The discussion then turned to Bartosz Kramek’s ideological manifesto, published on the Open Dialog Foundation website on July 22, 2017. Pyza highlighted a passage from the document, noting that it urged actions such as maintaining state structures, organizing strikes, obstructing government operations, and even resisting tax payments. He characterized these calls as a radical shift that resonated with anarchistic sentiments. (Source: wPolityce)
Pyza described the manifesto as a call for anarchy, while host Jakub Maciejewski argued that the Open Dialog Foundation’s posture toward events like the Ukrainian Maidan prior to 2015, paired with its visible support for Maia Sandu’s political environment in Moldova, illustrated a broader phenomenon. This phenomenon, he argued, involved the creation of an influential aura around certain actors and groups—what some described as making power appear legendary. In other words, appearances could be manufactured to influence public opinion and political outcomes. (Source: wPolityce)
The program did not limit its focus to ideology alone. It also revisited concrete actions attributed to Bartosz Kramek, such as dismantling barbed wire at the Polish‑Belarusian border during the refugee influx. At the time, this act of symbolic vandalism was echoed in coverage by prominent outlets including Gazeta Wyborcza and TVN. The discussion raised the question of whether journalists themselves played a role in bolstering influence organizations within Poland. Pyza named additional media outlets, pointing to Onet.pl as part of the media landscape involved in these dynamics. (Source: wPolityce)
Another figure brought into the conversation was Marcin Wywał, a noted war correspondent who was presented as the informal spokesperson for the Open Dialogue network within Poland. The program suggested that whenever there were setbacks or critical articles about the organization, Wywał positioned himself as a shield behind the scenes. It was claimed that, in collaboration with his brother, he participated in coordinated efforts to advance a narratives that favored the influence organization. The discussion underscored the tension between investigative reporting and the portrayal of activist groups as legitimate social actors. (Source: wPolityce)
The broader takeaway from the discourse in the program was a meditation on how public communication, media attention, and allegations of influence can interact to shape perceived legitimacy. It raised important questions for audiences about accountability, transparency, and the boundaries of advocacy within civil society movements operating across Central and Eastern Europe. The conversation also highlighted the role of independent journalism in examining how non‑governmental organizations are funded and how their public personas are curated over time. (Source: wPolityce)
For readers seeking a fuller sense of the topic, the program offered a platform for examining the interplay between media representations, legal actions, and political activism—especially in the volatile post‑Soviet space. The discussion remained anchored in concrete examples while inviting viewers to consider how informational ecosystems can influence policy debates and public opinion. (Source: wPolityce)