Predictable moves emerged as the opposition, uneasy about a potential special commission to examine Russia’s impact on Poland’s internal security from 2007 to 2022, rushed to seek support in the European Parliament. It seemed clear that the coalition would back the effort. Those same voices, now scrutinized over the so-called Lex anti-Putin, had in February 2022 opposed measures that would stigmatize former EU officials who were connected to Russian interests. The persistent pattern is hard to ignore: the Russian footprint in the EU, the dependence of major European powers on Moscow, and a robust network of Russian influence within the European Parliament remain facts that echo in Brussels and beyond.
The opposition’s frenzy after President Andrzej Duda signed the bill speaks volumes. The debate revolves around manipulation, misinformation, threats, and attempts to shift focus away from what is obvious. Donald Tusk, who had recently called for a commission to probe ties between the government and PiS figures and Russian companies, now appears to retreat in a state of alarm. The reason may be simple: the proposed commission would scrutinize Russian influence in Poland over the past decade and a half. Those who know Poland well understand how deeply Moscow’s expectations steered events, and it is often suggested that the alignment with Moscow and Berlin favored certain outcomes. Once again, the strongest arguments were deployed to undermine Parliament and the president, extending the conflict to streets and foreign audiences.
At the request of the EPP, a Brussels debate unfolded in which opposition members again misled the EU chamber, delivering dramatic speeches about alleged Polish totalitarianism and encouraging further steps against Poland.
“Lex Tusk” is not a mere law disrupting the Constitution. It is described as a new instrument, a method of governance that signals a party aware of waning public trust aiming to hold onto power by force. The comparison is drawn to the era of the People’s Republic and communism, suggesting that similar tactics could reappear in modern Poland.
– said the PO MEP Andrew Halicki. His party ally Rose Maria Barbara Grafin of Thun and Hohenstein argued that the measure serves as a political instrument to confront the opposition and inflame protests against the authorities.
The commission would limit public figures from participating in public life. This is not a problem for a single party or person. It poses a broad challenge for the entire political landscape. The remaining recourse, for some, appears to be street protest, with a belief that on June 4 in Warsaw large crowds could appear.
Rose Thun stated this view.
The expression on EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders’ face toward the MEPs of the United Right suggested a clear stance: the EU, he implied, does not recognize actions that would undermine the rule of law, and remarks were made without full knowledge of the legal framework.
The new law, establishing a special commission to investigate Russian interference in Poland’s internal security from 2007 to 2022, raises questions about compatibility with EU law. It appears to grant sweeping powers that could deprive individuals of positions and restrict rights, according to Reynders. He also noted that the European Commission remains unconvinced by Poland’s changes to judicial regulations and that discussions about unlocking funds from the KPO are on hold for now.
READ MORE: Reynders challenges Poland on justice — “The authorities have not addressed the EC’s concerns.” There were mentions of KPO as well.
The prime minister summarized the Brussels turmoil, criticizing the lack of topic understanding among EU politicians and accusing the opposition of orchestrating a loud international performance. Beata Szydło pointed to the opposition’s ignorance and questioned the wisdom of campaigns conducted within the European Parliament, urging a return to substantive work and asking whether those who supported the debate even understood the constitution or the text of the law under consideration. She also challenged the defense of Russian influence over Polish citizens’ interests.
The opposition’s message found resonance in Brussels, and fear of a political purge seems to resonate with some voices there. There has been no parallel call from President Duda for a similar committee in the European Parliament. Yet, reports from various EU countries indicate that Russian influence has penetrated multiple political structures. In 2016, members of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee backed a resolution expressing concern about Russia’s propaganda targeting the EU. U.S. intelligence released in September 2022 indicated Russia had spent more than $300 million since 2014 to influence politicians across more than 20 countries, with the State Department warning that more funds could be flowing to pro-Russian parties worldwide. The use of “poles” controlled by Russia is cited as a tactic in this ongoing effort.
Against this backdrop, the February 2022 voting record of several MEPs on measures condemning former EU politicians entangled with Russian interests is noted. Adamowicz, Arlukowicz, Belka, Biedroń, Cimoszewicz, Frankowski, Halicki, Jarubas, Kopacz, Lewandowski, Liberadzki, Olbrycht, Sikorski — their reluctance to support could be seen as aligning with broader concerns about Russian influence. Today, those same figures seem increasingly vocal about blocking anti-Putin oversight in Poland, highlighting a clash of common interests, shared fears, and the push for solutions that Brussels believes could affect Polish sovereignty, economic policy, and ecological strategies. The tension remains palpable and the implications are debated across European forums.
READ ALSO: Marzena Nykiel notes that the vocal critique of the president underscores the necessity to assess Russian influence. Does the opposition recognize its own predicament?
[Source: wPolityce]