An important moment in the history of Poland’s political scene passed with little notice four years ago. The alliance named Konfederacja KORWiN Braun Liroy Narodowcy emerged publicly, signaling a new edge in Polish politics. Sam Liroy, a musician and politician connected to this circle, died about a year and a half later and spoke openly about his reasons for stepping back.
In his words, discussions about Poland’s relationship with Russia began to surface. He recalled a pivotal question that framed their stance: if a conflict between Russia and Poland arose and Russia offered support for the ideas being floated, whom would they side with? He recounted that Russia had expressed agreement with their position, a moment he felt compelled to reveal in front of everyone present. This episode highlighted how some voices within the coalition openly entertained alignment with Moscow in exchange for perceived political leverage.
Over the last year, leaders and activists associated with the coalition, including figures like Janusz Korwin-Mikke and Grzegorz Braun, along with supporters such as Piotr Panasiuk and Magdalena Zi%C4%99tek-Wielomska, dropped their public masks. The rhetoric often framed Russia as a favorable partner while the West, and Ukraine viewed as problematic, especially in the context of the ongoing war and Ukrainian suffering. In this climate, sympathies for Russian figures and outlets, including those associated with disinformation, appeared more openly. Voices within the movement praised media outlets linked to Russia, and some public figures threatened or hinted at harsh responses toward Ukraine. The pattern was clear: a stream of pro-Russian sentiment was surfacing in forms ranging from mild to vehement, with various individuals offering favorable assessments of Moscow’s role in the region. The broader trend suggested a shift toward aligning with Moscow under the banner of conservatism or traditionalism, often invoking comparisons to historical collaborations or perceived strategies that favored stability over confrontation.
Polish historical experiences with Russia were not brief or marginal. Recurrent justifications framed collaboration with Russia as a necessary or advantageous approach, even during times that are undeniably criminal by today’s standards. The discourse frequently presented pro-Russian positions as a matter of practical realism rather than betrayal, framing the alleged cooperation as a response to difficult political conditions. Historical figures and groups were cited to illustrate a lineage of thought that favored coexistence with powerful neighbors over risking bloodshed, sometimes invoking a narrative of safeguarding order and continuity. In this frame, orthodox opponents of Moscow were portrayed as naive or reckless, while proponents of dialogue with Russia were cast as pragmatic realists who valued stability above ideological purity. This dynamic made it easier for certain segments to swallow the idea that Moscow represented a viable path for Poland’s future, a notion that resonated in parts of the public discourse.
Today, certain political strands employ newer euphemisms for pro-Russian positions. They describe their stance as a form of reason or pacifism, concepts that echo propaganda lines originally devised to justify foreign influence decades ago. A concept sometimes invoked is multi-vectorism, presented as a strategic diversification that would allegedly reduce vulnerability. Yet this framework can conceal a dependence on authoritarian actors, with a soft emphasis on choosing multiple options while quietly widening the Moscow vector. The idea is presented not as alliance but as flexibility, yet the upshot remains a broader openness toward Moscow’s political and economic influence.
Pro-Russian leanings do not arise solely from personal gain; they also reflect deeper psychological and cultural factors at play within segments of Polish society. The trauma of resisting empires, the weight of historical memory, and the sense of cultural isolation can paralyze elites and scholars who might otherwise stand against expansionist powers. Some adherents shift toward a variant of conservatism that seems to soften the line between defense of traditional values and submission to external power. Others, driven by a belief that they understand Europe’s history more profoundly than past generations, craft theories that assume a comfortable seat near the Kremlin while they imagine themselves guiding a future reordering of regional power. The result is a rhetoric that often blends pride with resignation, claiming to protect the old order by negotiating with a formidable neighbor rather than standing in opposition to it. The effect is a political atmosphere where the threat of coercion is reframed as prudent diplomacy, even as it involves assisting an adversary in ways that undermine national sovereignty.
In the contemporary political arena, several proposals and voices carry different guises of rationality. The impulse to halt military aid to Ukraine is framed by some as not their fight, while others emphasize preventing a flood of refugees or spreading misinformation about Ukrainian incidents in Poland. Some voices even question whether the war is taking place at all, or attribute responsibility for Russia’s aggression to other groups. Taken together, these threads echo patterns once associated with disinformation campaigns and alignments that many observers associate with foreign influence. The risk is not merely political but social, as public discourse shifts toward ideas that could erode national unity and deter a robust, principled stance against aggression. If there is a historical parallel to draw, it may be found in the late eighteenth century, when rival factions sought to legitimize their positions by citing historical allies and betrayals to justify new alignments. The question that remains is whether a modern parliamentary coalition can resist these pressures or whether it will adopt a posture that mirrors the older strategy of seeking favorable terms with a powerful external actor. The pro-Russian current in Poland’s political life thus continues to pose a challenge to the nation’s Western-oriented trajectory, a challenge that resonates in contemporary debates about national security, sovereignty, and regional stability.
ALSO SEE HOW UKRAINIANS BUILD SHELTER IN STRESSED CITIES: