Elżbieta Rafalska spoke candidly to wPolsce.pl about a series of remarks she deemed shameful and defamatory, directed at Janina Ochojska’s conduct. The discussion centered on an exhibition in the European Parliament organized by a member of the European Parliament who had secured support from the Civic Platform. During the event, the organizer addressed Polish border guards and highlighted ongoing border challenges, an action Rafalska framed as a deliberate attempt to undermine Poland’s standing in Europe. She argued that the rhetoric used by the opposition sought to cast doubt on Poland’s ability to defend its borders and manage humanitarian duties, emphasizing how timing matters as political and external events unfold and domestic priorities shift. Rafalska maintained that the exhibition and its accompanying discourse were crafted to portray Poland negatively, disregarding the country’s actual capacity to respond to crises with resilience and resourcefulness.
An MEP backed by the Civic Platform hosted a European Parliament exhibition where he spoke to Polish border guards, inviting dialogue among EU officials and observers about the border situation. Rafalska and others viewed the event as political theater and believed it fit into a broader strategy to shape international opinion about Poland’s governance during a period of heightened sensitivity to hybrid threats and humanitarian challenges. Critics warned that such demonstrations could oversimplify complex issues of security and migration, risking inflaming tensions rather than fostering constructive dialogue. Rafalska described the episode as an intrusion into national sovereignty and a manipulation of public perception for partisan ends, calling for a careful, balanced examination of Poland’s actions at the border crisis front line.
After a brief lull in criticism aimed at Poland within the European Parliament, a moment when the country had managed a difficult humanitarian crisis at the border with commendable steadiness and as concerns about corruption and internal disputes cooled, Rafalska argued that today’s opposition moved to reassert pressure. She claimed the renewed intensity behind these claims aimed to cast doubt on Poland’s leadership and to present the nation as unreliable on the European stage. Rafalska described the sequence of events as a deliberate attempt to undermine the Polish government and the country’s standing, labeling the cycle of accusations as divisive and harmful to public trust. She urged a return to responsible debate grounded in verified facts and a commitment to the country’s credibility within European institutions.
Rafalska noted that those behind the attacks were not merely expressing disagreement but engaging in a coordinated effort to discredit the Polish homeland. She characterized the exhibition as political performance that offered little real progress and instead relied on sensational rhetoric to gain attention. Her critique extended to the wider political class, arguing that public figures must own the consequences of their words and actions, particularly when issues touch on sovereignty and national security. The point, she indicated, is not simply to argue for or against a policy but to do so with accountability and honesty, avoiding misinformation that could mislead citizens or provoke unfounded fears. Rafalska called for constructive dialogue based on verified facts and a commitment to Poland’s credibility in European affairs.
Rafalska questioned the source of sponsorship, noting that the programme was funded by the European Parliament. She asked whether funds could be redirected toward efforts that truly strengthen Poland’s position in the EU, bolster strategic autonomy, and support long-term security and economic resilience. She observed rapid shifts in geopolitical realities in the aftermath of ongoing warfare and argued that Poland’s role on the European stage required steady leadership and credible messaging. She suggested that the episode reflected broader political currents inside Poland as much as EU considerations, warning that the motive behind the initiative seemed tied to domestic political contests rather than objective policy needs. She urged careful assessment to avoid misrepresentation that could harm national interests.
The discussion then turned to the conduct of forest rangers and the handling of recent allegations about their actions, with Rafalska addressing claims from the Ochojskis regarding migrants near forested border zones. She condemned the vile accusations directed at forest workers, stressing that safeguarding lives and managing sensitive border operations must not be distorted for political gain. She described the rhetoric as human meanness that crosses lines of decency, underscoring the importance of accurate information and responsible language when discussing matters of national concern. Her remarks framed the debate around the treatment of frontline personnel and the integrity of security operations, calling for measured, fact-based discourse that respects those carrying out challenging duties under difficult conditions.