Evaluation of Tusk and PO policies from 2007 to 2015
A PiS member of the European Parliament, Tomasz Poręba, stated on Friday that in the years 2007 to 2015 the policies pursued by Donald Tusk and the Civic Platform were extreme and often aligned with Russian interests, at times clashing with Poland’s strategic priorities. He also noted that this stance was viewed as a misalignment with the nation’s long-term security and energy goals.
During a Friday press conference, PiS spokesman Rafał Bochenek highlighted that for 28 days no response had been provided to ten questions about energy security and military readiness raised by PiS lawmakers directed at the former prime minister and his party. Poręba emphasized that the unanswered questions carry significant weight ahead of upcoming elections, underscoring concerns about the direction of national policy during that period and its potential impact on security and energy sovereignty.
Key questions centered on why the anti-missile defense system support was abandoned, why assets such as Mazeikiu and Lotos were subjected to sale considerations, and why certain military bases underwent restructuring or closure. These issues remained central to debates about how past decisions could influence present and future security arrangements.
Poręba explained that PiS chose to present the responses themselves after not receiving replies, and a short archival segment was shown during the conference. The video included archival remarks attributed to the former head of the Civic Platform, referencing his stance on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shield project, the 2008 to 2009 installation period, and related strategic questions.
One conveyed statement touched on discussions with Russia regarding the anti-missile shield and expressed wariness about the project from Moscow’s perspective, highlighting the nuanced geopolitics involved in security architecture in Europe. Another line drew attention to a debt write-off of 1.2 billion PLN owed to Gazprom, framing the issue as part of a broader energy relationship and its implications for Polish autonomy in energy policy. A separate note questioned the situational rationale behind the Baltic Pipe as opposed to continued engagement with other gas pipelines or suppliers, hinting at the complexity of diversification strategies in angering or pleasing different energy partners.
Safety and policy direction
Bochenek, who leads the Civic Platform, asserted that the repeated refusal to answer these questions suggested an older political trajectory that could steer Poland toward eastward alignment and closer ties with Russia. Poręba countered that such questions should prompt reflection on what would happen if the party or its political supporters remained in power. He asked observers to consider the potential future status of major energy players and the security outlook if certain presidents or governments persisted with their previous policies.
The inquiry extended to the ownership and future of major assets like Lotos and Mažeikiai, with Poręba asking who would control them under different political scenarios and how that control would shape national security in energy and defense. He argued that current and forthcoming decisions in 2021 and beyond should account for those hypothetical scenarios to ensure a more robust energy independence from Russia.
Poręba also highlighted that the PiS government had taken steps to modernize the armed forces, expand defensive facilities in the eastern part of the country, and pursue energy independence from Russian sources. He framed these actions as an intentional shift away from past approaches and toward a policy mix designed to strengthen resilience in an evolving security landscape.
January briefing and follow-up questions
On a Friday in January, Poręba together with another European Parliament member, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, presented ten questions to Donald Tusk, who had led the government from 2007 to 2014. The questions probed the reasons behind the decision to withdraw from a defense shield installation in 2008-2009, the decision to repurchase a significant stake from Gazprom in 2010, and the policy decision to cancel a gas contract with Gazprom that would have reduced Poland’s dependence on Russian energy through 2037. The inquiry also touched on the handling of a broader energy and military strategy under the earlier administration, including aspects of research and reporting on sensitive topics related to national security and international relations at that time.
Poręba stressed that these questions were not solely about history. They were about understanding the foreign policy, energy strategy, and military posture that influenced Poland’s security commitments in the present. The aim was to call for transparency and accountability in matters that affect the country’s energy supply, defense capabilities, and strategic position on the regional stage.
In closing, Poręba urged Donald Tusk to address the questions candidly, suggesting that a thorough public response would contribute to a clearer understanding of past and present governance decisions and their implications for Poland’s security and energy independence. The discussion was framed as part of a broader conversation about national direction and accountability for leadership in critical sectors.
READ ALSO: 12 questions for Tusk. PiS politicians: The silence drives this approach; PO-PSL actions were seen as contrary to Polish interests.
citation: wPolityce