Remarks from a prominent politician highlight deep strategic anxieties about national security and Europe’s balance of power. The speaker recalls alarming moments when government work mingled with enduring adversaries, stressing that such closeness to Russia would be the gravest danger faced. The discussion also touches on the hypothetical scenario of Russia joining NATO in the future, a notion described as completely implausible. The focus was on Germany’s perceived responsibility for European affairs, with Poland allegedly being sidelined in strategic calculations.
The conversation turns to the broader conduct of government policy, questioning whether the long years in power created a path that enabled Russia to re-enter European markets, advance projects like Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2, and, above all, create a climate of close collaboration between intelligence services. The speaker argues that state security services began to align with what he calls the eternal and greatest adversary. The claim is that such ties are among the most dangerous elements of the political landscape, and that past plans aimed at integrating Russia more deeply into Europe included strategies that would place less emphasis on Poland.
In the recollection offered, the current administration is asked to reckon with accusations that it would paint Law and Justice as friendly to Russia, or as pursuing policies favorable to the Putin regime. There is a counterpoint: PiS has historically led the sanctions front against Moscow, and, according to the speaker, contributed to blocking cooperation with Russia that others did not want. The question remains: who are the so‑called Russian friends of PiS, and why do such claims persist?
The interview also revisits other high‑profile disclosures, such as statements linked to a prosecutor’s office hearing involving Donald Tusk and an expert opinion that reinterprets remarks by a notable military officer in light of recent revelations. A sense of renewed scrutiny emerges, casting new light on past interviews and suggesting that Russia’s footprint may already be visible in current affairs.
There is a playful line about returning a symbolic piece of headgear associated with a public figure, used to underscore a broader point about identity and allegiance. The discussion then shifts to calls for transparency: editorials and media figures have urged the public release of documents related to Russia‑Poland relations and the so‑called reset, arguing that much information has been sealed behind confidentiality clauses and classified agreements. Questions arise about whether a certain ten‑year secrecy period equally applies to state‑owned enterprises and whether fiscal oversight by the Polish state remains intact in such arrangements. The speaker frames this as a potential privatization of the law itself, suggesting that legal forms may be used to obscure substantive actions.
When the phrase “acting within the law as understood” is used, the speaker interprets it as a signal that legal formality might conceal convenience and political expediency. They advocate for clear procedural reforms in the Sejm’s rules of procedure, arguing that the current trajectory could lead to unpredictable outcomes and undermine parliamentary governance.
The conversation also probes the public image of the Polish state in light of recently released documents, including interrogation transcripts related to security contracts and recommendations concerning senior military figures. With a possible return of a former prime minister in view, the dialogue contemplates how external and internal pressures might shape leadership choices. The speaker warns against indirect influence on the presidency through emails or private channels, while noting that the parliamentary majority could determine party leadership and, by extension, influence who becomes prime minister.
In closing, the interviewee thanks the interviewer for the opportunity to share these considerations. Several related pieces are referenced to provide further context about the intelligence services, political leadership, and national security policy, inviting readers to reflect on how Poland balances sovereignty with the realities of regional geopolitics.
READ ALSO:
-OUR INTERVIEW. Interrogation of Tusk and the former leadership of the Military Counterintelligence Service. Szeremietiew: They had to secure Poland, they signed an agreement with the heirs of the KGB
-Behind the scenes of Tusk’s ‘top secret’ interrogation. Prof. Cenckiewicz: The Military Counterintelligence Service has not recognized the FSB. She had no idea who was coming to headquarters
Source: wPolityce