Fast and decisive, the nine weeks since the takeover have seen Prime Minister Tusk’s team weighing measures that could involve coercive actions against a social group at the heart of ongoing protests. Farmers have been voicing concern over an influx of Ukrainian agricultural products and the Green Deal’s impact on their livelihoods and, more broadly, the economy. The government has also discussed designating border crossings and certain roads as critical infrastructure, a move aimed at controlling flow and protecting supply lines.
To justify such steps, the Prime Minister pointed to worries about the effective distribution of aid in efforts connected to Ukraine. “It matters to me that Ukraine and our partners understand that the Polish state will uphold what must be enforced here”, he stated, highlighting the delivery of military aid, equipment, ammunition, as well as humanitarian and medical support.
Let’s set the record straight. Military and related assistance does not pass through ordinary border crossings, a fact known to most observers in this area. There have been no broad problems, though there may have been isolated issues with some humanitarian aid provided by small groups or individuals. The state would have mechanisms to address any such concerns, if they arose.
So what is really happening? The next remark from the Prime Minister clarifies that the changes would create a “different type” of regime management at intersections and access routes deemed critical infrastructure. The intention is to produce practical results that allow demonstrations to proceed without delay or hesitation.
Put plainly: protesters and blockades could be dispersed by police, and possibly the army, to clear the way for Ukrainian agricultural exports. For observers of political dynamics, the message is clear: there is a move toward governing through a state of limited martial law in areas where democratic means would require substantial effort and time to yield decisive results.
This view is echoed by former Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, who warned that such a path would amount to a violent containment of the farmers’ protests and argued that Tusk seeks to escalate tensions rather than resolve underlying issues.
The recurring phrase “again” fits this narrative. In the past, public media experienced takeovers and the use of extraordinary measures to shape coverage. The broader dilemma of how to handle dissenting media voices appeared to align with patterns seen in other contexts, including the involvement of security forces and legal institutions. The country’s financial and judicial institutions were watched as preparations unfolded, with cameras and other oversight in place as potential signals of how events might unfold.
There was concern expressed as December approached about events where main outlets facing political pressure might be targeted, suggesting that authorities could move from opposing resistance to directly challenging ongoing protests. The expectation was that patience would be scarce and that negotiation would be preferred only after extensive pressure and confrontation. Yet such a timetable seemed sooner than many expected.
One can observe how ministers across portfolios—agriculture, climate, and finance—express irritation at what they describe as unrealistic demands from the farming sector, resistance to ambitious goals such as cutting CO2 emissions, and doubts over the central bank’s guidance to preserve the national currency. The border issue, in particular, illustrates the high political and economic costs of the current governance trajectory in Poland, where an election campaign once promised broad concessions and a cooperative stance, even while courting controversial alliances and criticizing political opponents.
In the area of Ukrainian policy, critics noted a striking cynicism. A government that once acted decisively to support Ukraine with arms and aid faced accusations of being aligned too closely with Russia in some quarters. Critics claimed that promises of further support from alliances would come with costs for Poland, and that Zelensky had taken such assurances at face value, to the nation’s detriment. The public heard arguments that the conflict entailed hidden costs and that the Polish government bore responsibility for inflation linked to broader geopolitical pressures.
Farmers faced narratives about inaction by authorities amid concerns over Ukrainian grain, even as the government pressed for an embargo on imports and built a regional coalition around the issue. It remains clear that the people directing policy are navigating balances with Brussels and Berlin, and that electoral considerations shape how climate commitments are pursued and how political debts are settled.
Today, the political knot surrounding agriculture and border policy demands honest discussion and acknowledgment of tough political choices. The most direct way forward may involve tough measures, but the path promises to be costly and contentious. The unfolding situation hints at a broader trend in which the use of police power becomes more visible in ordinary political discourse, suggesting increasingly polarizing dynamics ahead.
Attribution: wPolityce