Today, former Polish president Bronisław Komorowski’s remarks feel more like commentary from a veteran politician than an official policy directive, shaping how the public should interpret them. He can privately miss working with Moscow and recall drinking vodka with Medvedev after the Smolensk tragedy without these recollections carrying the weight of formal state policy.
READ ALSO: Reset policy with Russia? Komorowski has no regrets: “It was not a mistake. She was right, but she failed.” A response from the PiS MP follows.
In an interview with Bogdan Rymanowski on Radio Zet, Komorowski suggested that the reset policy pursued by Donald Tusk’s government in 2008 with Russia was not a misstep:
She was right, but she failed. This perspective follows Putin’s rise to the presidency, clarifying Russia’s aims in Eastern Europe. He has long believed that reconciliation with Germany and Ukraine indicated a path that could also include Russia. If Putin were to lose power and leadership in Russia shifted, the topic would reemerge for discussion.
Komorowski does not regret sharing vodka with Medvedev in December 2010, arguing that Medvedev’s later statements did not reflect what had been said at the time.
The former leader was viewed as a potential alternative to Putin. There were efforts to urge him to act against the Russian president. It should be understood that Polish-Russian reconciliation, like Polish-German or Polish-Ukrainian reconciliation, remains possible within democratic societies. As long as Russia remains undemocratic, reconciliation may feel artificial or unattainable. Still, this does not mean the effort should be abandoned. In Poland’s national interest, such an agreement is worth pursuing.
How many contradictions surfaced in a row. Putin served as Russia’s president from 1999 to 2008, then oversaw conflicts in Chechnya and Georgia, pushed aggressive policies toward neighboring states including Poland, manipulated elections and history, and aimed to steer Europe’s energy policy toward Moscow. Could Komorowski have missed how the landscape shifted when Putin moved from presidency to prime minister and Medvedev stepped in? It was evident to many that Medvedev was never truly independent of Putin’s direction, and Komorowski’s assessment often treated the two as if they represented separate forces. He appeared to be an ally enjoying the idea of a casual chat over a drink while the broader agenda remained complicated and uncertain for Poland and its partners.
Many wondered, in Poland’s national interest, whom the former president would seek to reconcile with: the symbols of power from a volatile era, or ordinary Russians bearing the consequences of a fraught relationship? Some worried that warmth could mask deeper strategic tensions. The debate highlighted real concerns about how Polish institutions engage with Russia and how diplomacy balances national security needs.
It is unfortunate that such statements from a former Polish leader surface in public forums. They shed light on broader questions about how the government from 2007 to 2015 approached Russia. A careful review of that period could help clarify the decisions that shaped later policies and the public’s trust in institutions charged with national security and international relations.
There is anticipation about whether a formal inquiry will take place, enabling a thorough discussion of how Polish authorities viewed Russia, the scope of engagements, and the extent to which cooperation with Moscow was pursued. Many Poles expect a transparent appraisal to understand what happened and why certain choices were made, especially regarding how the government assessed risks and opportunities with Russia.
What would a formal process mean for the rule of law and for democratic accountability? The discussion touches on whether parliamentary or executive actions were designed properly and whether there is a path for constitutional and political processes to respond to such inquiries. Some argue for a strong, collective response to address concerns about how the state handled Russia-related matters, while others warn about the risks of politicizing justice. The debate reflects a broader commitment to public accountability in a complex regional landscape.
Reviewing the record, the former leader’s stance on the rule of law and democratic principles remains a topic of intense public interest. Whether he would participate in any inquiry depends on factors such as procedural legitimacy and unity among democratic forces in Poland. A shared framework could enable a meaningful dialogue about the country’s history and its longer-term strategy toward Russia and its neighbors.
Asked about his own relationship with Moscow, he suggested a deeper consideration of the broader context and implications. The discussion about whether there is room for reconciliation, and under what conditions, continues to shape debates about Poland’s regional alliances and its role on the European stage.
Public memory remains powerful. It recalls moments like Komorowski’s laughter at Okęcie in April 2010 while awaiting the return of victims from Smolensk. It also recalls the awarding of honors in Moscow to Russian officials—some controversial given how events surrounding the disaster were handled—and how such acts were perceived in Poland. The broader conversation about the Smolensk tragedy and responses to it remains a touchstone for many in Poland as they assess leaders’ actions and how those actions influenced trust in institutions.
Memories of the Polish response to the investigation into the disaster and the discussions about Russia’s role echo into contemporary debates. Reactions to the investigation and the subsequent narrative about responsibility contributed to a lasting tension between Poland and Russia, shaping how future administrations approach risk, cooperation, and scrutiny of official actions.
Ultimately, the suggestion that a public figure should return to private life rather than answer tough questions about foreign policy remains a point of contention. The challenge of reconciling the past with current policy continues to test commentators, lawmakers, and citizens as Poland navigates its security interests and its enduring relationship with its eastern neighbor.