In a widely cited interview, Sikorski defends himself against recent Dutch media accusations, admitting some boasting and personal malice, while addressing critics. He contends that bribery is a crime and that ancillary activities are legal and common in Brussels. He notes that his classmate Boris Johnson earns considerably higher fees, and claims since 2015 he has been among Sergei Lavrov’s sharpest critics. The question remains: is his defense convincing to the public?
How does Sikorski attempt to justify himself? For instance, in a conversation with a Polish newspaper, he argued that the Dutch article would not reveal any new information.
He states that income details are disclosed in asset declarations, a point the Polish media covered years earlier. He rejects suggestions of new discoveries or disclosures, arguing that the audit should not hinge on confirming proper completion of forms on the Sejm website. He also references advising at a prestigious Middle East conference and questions what specifically should be checked.
“Additional profitable activity is legal”
Sikorski links the case to a broad European Parliament corruption scandal called Katargate, calling the labeling unfair.
He differentiates between covert cash in bags and openly declared, taxed advisory work at international conferences. He reiterates that bribes are crimes, while extra income and activities are legal and common in Brussels. He notes that Polish media previously wrote about his advisory role at Forum in 2021, but without an electoral campaign backdrop.
– he added.
When Paweł Wroński pressed about the cost of his watch, Sikorski replied that it was about twenty years old, bought for roughly $200 as a gift from his wife, and that the watch was not a symbol of wealth but a personal keepsake.
He recalled past articles in Ukrainian media suggesting that appearances with a watch valued below a certain threshold were inappropriate in Ukraine; he insisted that he disclosed all details accurately, contrasting with other cases where disclosures were incomplete.
– he said, responding to questions about high earnings. He then boasted about a connection with a former British prime minister and explained why he believed the fees for lectures and board roles abroad were higher due to larger, wealthier audiences. He suggested that serving on the advisory board of a leading international conference carries responsibilities, remuneration, and ceremonial prestige.
– he stated.
Sikorski also noted that in 2017 he was invited to the board of advisers of a major regional forum, compensated at $100,000 annually, as both an academic and a former politician. He claimed organizers valued his perspective and the Central European viewpoint at the Forum.
he intervened.
Lavrov and pro-Russian rhetoric
Sikorski challenged claims about a meeting at a recent forum with Sergei Lavrov, the head of Russian diplomacy, saying he did not attend and had not spoken with him since leaving the Foreign Ministry. Yet he emphasized his long-standing opposition to Lavrov since 2015, recalling stern warnings in early 2022 about Russia’s actions toward Ukraine and comments comparing Lavrov’s path to that of a notorious historical figure. He argued that these statements show a distinct stance rather than support for Russian policy.
The interview also touched on whether his social media posts or statements have been influenced by Russian propaganda, a point he denied while acknowledging the political risk of such perceptions.
With additional remarks, Sikorski referenced a scene on a balcony at a high-profile venue where he was accompanied by Lavrov during a cigarette break. He denied smoking himself and insisted the moment was misrepresented, decrying what he called propaganda that distorts facts.
– he added.
Readers were reminded of related coverage alleging that Sikorski could be influenced by lobbying or that his conference attendance might be interpreted as indirect political action. He maintained that neither parliamentary voting nor policy decisions were affected by his outside activities and that he adhered to the group’s directives when resolutions touched on the UAE. He asserted that voting in line with party guidance was a consistent practice over four years in the European Parliament.
– he concluded.
A contentious response to a political rival’s claim
The interview also touched on remarks directed at PiS and opposition figures. Sikorski criticized a longtime political opponent for framing the UAE relationship and for suggesting a broader strategic shift during PiS governance. He argued that personal considerations should not overshadow electoral strategy and cautioned against premature judgments about personnel decisions before elections.
The piece characterized Sikorski as a seasoned diplomat and a world observer who adheres to norms, yet questioned the reliability of contemporary media portrayals in this political moment. It noted that Dutch and Belgian outlets had covered the case, while insisting that the full context and background deserve careful scrutiny.
Readers are invited to review additional commentary that scrutinizes Sikorski’s voting patterns and potential influence from external actors, emphasizing the ongoing debate about income sources and governance within the European Parliament. The discussion remains unresolved, with ongoing public interest in how MEPs manage their outside commitments and declare their earnings.
– Sikorski’s responses are examined to determine whether votes were shaped by external activities, and commentators debate the balance between public service and private advisory roles.
In sum, the interview presents a portrait of a veteran politician who defends his record while navigating intense media scrutiny. The evolving narrative continues to spark debate about transparency, accountability, and the boundaries of political life in Europe.