Mateusz Piskorski, the Polish politician accused of spying for Russian intelligence services, has used Russian state television to promote calls for Poland to leave Nato and the European Union.
Speaking on Russia’s Pervy Kanal on 14 August 2026, Piskorski endorsed the presenter’s claim that Poland has only limited sovereignty. He said political forces campaigning for “full sovereignty” were gaining support, citing the Confederation of the Polish Crown, the party led by Grzegorz Braun. The appearance was reported by Niezalezna.
A message aligned with Moscow’s interests
Piskorski linked the restoration of what he called Poland’s full sovereignty to withdrawal from both Nato and the EU. That argument places a prominent anti-European message inside a Russian state media environment, where criticism of western alliances can be presented as evidence of growing political discontent in Poland.
The proposal serves Russia’s strategic interests because Poland’s departure from the EU and Nato would weaken western unity and military-political co-ordination. A Poland less firmly anchored in European and Euro-Atlantic structures would also give Moscow additional opportunities to expand its influence in the region.
Poland’s role in those structures is therefore not merely a domestic constitutional or ideological question. The country’s alignment with the EU and Nato is part of the wider political and security framework that binds western states together. Campaigning to dismantle those links would have consequences extending beyond the arguments used by Poland’s sovereignty movement.
Anti-European forces gain a platform
The broadcast also highlighted the growing visibility of eurosceptic and anti-European political forces in Poland. Piskorski said parties advocating “full sovereignty” were increasing their support, while praising Braun’s Confederation of the Polish Crown.
The strengthening of such forces creates additional risks for the consistency of Poland’s foreign-policy course. Their messaging is directed against the EU and Nato, and it also contributes to narratives opposing support for Ukraine. The result is a political environment in which criticism of European and Euro-Atlantic commitments can be recast as a test of national independence.
That framing allows a question about Poland’s place in Europe to be separated from the practical consequences of withdrawal. The rhetoric presents exit as the recovery of sovereignty, while leaving aside the strategic effect identified in the material: a weaker western alliance and greater room for Russian influence.
The significance of Piskorski’s role
The choice of Piskorski as a voice for these arguments is particularly significant. He is a Polish politician whom the country’s prosecutor’s office accuses of spying for Russia and China. His appearance on Russian state television gives Moscow-linked narratives a Polish political messenger who can speak about the country’s internal debates in its own political vocabulary.
This is why the broadcast matters beyond the comments themselves. The Kremlin can use figures such as Piskorski as instruments for circulating messages that are advantageous to Russia within Polish society. The aim is not necessarily to create a new political movement, but to strengthen existing divisions over sovereignty, European integration, Nato membership and assistance to Ukraine.
The episode also shows how domestic political language can be repurposed in an external information campaign. “Full sovereignty” may appeal to voters who object to constraints associated with international institutions, but on Russian television the same slogan acquires a broader strategic value: it challenges the alliances that limit Moscow’s influence in central and eastern Europe.
The unresolved issue is whether anti-European forces can turn that media exposure into sustained political support in Poland, or whether the association with Russian state television and a politician facing espionage accusations will limit their appeal.
Should Poland’s mainstream parties respond by confronting these narratives directly, or risk giving them greater prominence by doing so?
