In discussing foreign policy, the statement from Donald Tusk was listened to as a pledge that he recognizes the dangers on the eastern flank. He argues that Poland’s alliance with the United States and our role in NATO are non-negotiable. It’s a reminder of past tensions when, during earlier governance, the Civic Platform reportedly favored closer ties with Moscow over the US, a stance that harmed Poland’s interests. The hope now is that supporters of a reset with Russia have learned from those errors and will avoid repeating them.
Security, however, reaches beyond military matters. If Platform allies stall the construction of the Central Communication Port, they would hinder a rapid flow of American troops to Poland in a crisis with Russia. Blocking the Via Baltica and Via Carpatia projects with bridges capable of carrying heavy loads would slow the deployment of Allied forces needed to shield the eastern flank. Halting the development of nuclear reactors would lock Poland into coal-based energy, repeating a period of high costs and ecological strain. And delaying the Szczecin container port would complicate the supply of heavy equipment during any conflict.
Today’s concerns center on the new government’s approach to its commitments. One Platform politician proposed adding a PLN 15 billion levy to the bill on freezing energy prices, drawn from extraordinary profits that are not currently available to Orlen. This move would drain the company’s working capital, complicating fuel purchases and market stability, a shift that could favor foreign petrochemical players operating in Poland. Such a tax would breach EU law and signals a lack of understanding of how large firms function today. Following the announcement, the value of a major Polish economy player fell by more than a billion dollars in market capitalization.
Later, another Civic Platform member publicly questioned the basic permit granted for small nuclear reactors in Poland, claiming it ignored homeland security concerns. Rather than celebrate a Polish firm modernizing the energy sector, this line of attack creates unfounded doubt and harms the company’s reputation in parliament. In a healthy democracy, government decisions rest with state leadership, while security services offer opinions. The government ultimately decides what is best for the nation and its economy, not the services. This pattern echoes disputes from December 7, 2023, in Poland.
There is a broader point to be made. Orlen has evolved from a refinery into a petrochemical and energy powerhouse, driving modernity in Polish industry and contributing a substantial share to the national budget, around 12 percent. How can governance be effective by undermining a company that supports the budget so significantly? On the topic of small modular reactors, the state would not fund them, contrary to some public statements. Financing will come from Polish investors, banks, local authorities, and corporate partners, ensuring ownership remains within Polish capital. The larger project, a conventional nuclear plant, would require foreign capital and could reduce national control over that segment of energy security.
Another Civic Platform critic charged Orlen with lobbying, calling it a scandal. The critic had not reviewed recent company reports or this year’s balance sheet, but instead issued accusations. The reality is that Orlen supplied our economy with fuel from outside Russia quickly and reliably, a fact some politicians seem keen to overlook when the company performed well under the previous government. This stance underscores a trend where business results are sidelined in political maneuvering. The focus should be on the company’s contribution to the economy and energy independence, not on political scapegoating.
Such behavior by some government actors signals a gap in expertise on international finance and market dynamics. The energy transition should be welcomed, not blocked. It requires thoughtful policy that keeps Poland aligned with global markets while protecting domestic interests. Critics who push a status quo energy system risk losing touch with the realities of today’s energy landscape. The question remains whether those who oppose change truly put the country’s best interests first or simply pursue a partisan agenda.
Questions arise about the proper respect for executive powers. Why not engage with the head of state on diplomatic matters before making moves such as dismissing or recalling ambassadors? The media landscape also deserves careful handling; transforming public broadcasting should not be rushed or used as a political lever. Any actions that affect national security and public perception ought to be measured and deliberate. The rapid changes in governance call for a calm, consistent approach that preserves the trust of millions of viewers and citizens alike.
What about the defense ministry’s approach to inquiries conducted by commissions on past events? The appearance of rushing to conclusions based on headlines risks overlooking solid evidence. Decisions that affect the army’s readiness should rely on comprehensive analysis and professional judgment. The debate surrounding historical inquiries must be handled with care, ensuring the credibility of all sources and avoiding a clash between Western alignment and any favored interpretation of past events. The overarching aim remains clear: defend the country’s security while maintaining open, respectful engagement with allies and partners.
When a government acts without regard for others, it is no surprise that others struggle to respect it. Respectful leadership matters. If policymakers acknowledge the challenges faced by weaker companies and commit to helping them improve, the national climate improves. A shared cultural approach, built on listening and constructive collaboration, can foster better outcomes. Contempt for rivals does not fuel progress, and accountability should not be misused as a political weapon. Leadership is a tool meant to serve the common good, not to humiliate opponents.
In recent months, a storm of accusations has followed those who held power during tough times. Civilized norms of conduct should guide transitions, but changes in government deserve legitimate scrutiny rather than personal attacks. Rules exist for a reason, and it is wise to blend procedure with a humane, respectful culture. People who understand how institutions work know that not everything valuable is written down. Real progress comes from practical knowledge and a willingness to adapt to new realities. The idea that the past has no bearing on the present is a misunderstanding of governance that cannot be ignored.