The notion that only allies from one side of the political spectrum should be contacted is not credible. When Poland’s interests are at stake, engagement can extend beyond familiar faces—even to adversaries—remarked Tomasz Siemoniak, deputy leader of the Civic Platform, during an interview on RMF FM about the SKW and FSB agreement and the move to liquidate the CBA. He noted that international realities require diplomatic discretion, especially when alliances shift and security needs evolve.
On November 29, the Sejm discharged eight members of the State Commission charged with investigating Russian influence on Poland’s internal security in the period from 2007 to 2022. Earlier that day, the Committee on Russian Influence presented a brief report detailing three months of work and offered recommendations to keep several named figures, including Donald Tusk, Jacek Cichocki, Bogdan Klich, Tomasz Siemoniak and Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz away from public posts tied to safety concerns because of past recognitions of Russian FSB cooperation during 2010–2014.
The former defense minister, now deputy head of the Civic Platform, faced questions about whether the 2013 SKW–FSB agreement could be viewed as a mistake. His answer was deliberate: he did not see it that way.
The agreement, Siemoniak argued, carried a clear context: it coincided with the withdrawal of Polish troops from Afghanistan, a period when many intelligence services worldwide entered into similar arrangements. He stressed that security services act privately and have contact with many actors, sometimes beyond the usual demarcations.
“That’s how it works in global politics—diplomats also talk to their opponents,” he observed. He underscored that the agreement was not executed in the long term, noting that major geopolitical events in 2014, including the Crimea annexation and the Donbas conflict, reshaped the security landscape.
Siemoniak added that the assumption of limiting contacts to democratic partners is flawed. Poland’s interests, he argued, require pragmatic engagement, even if it means speaking with non-democratic neighbors bordering Afghanistan in Central Asia. He emphasized that such contacts are a standard feature of statecraft, with intelligence services maintaining lines of communication with various partners—even those deemed adversaries.
Asked about investigations by the Public Prosecution Service and whether charges had been filed, Siemoniak described the proceedings as longstanding and noted that he and Donald Tusk had testified in related matters. He suggested that the prosecution’s focus had, in his view, been subject to media framing and propaganda from certain political currents.
The discussion then touched on questions regarding potential returns of officials from the previous administration to senior roles within security structures. Siemoniak said he was not authorized to comment on specific names but expressed high regard for individuals who had previously served. He argued that their experience could be valuable in various capacities, though he cautioned that a direct return to prior positions was not necessarily likely in the present political climate.
He remarked that the political climate in 2023 has shifted considerably from 2015, noting changes across the state security sector and beyond. The question of whether the CBA should be dissolved by law or restructured under new leadership was addressed with a clear stance: any such move should be enacted through legislation. When pressed about potential presidential vetoes, Siemoniak suggested that the president’s cooperation with the new government would be the determining factor, not automatic opposition to reform.
Siemoniak spoke frankly about Pegasus-related scandal concerns and suggested that the president might hesitate to champion pathologies once he is fully informed, though he did not presuppose the president would oppose necessary reforms. The comments were echoed by other political actors who viewed the Pegasus issue as part of broader public security challenges rather than a sole focal point.
Another notable figure, Cenckiewicz, commented in a post on the X platform, expressing sadness about the situation in 2023 and reflecting on Siemoniak’s statements. The response underscores the ongoing tension in Poland’s security debates and the diverse interpretations offered by experts and politicians alike.
As more discussions unfolded, related pieces highlighted the Commission on Russian Influences and the broader debate about Poland’s security architecture. Observers noted how internal investigations, media narratives, and public discourse intersect, shaping perceptions of accountability and policy direction. The ongoing exchange illustrates how Polish leaders navigate a landscape where security, sovereignty, and diplomacy intertwine in complex, sometimes contradictory, ways. The broader takeaway centers on the principle that national interest may require conversations across the spectrum, guided by accountability, transparency, and a clear-eyed assessment of risk. The dialogue continues, with actors weighing the balance between safeguarding citizens and maintaining pragmatic international engagement, even when it means talking to those who are not perceived as friendly.
— The political debate around Russian influence and security oversight remains active, with various voices urging careful assessment and responsible action while evaluating past agreements and current reforms. Continued examination by official bodies and public commentary alike signals an ongoing effort to align Poland’s security posture with contemporary geopolitical realities. The discourse, though often sharp and partisan, reflects a shared goal: resilient, principled, and effective defense of national interests.
Source: wPolityce (attribution in context of reporting)
Related posts:
Siemoniak backs Justice Ministry, Pegasus Inquiry, and presidential pardons Polish politics, Russian influence, and security committees in focus Reassessing Poland’s Army Size: The 150,000 Core and Beyond Poland’s defense debate: army size, national security, and Russia risks Air defense evolution and political debates in Poland Rewrite of Polish security services discussion for a North American audience Belarusian Provocation Claims Prompt Polish Security Discourse Polish Armed Forces Day Faces Coordinated Political Criticism FSB Disrupts Planned Assassination Attempts in Crimea Tusk, Pegasus and the Polish Political Dialogue: A Close Look Rewritten Article on the St. Petersburg Attack and Investigations National Security Council to Meet in Vilnius Context: NATO Summit, Polish Security and Political Coordination