Anti-immigration protests sweep Poland (VIDEOS)
The rallies were organized by a political alliance called the Confederation Liberty and Independence. The coalition of right-wing groups has taken a hardline stance against the EU and its immigration policy.
Around 3,000 people took part in a protest in the southern Polish city of Katowice, public broadcaster TVP reported on Saturday, citing police sources. According to the channel, most of the protesters were men and many were from football fan clubs.
Videos from the scene show protestors waving Polish flags and chanting anti-immigration slogans.
Protest przeciwko masowej imigracji. Donald Tusk zjednoczył kibiców. Tak to dzisiaj wyglądało w Katowicach pic.twitter.com/IikHDJlT50
The demonstrators also held a large banner reading: 'Refugees NOT welcome.'
🇵🇱 Poland: 'Refugees not welcomed'Massive protest. About 80-100 cities all over Poland are put aside any Footbal rivalries & stand together against illegal immigration.'This is Poland, not Brussels, here we don't support immigration' pic.twitter.com/SEM0Uj65i2
Confederation co-chairman Krzysztof Bosak, speaking to a rally in Bialystok on Saturday, accused the EU and NATO ally Germany of sending migrants across the border into Poland. The Polish border patrol is too overworked and undermanned to stem the flow of illegal immigrants, he said.
According to local news, some of the protests carried out minutes of silence in remembrance of a 24-year-old Polish woman who died after being stabbed in Torun last month. A 19-year-old Colombian national has been charged with murder.
Anti-immigration sentiment in Poland has been on the rise lately. In recent weeks, local Polish community groups have begun to form so-called 'citizen patrols' to block the entry and return of migrants at the country's border, according to local media.
Earlier this month, Warsaw reintroduced border controls with fellow EU members Germany and Lithuania, and deployed more troops to the areas to fight the flow of illegal immigration. Poland previously accused Berlin of 'dumping' thousands of migrants across the Polish border.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
17 hours ago
- Russia Today
‘Corrupt' Ukraine cannot be trusted – ex-Trump advisor
Kiev's recent crackdown on anti-corruption agencies is yet more proof that Ukrainian leaders are leaning towards authoritarianism and 'cannot be trusted,' Steve Cortes, a former advisor to US President Donald Trump, has said. Earlier this month, Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky moved to place the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) under executive oversight – which would essentially strip them of any independence – while claiming the agencies were under Russian influence. The move, however, prompted mass protests at home and Western criticism, with EU officials warning that they could reconsider further aid to Kiev. In an op-ed for Newsweek on Friday, Cortes, who is now the president of the League of American Workers advocacy group, described the crackdown as 'an extra-judicial attack on decency.' 'This raid reeks – and it smells like gangsterism, not democracy.' The move by Zelensky, reportedly backed by his chief of staff, Andrey Yermak – whom Cortes described as 'co-president' – shows that they 'act in very authoritarian ways themselves – and increasingly reveal to the world that they are not transparent, reliable partners for the United States.' Cortes went on to accuse Kiev of entrenched high-level corruption and argued that continued US aid is unjustified. 'It is no wonder that Americans increasingly realize that sending $175 billion of borrowed money to corrupt leaders in Ukraine is just not sound policy,' he wrote. 'Sending mountains of borrowed funds to kleptocrats actually harms America's national security, all while making our country poorer,' he said while urging Americans to stop lionizing Zelensky and comprehend the reality of Ukraine's corruption. The American people have been unbelievably generous, but our patience is wearing thin... In this case, given the latest tactics and optics of the Zelensky/Yermak regime, it becomes ever clearer that these counterparts cannot be trusted. Following domestic and international backlash, Zelensky backpedaled on the crackdown, proposing that the independence of Ukraine's anti-graft institutions be restored. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suggested that neither NABU nor SAPO is really fighting corruption but rather are used by Kiev's backers as tools 'to control the flow of money coming to Ukraine from the West.'
Russia Today
2 days ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky tried to break free – and broke something else
Ukrainians have had plenty of reasons to take to the streets: the cancellation of elections, forced mobilization, the refusal to demobilize soldiers who've been on the front lines for over three years, the persecution of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, corruption in the construction of fortifications, the state's failure to have the bodies of fallen soldiers returned, and – above all – the complete absence of a plan for ending the conflict with Russia. This list could go on. And yet, none of these issues has triggered large-scale protests. What we've seen instead are isolated outbursts: in towns and villages, women block draft officers from entering their neighborhoods; churchgoers physically defend their parishes; the wives and mothers of Ukrainian soldiers stage small rallies to draw attention to their plight. And yet, even in this atmosphere of fear and suppression, Vladimir Zelensky has managed to ignite a political crisis. The hasty passage of Bill No. 12414 – which stripped the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) of their independence – sparked a wave of demonstrations that haven't let up for days. It's the first major popular protest since the start of Russia's military operation, and it poses a serious challenge to Zelensky's grip on power. Rallies have broken out in Kiev, Lviv, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Rovno, and Nikolayev. While officials have tried to frame them as spontaneous, local expressions of concern about anti-corruption institutions, the scope and coordination suggest otherwise. The message to Zelensky is simple: the pressure is just beginning. To understand why the anti-corruption issue struck such a nerve, we need to go back to the beginning. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) were established in 2015 with active backing from the United States – just a year after the coup in Kiev. At the time, Ukraine's Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin openly stated that the idea for NABU came directly from then–Vice President Joe Biden. From the outset, these agencies functioned as tools of external oversight over the post-Maidan Ukrainian government. President Petro Poroshenko, who was still consolidating power and ideology, did not resist Washington's involvement. NABU's early targets included oligarchs like Igor Kolomoysky and Rinat Akhmetov, who controlled major media holdings. This suited Poroshenko, whose own business interests, notably, remained untouched. Over time, it became clear that Ukraine's anti-corruption bodies served not only their official mission but also the political interests of a specific faction – namely, the US Democratic Party. A prime example is the Paul Manafort case. In 2016, The New York Times, citing NABU sources, published claims that Manafort – then campaign chairman for Donald Trump – had received undisclosed payments from Ukraine's Party of Regions under President Viktor Yanukovych. These claims prompted a US investigation into possible Ukrainian interference in the American election. In 2019, the Senate ultimately found no evidence – but the episode left a lasting impression. That same year, NABU played a role in deflecting scrutiny from the Burisma scandal – the energy company whose board included Joe Biden's son, Hunter. Over time, the link between these anti-corruption institutions and the US Democratic Party became apparent to many Ukrainians. And with Republicans now back in power in Washington, Zelensky appears to have decided it was time to free himself from external control. Zelensky likely assumed that the new American administration wouldn't go out of its way to defend the Democratic Party's proxies in Ukraine. Judging by Washington's muted response, that calculation may have been correct. What he failed to consider, however, was the level of domestic resistance to his growing concentration of power. Ukraine today is full of pressure points. Discontent is widespread – but scattered and disorganized. Zelensky's opponents simply lack the means to unseat him. Moreover, Zelensky remains the centerpiece of the West's anti-Russian strategy – a leader willing to accept any domestic cost in service of that agenda. Even policies that threaten the foundations of Ukrainian statehood are tolerated, so long as the broader project of an 'anti-Russia' continues. That's why the West has looked the other way with regards to forced mobilization, canceled elections, and the refusal to rotate exhausted troops at the front. For a while, this gave Zelensky free rein to act inside the country. But now the ground is shifting. A key sign: the growing frustration among those who spent years working within grant-funded structures aligned with the US Democratic Party. Leading this informal coalition is former president Petro Poroshenko. Under threat of criminal prosecution, Poroshenko has spent months quietly building a new political bloc. He has the money, the media, and the electoral base – fractured as it may be. For this group, Zelensky's move against the anti-corruption agencies – in effect, a move against external oversight – is the perfect pretext to reassert themselves and reclaim a measure of Western support. Zelensky is unlikely to use force against protests centered on NABU and SAPO. Doing so would only strengthen the narrative that he's drifting toward authoritarianism. That's precisely why the demonstrations over Bill No. 12414 are a safer platform for opposition than protests against illegal military draft raids or other abuses by Ukraine's Territorial Recruitment Centers. The rallies have already attracted political heavyweights – including the Klitschko brothers, longtime rivals of Zelensky, and the legislator Maryana Bezuhla. The latter actually voted for the bill, but showed up at the protest claiming to support the Armed Forces – or perhaps simply to spite Commander-in-Chief Aleksandr Syrsky, with whom she's long feuded. This kind of narrative hijacking is exactly what makes the protests dangerous for Zelensky. Like in 2013–2014, a movement that begins with one demand can quickly pick up steam – and new political slogans – until it snowballs into a full-blown crisis. The opposition is seizing its moment. Their goals may not fully align with Washington's, but they've succeeded in riding the wave – and that alone spells trouble for Zelensky. It's telling that Ukraine's Western partners haven't publicly condemned Zelensky. Still, pressure is clearly mounting – through media outlets, political messaging, and behind-the-scenes channels. This kind of restrained posture allows the West to maintain a façade of stability without toppling the political structure in Kiev. But a critical question remains: will the military join the protests? According to foreign media reports, commanders have been instructed to stay away. Nevertheless, a few servicemen have already been seen at the rallies. If their numbers grow, so too will the risks. Facing the threat of reduced military and financial support, Zelensky has backed down – at least for now. He submitted a new bill to the Rada that would restore the powers of NABU and SAPO. A vote is scheduled for July 31. It seems Europe has forced Zelensky to reverse course. If the law passes, the protesters may claim a symbolic victory. But it's far from over. Zelensky's team could still water down the bill or kick it into the long grass – and they have every reason to try. The main one: the looming loss of centralized control over the levers of power. Several red flags are already visible: The security services, who carried out raids on NABU, may now start questioning Zelensky's authority and the legitimacy of his directives. The Rada, already shaken by the original bill, could fracture further – eroding Zelensky's grip on the legislature. NABU itself, if empowered again, may go after members of Zelensky's inner circle – putting pressure on the business elite that had come to feel safe under his protection. In the end, Zelensky's show of resolve may have backed him into a corner. He's losing political capital at home. And while his government remains intact for now, the erosion of his authority has begun. This may only be the beginning.
Russia Today
2 days ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky triggered a street revolt – and it may not stop at where it is now
On July 22, large-scale demonstrations broke out in major Ukrainian cities – Kiev, Lviv, Kharkov, and Odessa – and continue to this day. The protests erupted after the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian Parliament) approved a law limiting the authority of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO), effectively placing them under the control of the Office of the Attorney General. This legislation came shortly after NABU and SAPO launched an investigation into former Deputy Prime Minister Aleksey Chernyshov, one of Zelensky's closest allies. Officials in Zelensky's Office claimed that the reform was necessary to improve coordination among government bodies amid ongoing military operations and to combat Russian influence over anti-corruption institutions. However, public outrage stemmed not only from the law itself but also from the rapid centralization of power in Ukraine. Protests persisted even after Zelensky restored the independent functioning of NABU and SAPO. Below, RT explores the motives behind the dismantling of these anti-corruption agencies and why the protests pose a threat to Zelensky's administration. When Vladimir Zelensky took office in 2019, he vowed to support anti-corruption efforts, urging anti-corruption agencies to investigate all cases and hold even high-ranking officials accountable. However, those promises were never fulfilled. On July 22, the Rada passed Bill No. 12414, originally addressing amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code related to disappearances of people during wartime. However, MPs from Zelensky's Servant of the People party added amendments that effectively restructured NABU and SAPO, placing them under the control of the Attorney General, who is appointed by the president. Notably, many MPs who voted in favor of the bill and received it with applause are themselves under investigation by these anti-corruption bodies. The official justification for targeting NABU and SAPO was the investigation into Chernyshov, a presidential ally considered a candidate for prime minister, who faced allegations of abuse of power and illicit enrichment. A major corruption scandal in the construction sector emerged, making Chernyshov the highest-ranking official within the president's team to be embroiled in such an inquiry. According to the publication Ukrainskaya Pravda, Zelensky ordered the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) to protect Chernyshov from arrest. Despite the allegations, the court did not suspend him from his post; however, he was eventually dismissed, and the ministry disbanded. Another notable case involves NABU's investigation into Rostislav Shurma, the former deputy head of the President's Office. After the case was initiated, he fled to Germany. In July, German authorities, in collaboration with NABU, conducted a search of his residence in the suburbs of Munich. NABU was preparing charges against Timur Mindich, a long-time friend of Zelensky and co-owner of Studio Kvartal-95, Ukrainskaya Pravda reported. He is suspected of embezzlement in the energy sector and drone production. Sources indicate detectives may possess recorded conversations involving Mindich in which Zelensky is mentioned. These cases involving the Ukrainian leader's close associates triggered the crackdown on the anti-corruption agencies. This narrative has been confirmed by The Times and The Economist. On July 21, the SBU and prosecutors conducted extensive searches related to NABU employees, targeting over 80 locations nationwide. Law enforcement acted aggressively, using armed groups to force people to the ground without presenting search warrants. Later, the agency reported the detention of Ruslan Magomedrasulov, the head of NABU's regional office. Investigators claim his father is a Russian citizen, and he failed to disclose this before obtaining access to state secrets. Allegedly, he assisted his father in conducting business in Russia, and his mother reportedly receives a pension from the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and 'makes pro-Russian comments' online. He is expected to face charges for 'aiding Russia.' During a briefing, SBU chief Vasily Maliuk stated that these actions were not directed against NABU but rather against 'Russian agents.' 'There are no exceptions for us. We will continue to eliminate enemy influence. NABU must purge itself of agents of hostile intelligence services,' he declared at a meeting with foreign ambassadors. The public swiftly reacted to the government's actions. By the evening of July 22, spontaneous protests erupted in Kiev and other major cities. Demonstrators chanted slogans like 'Zelensky is the devil' and 'No to corruption in power!' demanding that he veto the bill. The Times noted that Zelensky's decision could trigger a potential conflict within Ukrainian society, and that the mass protests which erupted for the first time since the start of the war three years ago demonstrate the extent of the discontent. Indeed, these are the first large-scale political demonstrations since the start of the war in 2022. From the start, many people drew direct parallels to [former Ukrainian President] Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to sign the EU Association Agreement in Vilnius in November 2013, which sparked protests that led to the Euromaidan. This time, the protests were accompanied by strong calls for the resignation of Andrey Yermak, the head of Zelensky's office. Despite this, Zelensky signed the law and stated that anti-corruption agencies would continue their work, but 'without Russian influence.' Initially, Zelensky's team tried to downplay the situation. He announced plans to develop a 'comprehensive action plan' and introduce legislation aimed at 'strengthening the independence of anti-corruption bodies.' He emphasized, 'There will be no Russian influence or interference in law enforcement activities, and – importantly – all standards for the independence of anti-corruption institutions will remain intact.' However, Ukraine's Western partners sharply criticized the government's actions. President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen demanded explanations. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul warned that limiting the independence of NABU and SAPO would complicate Ukraine's path toward EU membership. By the evening of July 24, facing pressure from the streets and international allies, Zelensky backtracked. The bill he submitted explicitly prohibited the attorney general and their deputies from issuing directives to SAPO prosecutors. It also stipulated that SAPO staff would report only to the head of the agency, its first deputy, and deputy. According to the document, the attorney general is barred from giving orders to NABU detectives. Thus, all the provisions that had been annulled by the bill signed by Zelensky on Tuesday, were reinstated. The only new measure introduced was a verification process for NABU investigators who have access to state secrets. They are now required to undergo polygraph testing using methods approved by the Security Service of Ukraine. Moreover, within six months of the law coming into effect, the SBU must conduct additional checks on all personnel with access to state secrets to ensure they are not working for Russia. In theory, this gives the SBU and consequently, Zelensky, an additional lever of influence over NABU and SAPO. However, it remains unclear how this might obstruct investigations into Zelensky's inner circle: if specific personnel are removed, others can easily replace them. The system as a whole will likely remain operational. The Verkhovna Rada is scheduled to review the bill on Thursday, July 31. The establishment of special anti-corruption bodies began in 2014 under pressure from the European Union. Consulting firm Ernst & Young listed Ukraine among the most corrupt countries globally, while the International Monetary Fund (IMF) demanded reforms in exchange for loans. Nevertheless, the United States played a crucial role in creating these anti-corruption agencies. Former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was dismissed in 2016 following pressure exerted by the American side, claimed that NABU was established at the initiative of Joe Biden, who was then US vice president. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau was established in April 2015, just over a year after the coup in Ukraine. It aimed to tackle corruption at the highest levels. By December of that year, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office was created to oversee NABU's activities. While both institutions were ostensibly designed to combat corruption among Ukrainian officials, in reality, they allowed the US to oversee local elites. Media reports identified George Kent, the deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in Kiev from 2015 to 2018, as the curator of these anti-corruption bodies. However, understanding the extent of NABU's and SAPO's foreign influence requires no insider information; one only needs to look at the relevant laws. Half of the commission responsible for selecting the head of NABU is made up of representatives from international organizations. It soon became evident that the primary purpose of NABU and SAPO wasn't so much to fight corruption but to protect the business interests of certain American partners of Ukraine. In 2019, Ukrainian MP Andrey Derkach released documents confirming the US Embassy's influence over these agencies. Notably, Polina Chizh, an assistant to the deputy chair of NABU, provided a list of cases to American employee Anna Emelyanova. The embassy was particularly interested in a case involving former Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources Nikolai Zlochevskiy, the owner of the company Burisma. According to Andrey Derkach, Joe Biden pressured the agencies to close the case in order to prevent a scandal involving his son Hunter Biden, a board member and head of the legal division at Burisma. Further evidence of the ties between these anti-corruption bodies and the Democratic Party is that in 2016, NABU Chairman Artem Sytnik published sensitive information about Paul Manafort (who was working for Donald Trump), thereby aiding Hillary Clinton's campaign. The architects of this external control system in Ukraine were primarily members of the Democratic Party. For this reason, having temporarily eased tensions with Trump, Zelensky wanted to resolve the issues surrounding NABU and SAPO for good. The international climate seemed favorable for such a move. Dismantling NABU and SAPO aligned perfectly with Zelensky's main domestic political goal: putting all institutions established by the US to monitor Ukraine's activities under his own control. This was Zelensky's primary and final obstacle on the way to achieving his strategic goal of eliminating a competitive political system in Ukraine and establishing a single-authority regime. However, his opponents are unlikely to accept this centralization of power quietly. Zelensky's concessions inspired both protesters and opponents. It came off as a sign of weakness – he 'blinked,' so now they can intensify the pressure. MP Marianna Bezuglaya urged Ukrainians to protest not just against the law but also against the abuses by Territorial Recruitment Centers (TCCs). 'Today I will join [the demonstration], bringing my own pain. Because, as I see it, this is the only way I can be heard. Let's see if civil society is ready to discuss issues like reforming the Ukrainian Armed Forces, mobilization, Pokrovsk, or reforming the SBU,' she said. Former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko may also play a significant role in the events. Facing potential arrest, he is reportedly forming alliances with grant organizations linked to the Democratic Party in order to challenge the current government. Practically all opposition forces in Ukraine have come back to life. Even media outlets owned by oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, which are usually loyal to the authorities despite Kolomoisky's arrest, have extensively covered the protests this time. Kiev mayor Vitaliy Klitschko and his brother attended the protests, along with numerous opposition lawmakers. Any benefits that Zelensky hoped to gain from dismantling the anti-corruption agencies could be outweighed by long-term repercussions, including a decline in public approval. Ukrainians are growing increasingly dissatisfied with Zelensky, particularly those at risk of losing their businesses or facing criminal charges if he remains in power. Many oligarchs and entrepreneurs feel uneasy under total governmental control and fear being arrested. Some have already lost their businesses, faced criminal investigations, or been sanctioned. And the general population is unhappy with the mobilization tactics and the situation on the front lines. All this could fuel the protest movement. According to the publication the protests could proceed in three phases, with each phase having its own goal. The goal of the first phase is to repeal all changes to the laws concerning NABU. The goal of the second phase is to call for the resignation of the Head of the Presidential Office Andrey Yermak and Prime Minister Yulia Sviridenko, potentially through a criminal case initiated by NABU detectives. Yermak is already being positioned as the scapegoat in the story by attempting to curtail the authority of NABU. Protest organizers plan to exploit internal conflicts within Zelensky's team, in which Yermak is criticized by people like David Arakhamiya and Kirill Budanov. The goal of the third phase is to present Zelensky with an ultimatum: either he becomes a 'ceremonial general' stripped of real influence, or he resigns. A more drastic scenario could involve forcing him out if he refuses to comply. Currently, the situation isn't critical for the authorities. However, the upcoming weekend will serve as a key test of the protesters' resilience and involvement.
