DEAR READER,

The latest developments surrounding Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal have exposed yet another chapter in its ongoing institutional crisis. We are exploring this development in our brand new section, which you will find right before the top stories. Don't worry, we're not replacing our usual expert opinion, we just wanted to make some room for our own analysis when the news calls for it.

On another note, our reader survey has officially concluded. A big thank you to everyone who took the time to share their thoughts!

Enjoy reading this week’s “brief”!

— Giorgi Beroshvili, Editor

Poland's long-running dispute over judicial independence has escalated following a serious confrontation at the country's Constitutional Tribunal in Warsaw. Prime Minister Donald Tusk has vowed to press ahead with his government's efforts to overhaul the court, arguing that it remains compromised by changes introduced under the former Law and Justice (PiS) government.

The latest confrontation came after judges appointed by the current parliamentary majority moved to suspend the tribunal's president, Bogdan Święczkowski, and his deputy, taking over the court's leadership. President Karol Nawrocki, who has refused to recognise five of the newly appointed judges, dramatically returned from a state visit to Senegal and forcefully entered the tribunal building, where he became involved in a physical and verbal confrontation with judges. Protests outside the building required the deployment of riot police.

The dispute is the latest chapter in a decade-long struggle over the independence of Poland's judiciary. While Tusk's government argues that it is restoring the rule of law after years of PiS interference, the legality of its latest actions has also been questioned by human rights organisations. The European Commission has meanwhile urged Nawrocki to allow the newly appointed judges to take up their duties.

The consequences extend beyond the immediate political confrontation. The Constitutional Tribunal has the power to rule on the constitutionality of legislation, meaning its continued paralysis could complicate the government's legislative agenda and further undermine confidence in Poland's institutions. It also puts Tusk in a difficult political position as he faces growing frustration among supporters over the slow pace of judicial reform, while divisions within his governing coalition over how far to go could become increasingly difficult to manage.

Looking ahead, three scenarios appear possible. The first is a prolonged stalemate, with both sides refusing to back down and the Constitutional Tribunal remaining paralysed. The second is a breakdown of the governing coalition, potentially triggering early elections. This could create an opportunity for PiS and other right-wing forces, including Confederation, to return to power, although their ability to form a stable governing alliance remains uncertain. The third, and arguably most constructive outcome, would be a political agreement between Tusk and Nawrocki to reset the tribunal, potentially through a new process for appointing judges and rebuilding the institution's credibility. Such a solution would, however, need to respect constitutional requirements and existing judicial mandates.

For now, a prolonged confrontation seems the most likely outcome. But with parliamentary elections scheduled for 2027, the dispute could have consequences well beyond the future of the Constitutional Tribunal, potentially shaping the next chapter of Polish politics.

The Moldova Security Forum, held on 8 and 9 October in Chișinău, brought ministers, diplomats and NATO and EU officials to discuss defence and enlargement. On its second day, the National Crisis Management Center presented “Moldova Prepared”, a national programme starting with a campaign on the first 72 hours of an emergency. According to StratCom Moldova, online messages were already describing it that day as proof that the state was abandoning its citizens.

The Center's director, Serghei Diaconu, said that when households cannot cope with disruption, emergency services need to focus on saving lives. The campaign is due in November. The guide for families was still being drafted, with consultations running from 15 to 23 October.

On 10 and 11 October, a Telegram text tied the campaign to the army, drone production and the end of neutrality. On 17 October, a rumour of “72 hours of testing and simulation” without services spread on Telegram and Facebook. StratCom found no evidence of such a plan. It also noted that requests for explanations raised the rumour's visibility. StratCom's analysis documents how the narrative spread, but provides no audience figures or evidence of how many people believed it.

I attended the Civic Engagement Conference, hosted by the Center for Policies and Reforms, and the Moldova Security Forum that followed. The first dealt with civic space and the second with defence, but both kept returning to disinformation and resilience. The 72-hour campaign touches both. Does security capacity depend on public trust? Does trust depend on the state's ability to protect people?

Prepared in the air?

Drones have repeatedly entered Moldovan airspace. On the night of 15 to 16 October, the Defence Ministry recorded five unauthorised incursions in under seven hours. Moldova's constitution declares neutrality, so every step towards readiness has to be explained as defensive. Defence Minister Anatolie Nosatîi told the Forum that his ministry was criticised for buying radars and, once they detected incursions, for not shooting the drones down. A household campaign gets pulled into the same argument. On 23 October, Diaconu said in a Ziarul de Gardă podcast that the programme does not mean the country is preparing for war.

Prepared on the ground?

Elena Mârzac of PISA Moldova told the Forum that surveys show people turn first to their mayor in a crisis. On 22 October, TV8 reported on Moldova's 1,790 shelters. Interior Minister Daniela Misail-Nichitin said not all of them meet minimum standards. Diaconu called the shelters deficient and said the MD-Alert system is not yet working. The mayors of Pepeni and Hîrbovăț said they had not been informed about shelters in their localities.

Prepared to be believed?

When the people citizens trust cannot answer a simple question, someone else answers first. StratCom says the narratives exploited distrust, economic hardship and fear of war. Radars and public campaigns cannot close that gap without local institutions that people know and trust.

The civic conference showed how hard it is for a state to act against information threats and keep public trust. A participant from a local NGO accused the panel of acting like an "authoritarian dictatorship" over the closure of Russian-language and opposition channels. A representative of the Moldova Audiovisual Council replied that "state bodies made this decision in conditions of a war." Whatever the security reasons, a measure of this kind also needs a public explanation and open scrutiny.

After the first 72 hours

Major General Philippe Boutinaud, a former commander of the Paris Fire Brigade, drew a line between resistance and resilience at the Forum. The first 72 hours, he said, are about resistance. Resilience comes later, as the ability to keep living in a deteriorating situation with the support of the state.

The campaign addresses the first phase, but the days following its announcement showed the wider challenge. Moldova needs the capacity to protect itself, and institutions capable of turning that capacity into protection people can rely on. A guide cannot compensate for a mayor who does not know where the shelter is; defence capabilities alone cannot ensure that citizens trust the information they receive. The simplest test is a resident asking the mayor where the shelter is, and getting an answer.

The research visit was carried out by the financial support from the Warsaw Euro-Atlantic Summer Academy (WEASA) in the framework of the Peer-to-Peer Professional Meetings initiative designed for WEASA alumni members.

— Arzu Bunyad, Researcher