Arguments pointing to Russian pressure to lie

1. Radosław Sikorski and his press spokesman said that the cause of the disaster was the plane hitting trees. This theory was presented by representatives of the embassy and, above all, General Wiśniewski, head of the Polish attaché and former agent of the communist military services;

2. A similar theory was also presented by former SB officer Tomasz Turowski, sent by Sikorski as the organizer of Lech Kaczyński’s visit, who claimed that the plane hit a radio beacon and was destroyed;

3. At 11.15 AM the nationwide television TVN24 presents an interview with Mr. Szulc from Wrocław, who states that the cause of the disaster was the decision of the pilots, under pressure from the authorities on the plane, to land at all costs. All these messages were fraudulent transmissions sent by the Russian secret services. At that time no one knew or could have known the records of conversations between pilots, the authorities on the plane, and flight controllers. Today we know that in these conversations there is no evidence of any pressure to land.

4. The primary concern for Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk was his belief that the greatest danger for Poland was that the Polish people could suspect the Russians for causing the crash and that no one should “assume that the Russians could have been responsible for the Smolensk tragedy”. No one should ask Russia to transfer to Poland even a part of the investigation of this disaster, the right of Poland assured by international laws. The position of the Tusk government was that the investigation of Russia’s responsibility may lead to war, thus it must not be conducted. Finally, Tusk announced that he takes full responsibility for all the consequences of the outcome of this investigation. These assumptions of D. Tusk were the reason for handing over the entire investigation to the Russians and for agreeing by the Polish side to falsify the cause of the Smolensk tragedy.

5. This fear of Russia was the source of Tusk’s decision to conduct the investigation under the Chicago Convention, which in fact does not even apply to a state aircraft like the Polish Air Force One destroyed in Smolensk. This decision meant giving Russia all competencies in investigating the Smolensk tragedy, disposing of the wreckage and other evidence in Russia, and authoring the report. The government confirmed the approval of the Chicago Convention on April 10, and Tusk conveyed this decision when meeting Putin at night on April 10 in Smolensk. On April 16, this decision, and at the same time the rejection of the bilateral investigation agreement that was in force between Poland and Russia, were confirmed in writing by the Polish government commission supervising the investigation of this disaster.

6. As a consequence of this decision officers of the civilian and not military investigation commission were sent to Smolensk, headed by its chairman E. Klich, who assumed the responsibility of the representative of the Polish side from the very beginning. Among these investigators, there were no soldiers of the military commission charged with investigating such state and military plane disasters. Bogdan Klich, with the consent of Prime Minister Tusk, delayed the appointment of this commission 6 days, officially establishing it on the evening of April 15, although its members arrived in Smolensk on the evening of April 11.

7. The purpose of these actions was to enable the Russians to falsify the evidence and accuse Polish pilots. This was possible due to the behavior of D. Tusk’s representatives, who observed the destruction and falsification of evidence by the Russians without any reaction. The first key decision of the Polish side was made on the evening of April 10 when E. Klich’s illegal consented to the Russians taking over the black boxes to Moscow without any Polish oversight. Meanwhile, in the afternoon of April 10, Russian radio reported that the boxes had already been examined. E. Klich, D. Tusk’s representative, clearly stated on April 10 that he was aware of this situation.

8. Polish prosecutors on April 10/11 did not undertake any examination, instead they observed Russian forgeries. But they signed a document stating that the Russians gave them the right to examine the bodies and the wreckage. That is why, for example, they did not take into account the fact that the left door no. 823 of the airplane was driven one meter deep into the ground.  The Polish so-called Miller Commission failed to disclose and take into account any of the key facts.

9. Polish representatives who were supposed to examine black boxes with the Russians did not do so. There was only one Polish officer in the examination room. He confirmed that he was not allowed to listen to the entire recording but only to a few fragments of the CVR. Poles never had access to the original CVR or the original records from flight data recorders.

10. The Russian side did not give the Poles access to the main evidence or to fly around the airport to check the operation of the aircraft landing reception system.

11. The Polish side rejected the proposal of assistance and cooperation offered by NATO, the EU, and the USA. This latest proposal was made by the US ambassador on behalf of the US President before 12 noon on April 10, i.e. before the government meeting. The US offer to help was not communicated to the members of this meeting. The decision to reject support from NATO countries was approved directly on behalf of Donald Tusk by Minister Arabski, prosecutor K. Parulski, chairman E. Klich, Minister of National Defense B. Klich, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Radosław Sikorski. The consequence was that this investigation was left exclusively to Russia and the truth about the course of the disaster was very well covered up and hidden from the public.

12. On April 13, Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Putin decided and announced during the meeting of his committee that the Polish representative under the Chicago Convention would be E. Klich, who refused to allow Polish specialists to undertake or demand access to the key evidence, including digging part of the area to check fragments stuck in the ground. This decision highlighted Putin’s relationship with Tusk and Putin’s position on the Smolensk investigation.

13. This is important because on April 16, B. Klich and Tusk received an analysis from a Polish meteorology specialist indicating that the fault was on the Russian side because they were obliged to close the airport due to the weather and did not do so. This position was rejected by the Minister of National Defense, B. Klich, emphasizing that such hypotheses cannot be formulated at this time.

14. Immediately after the disaster, D. Tusk’s party promoted the position that it was the Poles’ fault and that the Russians were doing everything they could to support Poland.  What is more, the message was conveyed that the pilots were to blame for this crash. Gen. Petelicki revealed to the public that the Tusk party members received information that the Smolensk disaster was the pilots’ fault. General Petelicki was found dead with the gun wound to his head soon thereafter.

15. Tusk also decided not to demand that the Russians hand over the study or airplane fragments, although the Chicago Convention anticipated it and PiS – the Polish opposition party demanded it. To prevent it the Tusk’s MPs voted in the Sejm that the Polish government would not request this documentation.

16. After the publication of the first version of the Russian so-called Anodina report, which was accepted by E. Klich, Polish investigation commission KBWLLP members prepared a position paper indicating that the thesis about the pilots’ guilt is false. Tusk informed Putin and Medvedev about this. Putin brutally rejected it, and the negotiations led to Tusk’s resignation from the truth presented in the position paper and his declaration in the Sejm on January 19, 2011, that the fault was the actions of the Polish pilots and the pressure from “representatives of the authorities” on the plane. The Chairman of the Polish Investigative Commission Jerzy Miller accepts this approach and recommends to the committee that the established information about the Russians’ guilt presented in the position paper not be taken into account. Instead, the Russian version of events should be accepted;

17. This acquiescence to the Smolensk lie was a part of the broader negotiations, whereas the Russians agreed to the Russian-German-Polish alliance, the strategy implemented till June of 2014 as part of the arrangements in Königsberg, Moscow, Warsaw, St. Petersburg, and Berlin.

18. Clear and indisputable evidence of the attack by an explosion on board the Polish Airforce One in Smolensk, Russia, is the identification of plastic explosive markers, i.e. those used for attack operations. The law on the obligation to use tracers in explosives was adopted by many countries.  In Poland, it was adopted in 2008.As a result of the work of the Polish Subcommittee for Reinvestigation of the Smolensk Crash established in 2016 by a new Polish government, another very important piece of evidence was discovered. Through the reconstruction of the damage to the airplane and the identification of more than a hundred fragments of the plane, including parts of the seats, it was possible to identify the location of the explosions. Also, the explosion in the wing 100 meters before the so-called birch tree that was supposed to cut the wing was proven beyond any doubt. The subcommittee determined that this birch tree could not cut off the wing of this airplane. This version of events was false and fictitious. The birch tree in Smolensk was not damaged by the impact of the airplane but was simply broken.

19. Tusk’s supporters continue to deceive the public opinion about the Subcommittee’s work, including the popular lie promoted by TVN that the Subcommittee hid part of the NIAR report. Meanwhile, the author of this lie recently admitted that it is impossible to refer to the NIAR report because there was no such thing as the NIAR report in accordance with the terms of the NIAR – Polish Ministry of National Defense agreement.

 Translation from Polish by Polonia Institute

Zbrodnia i Kłamstwo Smoleńskie

Argumenty wskazujące na rosyjską presję kłamstwa

1. Radosław Sikorski i jego rzecznik prasowy przekazują, że przyczyną katastrofy było uderzenie samolotu w drzewo. Tezę tę przekazali przedstawiciele ambasady a przede wszystkim gen. Wiśniewski szef polskiego ataszatu i b. agent wojskowych służb komunistycznych;

2. Podobne tezy przekazywał także wysłany przez Sikorskiego jako organizator wizyty Prezydenta Lecha Kaczyńskiego w Katyniu w 2010 roku b. funkcjonariusz SB Tomasz Turski twierdzący, że samolot uderzył w radiolatarnię i został zniszczony;

3. TVN24 o g. 11.15 prezentuje wywiad z p. Szulcem z Wrocławia, który stwierdza, że przyczyną katastrofy była decyzja pilotów pod presją przedstawicieli władzy znajdujących się w samolocie, aby jak najszybciej lądować. To wszystko było przekazywaniem kłamstw rosyjskich służb specjalnych bo nikt jeszcze wówczas nie znał zapisów rozmów pilotów z kabiny. Dziś wiemy, że w zapisach tych rozmów nie ma ani słowa o presji lądowania;

4. Podstawową decyzją rządu D. Tuska było przyjęcie tezy, że największym niebezpieczeństwem dla Polski jest to, że „Polacy podejrzewają Rosjan o zamach” a nie wolno „zakładać, że to Rosjanie mogli być odpowiedzialni za tragedię smoleńską”. Dlatego też nie należy się zwracać do Rosji o przekazanie Polsce badania choćby części katastrofy, co przewidywała nawet Konwencja Chikagowska. Twierdzili, że ponieważ badanie odpowiedzialności Rosji może doprowadzić do wojny więc nie wolno tego badać, i wreszcie, że to on – Donald Tusk – przejmuje pełną odpowiedzialność za wszystkie konsekwencje tych badań. Te założenia D. Tuska były przyczyną oddania Rosjanom śledztwa smoleńskeigo i zgody na fałszowanie przyczyn tragedii smoleńskiej;

5. Takie było źródło decyzji Putina i Tuska o przyjęciu konwencji chicagowskiej jako procedury badania katastrofy. Oznaczało to oddanie Rosji wszystkich kompetencji w zakresie badania tej tragedii narodowej, dysponowania wrakiem i innymi dowodami w Rosji wedlug uznania oraz autorstwa raportu. Aprobatę konwencji chicagowskiej potwierdził rząd Tuska już 10 kwietnia a Tusk przekazał Putinowi te wiadomość jeszcze nocą 10 kwietnia w Smoleńsku. 16 kwietnia decyzję tę i odrzucenie umowy wspólnego badania potwierdziła pisemnie komisja rządowa RP nadzorująca badanie katastrofy;

6. Konsekwencją tej decyzji było wysłanie do Smoleńska funkcjonariuszy cywilnej komisji badania katastrof lotnicznych na czele z jej przewodniczącym E. Klichem, który od początku zakładał odpowiedzialność strony polskiej. Wśród tych funkcjonariuszy nie było żadnego żołnierza wojskowej komisji mającej obowiązek badać katastrofę samolotu Polskich Sil Powietrznych,  a więc takiego jaki uległ katastrofie w Smolensku. Tę cywilną komisję do spraw badania katastrofy Smolenskiej B. Klich jako szef MON za zgodą premiera Tuska powołał dopiero po 6 dniach, wieczorem 15 kwietnia, choć jej żołnierze przyjechali do Smoleńska już wieczorem 11 kwietnia;

7. Celem tych działań było umożliwienie Rosjanom fałszowania badań i oskarżenie polskich pilotów. Wynika to z zachowania przedstawicieli D. Tuska, którzy bez żadnej reakcji obserwowali niszczenie i fałszowanie przez Rosjan materiałów dowodowych. Kluczową decyzją była wieczorem 10 kwietnia bezprawna zgoda E. Klicha na przejęcie przez Rosjan czarnych skrzynek do Moskwy. Tymczasem po południu 10 04 radio rosyjskie przekazało, że skrzynki już zaczęto badać. E. Klich przedstawiciel D. Tuska wyraźnie stwierdził 10 04, że orientuje się w tej sytuacji;

8. Polscy prokuratorzy 10 /11 kwietnia nie podjęli żadnego badania i obserwowali rosyjskie fałszerstwa, choć podpisali dokument stwierdzający, że Rosjanie dali im prawo badania ciał i wrakowiska. Dlatego np. nie uwzględnili wbicia w ziemię na metr drzwi samolotu nr. 823. Komisja Millera nie ujawniła i nie uwzględniła żadnego z tych faktów;

9. Polscy reprezentanci mający badać z Rosjanami czarne skrzynki nie robili tego. W izbie badania był tylko jeden funkcjonariusz, który akceptował, że nie umożliwiono mu wysłuchania całego zapisu a jedynie kilku fragmentów CVR. Polacy nigdy nie mieli dostępu do oryginału CVR ani do oryginału zapisów parametrów;

10. Strona rosyjska nie dała Polakom możliwości dostępu do głównych materiałów a także do oblotu lotniska i sprawdzenia działania systemu przyjmowania lądowania samolotu;

11. Polska strona odrzuciła propozycję współpracy z NATO, UE i USA. Ta ostatnia propozycja została przekazana przez ambasadora USA w imieniu Prezydenta jeszcze przed g. 12 10 kwietnia a więc przez posiedzeniem rządu, któremu tego nie przekazano. Decyzję odrzucenie wsparcia państw NATO zaaprobowali bezpośrednio w imieniu Donalda Tuska minister Arabski, prokurator K. Parulski, przewodniczący E. Klich oraz minister MON B. Klich i minister spraw zagranicznych Radosław Sikorski. Konsekwencją było pozostawienie badań wyłącznie Rosji i ukrycie prawdy o przebiegu katastrofy;

12. 13. 04 Premier FR Putin zdecydował i ogłosił podczas posiedzenia swojej komisji, że reprezentantem Polski w ramach konwencji chicagowskiej będzie E. Klich, który odmawiał polskim specjalistom podejmowania lub domagania się kluczowych badań, w tym przekopania części terenu celem sprawdzenia fragmentów wbitych w ziemie. Ta decyzja podkreśliła relacje Putina z Tuskiem i stanowisko Putina w zakresie badań katastrofy;

13. To o tyle ważne, że 16 kwietnia B. Klich i Tusk otrzymali od polskiego specjalisty meteorologii analizę wskazującą, że winni byli Rosjanie, którzy ze względu na złą pogodę mieli obowiązek zamknąć lotnisko a tego nie uczynili. To stanowisko odrzucił minister ON B. Klich podkreślając, że w tym czasie badań nie wolno takich hipotez formułować;

14. Natychmiast po katastrofie środowisko D. Tuska upowszechniało w polskim spoleczenstwe tezę, że to wina Polaków a Rosjanie robią wszystko co mogą by wspierać Polskę. Co więcej przekazywali tezę, że winni są piloci. Jak wiadomo Gen. Petelicki ujawnił publicznie, że PO instrułuje swoich członkow by mówili, że to wina pilotów. Wkrotce potem General Petelicki został znaleziony martwy w garażu swego domu z raną postrzałową w głowie;

15. Tusk podjął też decyzję, że nie będzie domagał się od Rosjan przekazania badania, ani jego fragmentów choć konwencja chicagowska to przewidywała a PiS tego zażądał. Posłowie Tuska przegłosowali w Sejmie, że rząd RP nie będzie zwracał się o to do Rosji;

16. Po publikacji pierwszej wersji raportu Anodiny, który zaakceptował E. Klich, Polscy członkowie KBWLLP przygotowali stanowisko wskazujące, że teza o winie pilotów jest fałszywa. Tusk informuje o tym Putina i Miedwiediewa. Putin odrzuca to brutalnie a negocjacje doprowadzają do rezygnacji Tuska z prawdy i do deklaracji w Sejmie 19 stycznia 2011 r., że winą było działanie pilotów i presja „przedstawicieli władz” czyli Dowódcy Polskich Sił Lotniczych Generała Andrzeja Błasika oraz Prezydenta Polski Lecha Kaczyńskiego. Jerzy Miller akcepuje ten przekaz i poleca swojej komisji, aby nie brać pod uwagę ustalonych informacji o winie Rosjan, lecz należy zgodzić się na tezę rosyjską;

17. Dzieje się tak dlatego, że Rosjanie w ramach negocjacji zgadzają się na sojusz rosyjsko-niemiecko-polski, który jest potem jeszcze realizowany do czerwca 2014 r. w ramach ustaleń w Królewcu, Moskwie, Warszawie, Petersburgu i w Berlinie;

18. Jednoznacznym i bezspornym dowodem zamachu w Smolensku za pomocą eksplozji jest identyfikacja znaczników materiałów wybuchowych plastikowych, czyli służących do operacji zamachowych. Ustawa o obowiązku stosowania znaczników w materiałach wybuchowych była przyjęta także przez Polskę jeszcze w 2008 r. Dzięki gigantycznej pracy Podkomisji ds Ponownego Zbadania Zdarzenia Lotniczego w Smolensku bardzo ważnym materiałem dowodowym jest też rekonstrukcja zniszczeń samolotu oraz identyfikacja ponad stu fragmentów samolotu, w tym części foteli zniszczonych wybuchem. Ważne jest także identyfikacja i zanalizowanie wybuchu w skrzydle 100 metrów przed brzozą i jednoznaczne  udowodnienie, że tezy o uderzeniu w brzozę są błędne i fikcyjne. Dziś wiemy ponad wszelką wątpliwość, że brzoza w Smoleńsku nie została przecięta od uderzenia skrzydła samolotu lecz zwyczajnie złamana.

19. Środowisko D. Tuska do dziś oszukuje opinię publiczną an temat przyczyn tragedii smoleńskiej oraz na temat pracy Podkomisji. Powołując się na informację TVN dyskredytuje Podkomisję jakoby ta ukryła część raportu NIAR. Tymczasem autor tej tezy sam przyznał, że powoływanie się na tezy raportu NIAR jest niemożliwe, gdyż takiego raportu w ramach realizacji umowy NIAR z MON po prostu nie było.

The post Smoleńsk Assassination and the Lie appeared first on Polonia Institute.

By Zbigniew Wojcik

1. Forgotten case: How Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister of Poland,
    became an accessory in the murder of an innocent Pole.

1.1. The scene of the murder. I, along with millions of Poles who followed the news on TV, had witnessed Donald Tusk’s action, which led to the killing of an innocent Polish citizen.  Muslim terrorists caught a Polish engineer who worked as a contractor in Pakistan and requested money for his release. A Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, made a public announcement on Polish TV news channel that he will not pay the ransom. I  personally saw and heard his statement widely distributed on Polish TV. Because of this official declaration made by the top Polish official, the Polish engineer was immediately executed. I was shocked: why the Polish Prime Minister deliberately chose the course of action that caused the prompt brutal murder of Mr. Stanczak? Instead of giving this formal announcement which was equal to giving a death sentence to an innocent man,  Donald Tusk could talk to the Pakistani government first and also to international organizations familiar with terrorism and kidnapping. There might exist religious organizations or individuals in Pakistan to assist in a hostage situation to save an innocent life. I have not heard anything about diplomatic or religious attempts to release the Polish citizen, as it should be Tusk’s obligation and responsibility. Instead of the brutal public speech made by Donald Tusk, other options could be exercised,  and maybe some positive solution could be found. I did not see it necessary that a top official of a country loudly makes the ruthless, deadly decision. “The claim to have murdered Stanczak came just hours after Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk told reporters that no ransom would be paid.” [1] “’ We have beheaded the Polish engineer after the government failed to meet our demands and we will not hand over his body,’ a Taliban spokesman said by telephone.”

1.2. Motivations of killing an innocent Pole. Could this be just a mistake of Donald Tusk, a Polish Prime Minister, to announce publicly his no-ransom decision? If you, the reader of this article, are an innocent working person shouldn’t you be afraid to live under Tusk’s power? If not, why would you support Donald Tusk to govern the country you live in?

Is it possible that Donald Tusk made a deal with the Pakistan Government against the Polish engineer?  Indeed, the statement [1]: ”The kidnappers had demanded a large ransom and the release of six jailed militants in exchange for the engineer’s release” may suggest, that Pakistan had no interest to release six jailed militants and it was purposeful to talk to Tusk, the Polish top official, rather than to the Taliban. If I was the Prime Minister of Poland, I  would declare that I would pay my part for the release of the Polish citizen. Donald Tusk preferred to support a far-distant country rather than his citizen, Mr. Stanczak, and it likely had to be a very dirty deal.

Further on, the statement [1]: “Piotr Stanczak was seized on September 28 by armed men who killed his two drivers and bodyguard in restive northwest Pakistan, where he was working for a Polish energy company” indicates, that Pakistan felt responsible for the safety of the Pole but failed. Pakistani government knew of the Taliban threat and preferred that Donald Tusk takes full responsibility for the death of  Mr. Stanczak on their territory. Pakistan made no mistake: the six militants in jail were of very high value, as they were extremely good at killing and thus dangerous since one militant easily handled a bodyguard, two drivers, and one engineer. This explains also why Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister of Poland, took loudly and officially full responsibility for killing an innocent Pole. Tusk likes responsibility for dirty or brutal decisions.

1.3. During the ongoing political campaign preceding the 2023 elections, the media in Poland forgot to recall the crime committed on an innocent Polish engineer. I wonder why the media in Poland forgot the fact of sentencing innocent  Mr. Stanczak to death by Donald Tusk while he wants to get full power over Poland again. Perhaps political conspiracy exists against the free government currently in charge of the country.

2. Donald Tusk with his “Polish government” fully collaborated
with Russians during the murder of Poles in the Smolensk crash

2.1. Several explosions destroyed a Polish plane in Smolensk.  The Soviet-made TU-154M aircraft with 96 Polish officials and crew on board crashed in Smolensk in 2010. One of the victims was the President of the Republic of Poland, Lech Kaczyński. “The TU-154M aircraft was destroyed in the air as a result of several explosions.” [3]

2.2. Reaction of the Polish government to the explosions. Immediately after the Smolensk crash, “…the Polish government decided to leave the investigation solely in Russian hands, without securing the rights to appeal to international organizations, aviation organizations, and relinquishing the right of an inspection, or any efficient supervision over examination procedures.”[2] Donald Tusk was the Prime Minister of Poland at the time of the Smolensk crash.

2.3. Restrictions imposed by Russia and by the Polish government. To prevent any medical evidence, “…opening the coffins was strictly forbidden”. Under the total supervision of Prime Minister Donald Tusk, “there were no Polish crash investigators, criminologists or explosives experts allowed to inspect the scene.” Dr. Michael Baden, the “world’s most famous forensic pathologist turned away by the Polish government”, said: [2] “I’ve never heard of the family not being able to get an autopsy.”

2.4. Rejection of any help offered by NATO and America. Also, “…the Polish government refused to consider any help from NATO and did not attempt to gather any support from other European Union countries. As a result, all the evidence gathered has been left on Russian soil, including confidential military and security codes belonging to NATO’s armies, “black boxes”, and other flight recording devices containing all flight parameters. None of this evidence, as well as any debris of the wreckage, has ever been returned to Poland.” “…during the first night of the crash, the Russians were removing the most important pieces of evidence.”[2]

2.5. Support for Russia by Tusk and his government. By the orders of Donald Tusk, especially by forcing the use Chicago Convention regarding civil aircraft crashes, the Polish experts did not have independent access to evidence material, witnesses, and other information, which still remain in Russia’s hands.[3] Yet, Russians broke the Chicago Convention, e.g. by not securing the crash site.

All these facts mean that Donald Tusk with his Polish government fully collaborated with Smolensk’s murderers of the Poles. E.g., the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Radosław Sikorski, did not sign a diplomatic note to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs demanding the crash scene be secured and that Polish representatives have full and unobstructed access to carry out their investigation [3].

2.6. Resumption of the investigation and release of a report by the new free government. Fortunately, the investigations continued despite obstacles set by Donald Tusk and his government, and the final report was released [3] after Poland gained true independence and sovereignty in 2015.  Andrzej Duda become the President of free Poland in 2015.   The Committee for the Re-investigation of the crash of TU-154M was established [3]. “In 2016, the State Prosecutor’s office decided to perform exhumation of all victims, which, e.g. confirmed the swapping of bodies in coffins. “ [3]  A thorough analysis of available evidence stated beyond doubt the use of explosive materials to crash TU-154M. For instance,  “elements of the skin of the left wing, which according to the MAK (Russians) and Miller (Polish) reports were supposed to have made contact with the bb [Bodin birch] tree are torn off and bent outwards; the upper side bent upwards, and the bottom side bent downwards.” [3] The birch tree, as reported by  Russians and Polish minister Miller, could not make the upper wing side bent upwards, and the bottom side bent downwards.  Simulations, experiments, and knowledge of experts proved that only explosions from inside the wing could make the numerous destructions observed.

2.7. The scene of the brutal Russian attack. “Many of the pieces of debris had distinct traces (micro craters) on their surface. Their appearance corresponds in shape and size with the traces of the debris created during the pyrotechnical experiment performed by the Committee. [3]  This feature is typical for explosive destruction.  “The explosion of the ballast box … was the main reason for the destruction … killing all the passengers, and distributing their body parts across the entire crash site.”[3]  “… Only small, torn body parts of victims were found, including numerous, identified internal organs, which prove that even before the plane hit the ground, the bodies of the passengers sitting in the center part of the aircraft cabin were impacted and torn into pieces.”[3]  The Committee found a “.. massive presence of traces of explosive materials”.

“The body of one of the passengers sitting in the rear part of the plane was rammed into the rear wall of the toilet (without the seat backrest) in such a way, that the wall was folded around the body of the passenger. The damage of the body and location of it shows that the body was moving in the direction opposite to the moving plane.”[3]

From what I understood, pictures were made at the scene of the crash and handed to the Committee. Jerzy Miller was the Minister of Interior in the Tusk government, and MAK is the Russian Interstate Aviation Committee (Межгосударственный Aвиационный Kомитет), showing a tight dependence of Donald Tusk and his Polish government on Russia.

2.8. More findings. Investigations revealed also [3], that during landing, “the guidance of the TU-154M was performed with a systematic misleading of the Polish pilots by Russian General V. Benediktov.” In effect,  the plane crashing place was located in the woods far from buildings and did not align with any runway [4].

Explanations of the Smolensk Crash provided by MAK and Miller’s reports were modeled by virtual experiments on computers. “The simulation of the plane’s destruction shows a completely different destruction of the model than the plane at the crash site.” [3] Simply, both MAK and Miller reports are lying.

3. Poland took the chance of a stable friendship with America
after a long history of Poland’s occupation by hostile neighbors

3.1. Polish politicians used to collaborate with the Soviet occupants of Poland. Poland has a recent history of occupation by the Soviet Union from about 1945 to 1990, immediately after about 5 years of occupation by Germany during WWII. Earlier, for about 120 years till 1918, Poland was occupied by Germany, Russia, and Austria. This history explains in part the behavior of many Polish political leaders promoting the domination of Germany and Russia over their country. Leaders like Donald Tusk do not hesitate to collaborate with Russia and Germany against the Poles. There are thousands of previous active Soviet collaborators living in Poland. Their descendants enjoy relative prosperity inherited after their parents together with connections (an example is Piotr Kraśko, the descendant of Wincenty Kraśko, a national secretary of the Polish Communist Party during the Cold War. After the Cold War Piotr was so successful that he even reported St. John Paul II pilgrimages.)

3.2. The political future of Poland is its friendship with America [4]. I discussed with the CIA in 1886/87 the significance of a prospective member of Poland in NATO and how Poland could easily break with the Warsaw Pact [4].  US intelligence officers I talked to did not oppose it and then I got many questions about Polish culture, the achievements of outstanding Poles, and the attitude of Poles toward America.  The U.S. is the only strong strategic partner, because of the disastrous Poland’s history of living between two hostile and very strong neighbors. The second strategic partner for Poland is the United Kingdom. Perhaps also Germans are today not as bad for Poles as the Polish collaborators with the Soviets or with Russians. The collaborators lost their political employer during the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and are now anxious to have again a strong new master.

3.3. America needs faithful friendship with Poland. Poland is of the greatest significance for America in Europe, as Poland is located between Germany and Asian Russia [4]. Russia does not lose its imperial politics and is in a military war to get back the territories lost after the Soviet Bloc collapse. Germany is the strongest Western Europe power hungry for total domination in the region through the  European Union. Poland’s Law and Justice (PiS), a national-conservative political party,  opposes German domination over its country. Both Germany and Russia tend to eliminate America’s influence in Europe. PiS supports friendships with America.

3.4. Pro-German and pro-Russia movements in Poland. The opposition party Civic Platform (PO) with its leader Donald Tusk is highly pro-German and pro-Russian. Well-known politician Lech Walesa works for PO. Germany strongly supports Polish opposition through the UE parliament, punishing for instance Poland for not complying with EU (often illegitimate) orders.  PO leaders strongly support orders of the EU against Poland and even complain to the EU against Poland, openly asking to punish their country.

The cases with Donald Tusk’s active involvement described in the sections above show that both Germany and Russia tend to fight freedom-loving Poles by all means using opposition leaders like Tusk.

4. Poland suffered an attack from Russia in 2010

4.1. Smolensk Crash was an attack of Russia against Poland. Tusk was instrumental in this attack: his refusal of NATO assistance became a significant part of Russia’s attack against Poland and also against NATO countries through Article 5 of the NATO Charter. Tusk prevented military assistance from NATO by declaring the incident in Smolensk was a civilian crash. By rejecting any help from NATO and living all evidence on Russian soil, Tusk gave Russians confidential military and security codes belonging to NATO’s armies [2]. This was a betrayal. Article 5 of the NATO Charter assured Poland reasonable military assistance from all NATO countries after the crash. Obviously, the plane carrying the Polish President was not a civilian but a military plane. Tusk resorted to Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention from 1944 applicable only to civilian aviation and not to the bilateral Agreement between Poland and Russia from 1993 that provided for equal access to all evidence and information.

4.2. Russians fully trusted Donald and they did not doubt Tusk’s loyalty. In other words, Smolensk Crash was a large-scale well-prepared attack after which Russia, counting on Tusk,  did not expect serious consequences. The information about rejecting any help from NATO by the Polish government comes from a trustable internet source [2] as this source publishes articles by a CIA expert, Eugene Poteat, LL.D., specializing in Polish-Russian relations [5]. A reader needs to understand that the Technical Report [3]  covers only “findings concerning the most important technical aspects of this crash”, and that the CIA knows [2] about other aspects of the Smolensk crash.

The reader may think, Donald Tusk was afraid of the Russians and did not want to escalate the Russian attack. But Tusk also sacrificed a Polish engineer in Pakistan, see the story above, where he did not need to be afraid of a very distant country, so, escalation did not come into play. As the Prime Minister, Tusk should discuss the attack on the Polish military plane with NATO as Poland is a member of this pact since 1999. Article 5 says about “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, and not necessarily a military action”. Tusk was hostile to NATO and sided with Russia. This Tusk’s attitude will likely continue once Tusk will govern Poland again, which may lead to the end of this country.

4.3. Friendship with America vs. post-communist Tusk. Support for Tusk is the support for the return of the power of the post-communist people in Poland, who will govern like during communism, and the support for getting rid of the friendship with America. The fact is that Tusk with his Polish government already rejected the help the NATO with Americans just after the attack of the Russians on Polish military aircraft in 2010 [2]. The fronts will completely change after Tusk gets power.

5. Consequences of the Round Table Agreement

5.1. The cost and advantages of the Round Table. Polish communists received everything they wanted as a result of the Round-Table agreement so that they would agree to a democratic free election. Even their man, Lech Wałęsa, was elected during the first free elections in Poland after the Cold War. Polish post-communists felt safe when Wałęsa, a former paid communist undercover agent became the first President of free Poland. The process of peaceful transition into capitalism in Poland needed some sacrifices [4]. Justice was left in the hands of communists to avoid the punishments of accomplished terror-keepers in Poland. But there was no blood-shed.

5.2. Secret of communist terror.  Terror in Poland under Soviet occupation in the years 1960 -1990 was maintained by undercover agents pretending to be anti-communists who were very successful in detecting true patriots by using well–played provocations: all who were willing to fight communism and who confessed to the secret agents their attitude towards freedom were then persecuted. Many lost lives [4,7]. Lech Walesa, a former communist agent, still pretends to be an anti-communist fighter and he always does this so well that many people still trust him, including professional politicians, especially in America.  [8,7]

5.3. The role of the post-communist time. Adam Michnik, an accomplished communist undercover agent, also pretended to be an anti-communist fighter [4,7]. After the Cold War during the post-communism, Michnik had several years to destroy communist archives.

After taking power, the post-communists, among them the former highly accomplished communist agents, were free to rob Poland. An example is the robbing and complete devastation of the modern and highly competitive Cable Factory in Ożarów near Warsaw [4] when Kwasniewski was the President. Post-communist authorities, except for President Lech Kaczynski,  kept robbing and devastating Poland through a few presidencies up to President Andrzej Duda, an honest Polish patriot.

5.4. Never trust post-communists. Many undercover communist agents converted into activists of political parties, some of them pretending they were anti-communist heroes. Lech Wałęsa was not alone. Under the presidency of a patriot  Andrzej Duda, the post-communists do anything possible to take power back. EU served them with strong support. An example is the support of the opposition party PO for Donald Tusk: evidence shows he sided with the successful attack of Russia on Polish military aircraft and rejected NATO help. Poles will be left without any assistance under Tusk’s power: knowing this and counting on Tusk, Russians will likely attack Poland, e.g. through  Belarus’ territory.

5.5. Polish post-communists’ dream is to take totalitarian power back. Tusk openly says that he takes full responsibility for his orders, this way he declares he is a totalitarian ruler. His slogan is: you do what I say, and I am responsible for this. His subordinates obey him more easily under this motto.

6. The attitude of Germany toward Tusk and Russia

Germany likes and supports Tusk, mostly through the EU. In appreciation of Tusk’s performance during the Russian attack against Poland through the military plane crash in Smolensk, Chancellor Angela Merkel gave him the position of EU Council president, which he took in 2014.

Germany’s politicians were in strong friendly ties with Russia after the Cold War. As the Chancellor, Schröder opened Gazprom, a gas pipeline between Russia and Germany.  Only days after his chancellorship, he has been working for Russian state-owned energy companies and was lobbying on behalf of Russia. Schröder’s salary paid by Russia is about $1 million per year. Angela Merkel intensified Schröder’s strategy, declaring to close all its nuclear power plants, making her country more dependent on Russia’s energy supply.

Historically, Germany and Russia (or the Soviet Union) collaborated strategically for over a century to control the center of Europe, which led to  WWI and WWII. These two powers continue their strategy: Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022 and Germany for a long time only pretended to support Ukraine.

7. The attitude of the EU and Germany toward Poland

Germany seeks to subordinate Poland through the EU, this time not by military aggression. Support for Tusk to govern Poland is one possible way to destroy Poland.

The EU claims to have authority over a sovereign country and may take legal action against its member for failing to apply EU law. As a sovereign country, Poland refused to implement EU law in case it violated the Polish constitution. No international agreement can violate Polish Constitution, which is a supreme law for Poles. Way to go through the wise decision of the current patriotic Polish government! EU, and in reality, the Chairman of the EU Commission, the German politician Ursula von der Leyen,  attempted to deprive Poland of its sovereignty. Fortunately, the EU Commission has no military power and cannot reinforce its decision with a military attack. A monetary penalty is nothing compared to allowing for the loss of the Polish government elected by Poles. Poland wants to be an EU member as a sovereign nation.

Poles have got the lesson that only America’s friendship is valuable. Not Russia and not Germany with its UE click,  as the history of Russian and German imperialism repeats itself in front of our eyes.

8. The test for the intention of Germany toward the Poles

The test for the intention of Germany after strong attempts to put Tusk to govern Poland is the call for reparation after WWII. Poland suffered enormous losses in human lives and the horrible destruction of the entire country and never received a dollar of compensation from Germany.  EU countries support the demand and penalties imposed on Poland to control this proud country that wants to stay free. Interestingly, not much pressure from the EU countries is visible to encourage Germany to compensate, even symbolically, for the damages Germans did to the Poles during WWII. EU propaganda in the media blames Poland for not respecting the EU law and is quiet on the issue of war reparations. The EU propaganda does not correlate these two issues, although these two problems appear at the same time. German people are given the chance to humanly resolve the issue of their ultimate hate towards Poles. If a living Pole says about the organized systematic killing of Polish citizens in concentration camps, or about the enthusiastic support of German leaders by German people to murder Poles as well as burn their houses and demolish infrastructure, the Germans would say “we did it, and we are proud to compensate for all the loses as you required”. Instead, Germany pushes to put their ruthless man, Donald Tusk on the throne of Poland. Many supporters of Tusk exist in Poland who are ready to govern with him as they or their parents did during the Cold War. An example is Lech Wałęsa [7], an extremely successful officer in undercover provocations to detect patriots who were not happy with Soviet/communist oppression. Do they plan an equally oppressive government in Poland? If not, why Donald Tusk? And why is the major opposition party PO (Civic Platform) under the leadership of Tusk? Lech Wałęsa is a member of the PO, providing spiritual leadership for his comrades.

9. Spiritual leadership for Tusk’s political party in Poland

9.1. Dirty political job needs high rewards and satisfaction.  Governing is frequently a very dirty job. Monetary compensation is not enough for this type of duty. Approval by people counts.

Wałęsa received the opinion of a national hero for fighting against Soviet communism in Poland while he was a communist agent keeping terror. Perhaps it is hard to understand, why the communist undercover officer, giving out patriots for Soviet oppression, becomes a national hero.  Well, this is exactly what is needed in a tyranny:  many power-supporting officers who are seen as national heroes while they do very dirty political inhumane duties.  Lech Walesa is an excellent example of such an officer [7]. Walesa is now worshiped even in America. See e.g. excerpts describing key activity of Polish organizations in Texas: [8]

“Adam Dominski, President Walesa’s Chief of Staff and President of the Board at the Lech Walesa Institute.

Nathan Silverstein, the founder, and president of the Polish Club at the University of Texas.

Pawel Hardej, a local businessman, Polish American activist, and community organizer.

United States headquarters of his new Lech Walesa Foundation in Austin.

AUSTIN, TEXAS (PRWEB) MAY 21, 2022

The Nobel Peace Prize winner and former president of Poland Lech Walesa draws crowds at the UT Austin AT&T Hotel and Conference Center during his speech on the war in Ukraine.”

“President Walesa also visited with Texas Governor Greg Abbott during his stay in Austin. Meeting at the Governor’s Mansion with the Governor and his staff, Walesa was accompanied by local leaders of the Polish American community…”

Lech Walesa indeed was the “Nobel Peace Prize winner and former president of Poland. So, where is the problem and why are these facts disturbing?  Disturbing are his oppressive communist activities in the past that were not presented to the Texas Governor before Walesa visited Austin in 2022.  These disturbing facts were discovered, analyzed, and published by the top historical authority of Poland, The National Remembrance Institute (IPN) [9, 4,7]. Disturbing also is the fact that political authorities in America are easily manipulated and perhaps do not know or underestimate the power of communist propaganda. Speaking about the war in Ukraine [8], post-communists pretend to be honest people but as evidenced by Donald Tusk and the growing conflict between the EU and Poland, they support the German imperium known as the EU and not the free Poland.

What does the pro-Wałęsa propaganda get?

A few things.

i. The propaganda gains the trust in the words of the big post-communist-like leaders: you trust them because they claim they are accomplished “anti-communist” heroes. They support the EU with the leadership of Germany and then you also trust them.  Pro-Ukraine propaganda is correct, so, you trust Wałęsa more.  This is typical propaganda to mislead you to satisfy the power-hungry of EU politicians.

ii. The ad [8] shows many Polish activists promoting the spirituality of Lech Wałęsa to follow: you will be a national hero like Lech Wałęsa if you listen to your political leader (like Tusk) while doing dirty work for him.

9.2. Hiding the historical truth about Lech Walesa by Polish Historians in the US. There is no space in Polish American Congress (PAC), for the truth after 40 years since the creation of the Solidarity movement in Poland, and after 30 years since the Berlin Wall collapsed. Poles living in Poland know the truth about Lech Walesa, but Polonia in the US and American people are kept in the dark.  Historical studies carried out by the National Remembrance Institute (IPN) concluded that Lech Walesa worked as a paid communist agent under the Soviet occupation of Poland during the Cold War. And look what Prof. Emeritus Donald Pienkos, a professional historian says on the Internet of PAC, published as “The Amazing Story of Solidarity…” [10]:

“Lech Walesa, a former worker blacklisted for his independent labor union organizing activities, joined them and was immediately made a leader of its strike committee. “ … “An inter-factory strike committee headed by Walesa was set up, with new demands calling for the creation of an independent union and a union newspaper free of government censorship. Solidarnosc was born.” … “This unimagined agreement sparked Solidarity’s amazing expansion into a massive national force that grew in just a few weeks to nearly ten million members.”

What is wrong with the professional historian’s story on the history of Solidarity?

9.3. Disturbing elements in Polish historian’s story about Lech Walesa. Disturbing is the lack of information in the entire Pienkos’ text [10] about the communist dark past of Lech Walesa, which was studied and published a long time ago by historians of the top historian institution,  IPN in Poland. This is wrong, at least there should be a remark in “historian” Pienkos’ text about the findings of the supreme historical authority investigating communist crimes in Poland. Prof Pienkos knew about the IPN and its study about Walesa and Solidarity, as Pienkos’ article starts with information on an exhibit about the IPN in Warsaw’s Pilsudski’s Square. A professor of history knows that Solidarity was highly infiltrated by communist security. Putting a secret communist agent in charge of Solidarity was a good move for the communist regime [7,4]. How could workers just elect the leader of their movement in communist Poland without the consent of the top communist figures?

9.4.  Professor Pienkos’s story about Walesa is propaganda. Communists in Soviet Bloc kept all people under strict political control [4]. There was no way a politically independent human could be in charge of a free labor union like Solidarity. Walesa could not be an exception in communist Poland, this is what true historians of IPN say [7]. Father Jerzy Popieluszko was a spiritual leader of Solidarity after Polish Pope John Paul II visited Poland in 1979. Then, the priest Popieluszko was tortured and murdered in 1984 by communist security. I attended a historical catholic mass carried out by the Polish pope in 1979 at St. Ann Church in Warsaw during which he repeated statements containing the word “solidarity”, asking people to get involved and “not be afraid”. Solidarity was created by the Polish pope, but unfortunately, Solidarity became inactive after the 6-day torture and murder of Father Popieluszko by communist security. Most likely, Solidarity would not resume if not for the ‘perestroika’ announced by Gorbachev.

Prof Pienkos did not resolve the combination of two key facts [6,7]: i. St. Father Popieluszko was terribly tortured and killed, and within the same communist regime, ii. Walesa stayed untouched on the top of Solidarity.

Also, Prof. Pienkos disregards not only professional historians living in Poland but also ignores the CIA.  How would Poland become a free country and join NATO without the knowledge of this powerful US organization [4]?

In addition, Wałęsa recently lost two cases in the court against history professor Cenckiewicz in Poland [11]. Interestingly, Wałęsa launched the trials. Cenckiewicz is the main IPN figure who studied Walesa’s dirty past.

9.5. Publishing of anti-Polish propaganda by Polish clubs.  Polish Heritage Center (PHC) in Panna Maria, Texas, accuses Poland of expelling millions of Germans at the end of WWII [6]. The exhibit entitled ‘REFUGEES, EXPULSION, RELOCATION” says: “… Poland ultimately expelled four million of five million Germans who had not already fled west. …” Also Lech Wałęsa was found to be a nasty communist agent, [7]  is depicted as a Polish hero by PHC.

                                       Conclusion

After the attack by Russia in 2010 on a military plane carrying 96 patriotic Poles, including the President of Poland Lech Kaczynski, Poland undergoes an attack from Germany through the EU institutions controlled by berlin.

Poland did not adequately oppose the Russian assassination attack in smolensk because of Donald Tusk’s conspiracy, who refused any assistance from NATO in the crash investigation. Also considering his contribution in killing innocent Polish engineer in Pakistan, it is very likely that once Tusk gets power in Poland, this country will no longer survive as an independent and sovereign entity.

regretably, many Polish clubs in America still align with the politics of Tusk’s political party, especially by propagating dirty political disinformation.  they will continue to do so with the Poles after Tusk gets power in Poland. This dirty political work promoted by Polish clubs in the US is what Walesa was doing when he was an undercover communist agent, for what, ironically, he is worshiped in the US as a national Polish hero.

the Polish Heritage Center in Texas is probably the worst, presenting Germans as the victims of the Polish government at the end of WWII [6]. This type of propaganda is hostile to Poles and may disturb negotiations for WWII reparations, as well as may strengthen German-Russia ties against Poland. Poland was occupied by Soviets immediately after WWII and Poles were excluded from making any decisions about their future after the war.

References

[1]. https://www.france24.com/en/20090207-poland-confirms-death-kidnapped-engineer-pakistan

[2]. https://www.smolenskcrashnews.com/polish-air-crash-disinformation.html

[3]. 2021 Final Report of the Polish Commission to Reinvestigate the Smolensk Crash https://podkomisjasmolensk.mon.gov.pl/pl/2.html. See also: https://www.poloniainstitute.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Smolensk-Report-April-2018-final.pdf

[4]. Zbigniew Wojcik, “Slaying the Soviet Beast. A True Story about How the Cold War was Won. What Next”, Liberty Hill, 2019.

[5]. https://www.smolenskcrashnews.com/russian-image-management.html

[6]. Zbigniew Wojcik, “Polonia clubs in America engaged in anti-Polish propaganda?” https://poloniainstitute.net/current-events/polonia-clubs-in-america-engaged-in-anti-polish-propaganda/

[7].  “Wałęsa, also known as “Bolek”. Communist Terror in Poland under the Shield of Solidarity”,  by Zbigniew Wojcik, https://poloniainstitute.net/recommended/walesa-also-known-as-bolek/

[8]. https://www.prweb.com/releases/2022/5/prweb18694655.htm

[9]. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/lech-walesa-was-paid-informant-communist-regime-documents-n520591

[10]. Donald Pienkos, “The Amazing Story of Solidarity Begins – 40 Years Ago”, http://pacwisconsin.com/2020/08/28/solidarity/

[11]. https://ground.news/article/cenckiewicz-won-the-trial-with-walesa-down-with-agentura

The post Opportunists harm Poles and Poland appeared first on Polonia Institute.