Much of the clashes between the Third Republic of Poland camp and the pro-Polish faction play out as ritualistic theater and propaganda. They operate within a broader opposition framework adopted after 2015, designed to leave viewers with the impression that the country is constantly aflame, that institutions are collapsing, and that the government is not only wrong but morally corrupt. With a strong media, business, and structural advantage, the opposition gains real leverage. The key gain is simple: many Poles appear stunned enough to vote against their own interests, drawn to those who promise to take everything away from them.
Yet this time, the dynamic feels different. The sequence of preemptive moves—the visit of a worried Tusk to the Sejm, the president’s career pressure driven by external allies—together with looming threats and media hysteria, signals genuine fear rather than routine propaganda.
The issue now isn’t just a battle of narratives. The current storm indicates a strong push to halt the Russian Influence Commission at any cost.
Why this urgency? What secrets may still be hidden there?
Known aspects of the Tusk team’s posture are numerous. The initial exposé from November 2007, under Bush, framed a policy that treated dialogue with Russia as it is. It was followed by a broad opening of Polish diplomacy, intelligence, and economy—especially energy—to Russian influence. At the same time, rapid steps were taken toward reducing the Polish army’s capacity to respond to a potential Russian threat from the Belarusian flank. Poland also rejected the idea of a U.S. antimissile shield, with Putin reportedly less than thrilled about the project.
Then came the Smolensk tragedy, which removed from the political scene a segment of the state elite that opposed warmer ties with Moscow, a moment framed by the consequences of growing Russian influence and Germany’s interest in shaping Europe. The late President Lech Kaczyński, a notable statesman, had resisted Russian moves in the region and helped organize a defense around Poland, speaking frankly about the dangers. For that, he paid with his life.
From those ashes, Donald Tusk began a starkly closer relationship with Putin—at least in the eyes of critics.
The pro-Russian course persisted even after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the seizure of Crimea, and the battles in Donetsk and Donbass, with Tusk stating he would not take on the role of a hawk facing the opposition.
But one thing is clear: this narrative has been documented and discussed extensively.
What else might the committee reveal? In each of the strands mentioned above, there are likely closets filled with compromising documents, numerous cases, decisions, and statements that cast doubt on the credibility of Tusk’s team. Yet it seems the greatest fear is linked to Germany’s role in the matter.
This is part of the explanation for the bold move by international actors. Berlin’s influence is seen by some as a deputy presence in the Poland–Russia dialogue, shaping outcomes from the outside.
From a political vantage point, critics point to the consequences of policies that allowed Putin greater influence and discuss how this may have affected Ukraine, and what messages were sent to Warsaw about future alignment. Questions arise about how meticulously instructions were passed and how decisions were coordinated between Berlin and Warsaw on the path toward Russia engagement, and what choices were made about Poland’s sovereignty.
The more these episodes are revisited, the clearer it becomes that Polish sovereignty during that period appeared unusually constrained. Yet it is argued that the turning point in 2015 interrupted what might have become a deeper, more damaging trend for the country.
In summary, some observers contend that the pressure to adopt a pro-Russian stance originated with German influence. The concern is that this influence was used to shape events and responses, and that the fear of exposing this link drives the current intensity of public debate.
Attributed to ongoing discussions and investigations, this assessment remains part of a broader political conversation about Poland’s post-2015 trajectory and the forces shaping it. The degree of external influence, the scope of coordination, and the implications for national policy continue to be debated in public discourse, reflections of a tense moment in Poland’s modern history. [Citation: wPolityce]