freedom of listening requires support patronite.pl slash radi I'm studying soon. Professor Mariusz Miąsko is with me, a professor at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Warsaw, also a lawyer and security expert, detective. Good morning. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Well, let's start with the issue of security, but first we focus on Poland. Please tell us what conclusions we have drawn from the perspective of these two years of Russian aggression in Ukraine. What is it like when it comes to the Polish army? Should it be focused on specialized soldiers, but for example, a certain number, or should we all prepare for war and citizens should be aware of how to use weapons, how to survive? What does it all look like from the perspective of these two years? And how did you assess today the state of the Polish army on the one hand and on the other hand, the general state of awareness of Polish citizens in the context of such a real threat, as I understand it, from Russian aggression? Well, I think there are areas in which we have drawn very far-reaching conclusions and done a gigantic job, that is, in the area of procurement and purchase of weapons. I also think that such a regular army significantly Intensify the current government, namely, to effectively defend itself on any front. The doctrine states that at least 10% of the population of a given country should be trained in Poland. This would mean that this is 4 million people, and only 10% of the population if the forces are equivalent. And the forces between Poland and Russia are not equivalent. This means that we should train significantly more Polish citizens in the field. And such overwhelming proof of the validity of these defense doctrine assumptions is, unfortunately, Ukraine, as we see. Currently, the so-called mainstream media are already starting to prepare us for the information that Ukraine is on the verge of collapse, this front is basically dying. At least you can read about it in many publications in recent weeks. There are sections of the front where the number of soldiers is only 50%, there are areas where it was necessary to send them to the front line. There are already highly qualified technicians, for example, in the Air Force. This is because Ukraine has not trained potential future soldiers on a mass scale for decades, and unfortunately in Poland it is exactly the same, meaning both The previous government and the current government are not investing in mass training of soldiers at all, but I'll allow myself a small digression. Because if we take into account the population of Ukraine, and even if it trained these soldiers and had prepared those 10%, because now we hear that, for example, they don't want to send young boys because someone has to. After all, they simply don't care about the development of Ukraine. Children have to be born there, and that's also an understandable attitude. At least from this perspective of social or simply human assessment, but the question is whether it's a bit... but still... a clash with such Russia. I was in the IR bubble where the genocide took place, and I heard the narrative that it wasn't only Russian soldiers, but largely Buryats and Chechens. So you could say that Russia has practically unlimited human resources in the case of Ukraine. North Koreans are currently true. In addition, so also allies mean we have to be aware that we have to create a defense potential. I mean, a defense potential, no, it doesn't mean it's not built on the basis of soldiers currently serving in the army, but a defense potential. There is potential being built from civilians, and we need to urgently train, let's say, at least 4 million people from the Polish population. The problem is why governments after governments don't train civilians on a mass scale. Every government looks through the prism of political support. Every government knows that if there is universal conscription, its support will drop drastically. This is such a loop of politicians who are not really focused on the most important issues, such as the security of the Polish state. They are focused all the time on their own particular interests of their parties, but I'm wondering how to train 4 million Polish citizens. Because what was supposed to be compulsory military service, like in Israel, for example, is the solution? It doesn't mean that Polish politicians can't afford it, they can't afford it, they can't afford it mentally, intellectually, it's impossible. Polish politicians, unfortunately, have all the options, it's impossible. Nobody will train 4 million people systemically, if only because there are no funds for it, and there's no one to do it. I don't even think so. It has enough instructors to train 4 million people in the army through strict military structures. I believe that it is possible to train 1.5 million people relatively quickly to begin with. The training process is, let 's say, a minimum of 1.5 years. This is the minimum of 1.5 years of intensive training. It's actually at least 3 years. After three years, someone starts to be effective, but we can train these 1.5 million. Now the question is how. It's proposed to train them as civilians at civilian facilities. This means creating a network and re-establishing a network of shooting ranges because in Poland we have a huge capital of outstanding experts, some of the most outstanding experts in military training. For example, among operators, former special forces operators, these are people in whom the Polish state has invested millions of dollars in training over the last 20-30 years and then released them as young retirees from the army because such are our regulations. They perform various tasks, which are probably necessary, but there are currently more important tasks that they should be performing. You see, they should now transform their entire education and competences acquired over decades of various missions and wars. For the defense of the Polish state, and we need to engage them. As I understand it, this is something that experts are probably talking about, but also military practitioners, maybe former generals, is it reaching the consciousness of the current decision-makers, the establishment, politicians, and the management. Is there any reflection or awareness that this might need to be done now because it's already too late? I mean, I've had a number of such honest conversations with politicians from the previous and current governments. I'm absolutely certain that they can't afford it mentally, maybe to a lesser extent intellectually, certainly mentally, and they don't have the charisma to undertake such a large-scale action, such a huge challenge, and that is a very big problem. I mean, my gain or output from these conversations with these experts? Are advisors to the Ministry of National Defense often zero? I mean, in private conversations, they express the view that of course it should be done and that they have to shape it to a greater or lesser extent, that someday, perhaps Napoleon would say that whoever can't afford to maintain and train their own army will maintain and train someone else's army. This is the least of our problems, maintaining someone else's army. War is cruel, and we must know that We have a lot of such pacifist or pseudo-pacifist movements, so I'm probably the first person who supports peace. It's true, because more people see the atrocities of war, they are more peaceful, but at the same time, you have to be realistic. And very often we have pacifist, pseudo-pacifist organizations that are closing down shooting ranges in Poland en masse. In Poland, for example, I'll tell you that there is a commune in Olkusz where there were seven shooting ranges, this is the Małopolska Voivodeship, there were seven shooting ranges, and all seven were closed down by the mayor. As a result of the influence of very small groups of several people who opposed the organization and operation of these shooting ranges, very often it's women who oppose the operation of shooting ranges because they feel some kind of discomfort, and which sometimes is justified, sometimes it's completely unjustified, in my opinion, 99% completely unjustified, and the same women and the same pacifists, but the same women who very often protest against shooting ranges must remember one thing: a soldier goes and He dies quickly, his bones turn white on the front, but his suffering was relatively short or nonexistent. The truth is, death is relatively quick, but war brings months of consequences, sometimes as in the case of Ukraine, long-term consequences and tragedies for two population areas, especially for women and children. Now all those who are pacifist must remember that every attack on a Polish shooting range, every attack on Polish infrastructure that is supposed to defend us, is actually an attack on themselves, or as I understand it. There is a great need to raise public awareness of the fact that we find ourselves in a slightly different situation, simply in a different geopolitical situation. These are narratives that might have found fertile ground somewhere just 5 or 10 years ago. Today, we need to change this. I will just add that I heard a similar narrative in conversations with hunters: they helped a lot during the floods, and these were organized people, that is, 130 formations, 130,000 armed people who know how to use these weapons. They also said they don't understand why they are being systematically attacked, not only because society rejects them. They do it wrong, often in an infantile way, not understanding the real needs behind their profession or passion, whatever we call it, but that the state is also systemically trying, unquestionably, yes, and not just because of the state. What would I say? I'm not convinced whether awareness needs to be raised. Should we raise awareness of the entire population, or just us Poles, just average Poles? I think we have a lot of common sense. We definitely need to raise awareness of local governments. After all, the fact that we have a gigantic problem with organizing shooting ranges in Poland is mainly due, in quotation marks, to our local authorities at the municipal level. It's the municipalities that approve the shooting range regulations, and it's the municipalities that often close down these shooting ranges, meaning mayors, commune heads, city presidents. This group of people needs to be made aware of the fact that they have strictly defined responsibilities related to defense. They must be our allies in defense. They can't. It can't be that they are, we are being attacked. Today I'm going to Warsaw for a program, and another entrepreneur calls, the shooting range organizer, and he says, "They've locked me up again." I've also locked them up. The shooting range that has just opened in the mayor's office doesn't justify it in any way consistent with the regulations, but he says he'll have problems with it, and what really matters to him is the percentages in the next elections. No, no, this is a total confusion of agendas. This is a confusion of agendas. What is most important for the Polish state is survival, and only then the particular interests of individual bureaus. But now, as the editor mentioned, the need to raise awareness among citizens. Please pay attention to what the United States Secretary of Defense said yesterday. It's a great speech, very interesting by the way. He says that we finally need to tell the citizens of NATO countries how it is, and of Europe. He said there, Europe's citizens should be told how it really is. He said, we need to tell the people of the Eurozone how it really is, i.e., what the real threat is, and what it is, after all, this Secretary of Defense. The United States Secretary of Defense didn't take this phrase out of nowhere. After all, he de facto copied the speech of a key United States General who said that within 18 to 36 months we can expect a Russian attack on Western Europe, on countries, either the Baltic countries, or on Poland. The Polish Chief of the General Staff repeated this. The BBC repeated this, two key Polish generals who previously served as general commanders repeated this. Representatives of the Ministries of National Defense of Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands repeated this. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to start telling the truth, as it really is, as if this threat is authentic and real, and then perhaps these local government officials won't block the organization of shooting ranges and our ability to train at the organic level. Exactly. So, as I understand it, the challenge here is local governments. Now, Professor, let's try to answer this question, or tell the truth, what it looks like. Of course, the flood isn't a war, but it is perhaps, even in a small percentage, a major crisis situation that shows how prepared the state is to respond. And I saw enormous human potential there. People came from all over Poland, brought things, had hands and enthusiasm ready to work, and complete disorganization, especially when it comes to such management structures. One housewife, the head of the Rural Housewives' Association, who was simply a thoughtful strategist in her village, was able to do much more than people in the local government who, on the one hand, were afraid, and on the other, not to react. They wanted to take responsibility. If today we were to think about Braniewo, for example, or somewhere on our border with Russia, and we had a crisis situation, meaning a real one, for example, a violation of our borders. Are people prepared for this? To what extent? How would you assess it today? I think I would divide the answer into three elements. One element is the army itself. I think it is generally better prepared than worse, and I think that despite everything, it increases its defense potential day by day. But the army must have its own resources in the form of civilians who must be trained. I will give an example of two brigades that were deployed to the Ukrainian front a few weeks ago, which did not survive even 48 hours, i.e., twice with 6,000 people each. They did not survive even 24 hours because several weeks of training, conducted colloquially speaking, on the sly, did not provide any competences. You can call a group of people a brigade, but it will not be any brigade, because if these people did not have competences, you cannot train the army in 4 weeks, 8 weeks, or 18 weeks. That means you can train for On paper, but competences cannot be acquired. We must acquire these competences at the lowest level. On a personal level, each of us must possess basic competences so that the military, so that excellent commanders and generals can only build on the foundation that we have already developed ourselves. Only further, greater competences are the foundation of the foundations. Please pay attention, because perhaps among some of you, after yesterday's speech by the United States Secretary of Defense, there may be an incorrect belief that the threat has passed because Donald Trump called President Putin and they jointly agreed that there will be a conflict in Ukraine, but in reality, when you listen to what the United States Secretary of National Defense and what the President of the United States Donald Trump actually said, it contradicts what is being said in the mainstream media. In fact, Donald Trump did not say that he reached an agreement with Vladimir Putin. Regarding the cessation of the war in Ukraine, he actually said that he thought he reached an agreement. And this is a fundamental difference. The President of the United States said that he reached an agreement with Vladimir Putin, not that he reached an agreement. And this is the first layer. Well, because we can listen and very carefully dissect speeches here. Experts have often pointed out that Vladimir Putin, for example, has repeatedly publicly spoken about his plans, but the world didn't want to listen. But we also have a second layer, namely, that politicians don't always, or even dare I say, rarely tell the truth or keep their declarations. After all, if we asked today, I don't know, even the Palestinians, gas, they also believed that there was a two-state solution. They were always on the agenda. And that there would never be an idea to create an enclave in their homeland. However, Mrs. Editor, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am convinced that Donald Trump, the United States Secretary of Defense, does not believe in this peace. You know why? Because in the same sentence, Donald Trump, the United States Secretary of Defense, further said that the contribution to NATO should be increased by 5% of GDP. This means that we have to decide whether Donald Trump, America as such, believes in this peace, to stop these fighting. Or we have to increase contributions to the 5th FP. Right among all NATO allies, because after all, NATO has no other such indigenous natural potential enemy than Russia, so that's it. We see that it is rather assumed that America does not believe in this peace. Besides, please pay attention to what... What further information was given by the United States Secretary of Defense that there will be no peacekeepers among the military... The state of the United States military... He said it directly, but let's stop for a moment about these defense contributions... Well, it's like this now that probably 1/3 of the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty pays about 2 percent of the PR, so they don't even meet this minimum... He agreed, he talked about 4 percent... We saw how part of our establishment reacted... Well, it's probably unrealistic for us to pay that 5 percent... So what then?... In that case, we need to train even more at this basic level. We cannot assume that anyone will defend us, that any external country will defend us. I encourage each of you to read this threadbare article five of the North Atlantic Treaty, which all politicians in Poland talk about and cite, claiming that it states that other members of the pact, in the event of an armed attack on Poland, must respond militarily to this attack. Meanwhile, when you read it, you google the content online. This article, you will see with surprise that this is not the content of this article. From this article it follows that other NATO member states can, but do not have to, can, but do not have to support us, they can, they have an obligation to support us in a way they deem appropriate at a given moment. For example, Germany can send transporters with leaflets and scatter them over Poland. Poles support you in the war with Russia, you are very brave and they will fulfill and then they will also fulfill the provisions of Article Pi of the North Atlantic Treaty. Well, if we assume that we cannot, at least in its entirety, base our, I understand, security issue on this. If we assume that we are unlikely to convince some countries that do not feel the breath of Russia on them as much as, for example, Poland or Germany or France, then maybe we should return to, for example, the idea of the Three Seas Initiative or look for allies in the same boat, I apologize for being in the same boat, i.e., with the Baltic states or Lithuania, and maybe this is such an idea because if all these countries together in some way How to consolidate a real counter to Russia, Madam Editor, is undoubtedly building alliances. It's a truism that it's necessary, but what is something else? It's a matter of fact. We all went to school and already in elementary school we learned that military pacts and alliances are worth so much. Often, how much is a piece of paper worth? The truth is, they were written down and this is an example from 1939. So, of course, we should create alliances, but we must have deterrent competences. We have this problem in general. It seems to me that in Poland, among the Polish elites, since at least 1989, we do not have the ability to think like a superpower. We have to return to the concept of superpower thinking, meaning not us, the citizens at the bottom, but our elites. What does "superpower" mean? It doesn't mean that we should restore our borders to the times of the apogee of the Republic of Poland, it just means that we have to think like a superpower because we find ourselves between two superpowers, i.e. between Germany, which since the time of Bismarck has had a superpower mindset, which thinks like a superpower. Our politicians will not have such a mindset. I would almost say that the innate instinct of superpower thinking will always be based on such minimalism. There will always be politicians wondering whether to conscript, whether it's profitable for them. It's a universal truth, or whether to train one and a half million people at private civilian shooting ranges or not. Mrs. Rector, I'll tell you that last year I founded, I helped establish, 50 shooting ranges in Poland. If you'd like, of course, if someone in the audience wanted to establish a shooting range, I encourage you to contact me. I have enormous knowledge and experience in this field. The 50 shooting ranges I founded were exclusively problem shooting ranges. I mean, where else did state institutions not want to establish these facilities, which, after all, serve to train us all, to maintain our national sovereignty. Therefore, we need a Minister of National Defense, a politician who will come out and say, dear local government officials, maybe not everyone likes these shooting ranges. Maybe not everyone likes Hunters, but what's more important for the Polish state, for every country, including the Polish state, is maintaining sovereignty, because only when we have our own part of our space in the world, only then can we build other values ​​on it, like some prosperity, true, but first we have to be, we have to exist first. Look, ladies and gentlemen, the editor made a great point about Palestine. Palestine has lost 98% of its resources, where is it? So what if there is a thought if there is n't truth, there is memory, there is history if there isn't Palestine itself? True, true. The only question is whether it's not a bit too late for that in Poland. It's also interesting that you mentioned these two, like, colossi, or as I understand it, also two threats from Poland, not only Russia but also Germany. Even if we had the political will and a government, for example, that wanted to base Poland on its own resources. We have large infrastructure projects, but I come from the Szczecin area. I'm observing. What's happening with the Oder River issue? The Oder River can't make money because we have a park, a park that was created based on money from the German Ministry of the Environment, because environmentalists are financed with that money. We have 70% of the waterfront, which now belongs to Germany. The German company Renus recently bought out, maybe not the port itself, because the port can't be sold, but the entire infrastructure, and it actually has 100% decision-making power when it comes to port management. So, could Germany, for example, even? Allow Poland such sovereignty. This is a question that essentially boils down to how strong German agents are in Poland and other countries within the Polish state. You have to know that words are highly contagious, and now it's very often the case that politicians or various organizations operating various types of organizations are not even aware that they are, that they are subject to the influence of agents. So, absolutely. Once again, I agree. This boils down to what value is most important for the state. For the state, the most important value is sovereignty at various levels. Territorial, military, and economic sovereignty at many levels, but sovereignty boils down to playing on values. So that we can play on values ​​in the good sense of the word. Play on values. We must first have great politicians. We must have a great minister, not only in stature, but above all, in charisma. We must have people with charisma who will come out and say yes, dear local government officials. From today on, not a single shooting range. I can't imagine it being closed, and you are positively implementing all the applications that anyone submits for the construction of shooting ranges because it is necessary for the survival of the Polish state. Now, if Does anyone believe that there will be a cessation of this war on the Ukrainian front? What do you think? In what categories do Vladimir Putin and the Russian establishment in general think? He doesn't think in terms of six months, a year, 10 years, but in terms of decades. It's a matter of time before Russia takes the next step. It first took a step towards Crimea, waited a few years, and took another step. Ukraine may now see a temporary cessation of these fightings, but if a demarcation zone is not established, like in Cyprus, where it divided Cyprus into two parts, a Turkish and a Greek one, a 15-kilometer zone, then ladies and gentlemen, it's only a matter of time before Russia takes the next step. And they will do so because the Americans have already announced that they will not be in the demarcation zone. And why won't they be in the demarcation zone? Because they cannot be a neighbor, American troops cannot. Let's be realistic. American troops cannot be stationed on the Russian border. That is, they cannot be in the demarcation zone. That's why Donald Trump is making these announcements. And what does that mean? That means that we can. That we should really expect that the Americans will sooner or later withdraw from this region altogether. And we'll be left alone again. Now, let's assume for a moment that a demarcation zone is created, its effect will be that it is limited to the territory of Ukraine itself. But the influence on Poland can be exerted both through Kaliningrad and by other allied countries, for Russia, and I'm convinced that Belarus will be affected by Belarus. And ladies and gentlemen, we won't create a demarcation zone along the entire border with Belarus. It's impossible, so it means that you could, for example, remember. I'm sorry to interrupt you. It's also worth considering. I've been to Narva, Estonia, three times, and when I was there after the war broke out in Ukraine, most Russians live there. There are simply people who also have Estonian passports, but often they don't even speak the language. They speak Russian, they identify with Russia, they also identify with Vladimir Putin. I interviewed random people there, from young people to men, and they really are very pro-Russian. But these are Estonian citizens, and we do have such a place on our map. The gateway to Europe is clearly and undoubtedly what struck me in Donald Trump's speech was the sentence in which he says he believes that Vladimir Putin will make peace for a period of time, more or less, and it's a bit of a fictionalization. I think Donald Trump knows this perfectly well, his advisors know this perfectly well, but they can't say it officially. It's very important that we are aware that Donald Trump says one thing and thinks something completely different. He knows and thinks the truth. This doesn't mean in a bad sense that he says one thing and does another, but he can't say that he doesn't trust Russia, because that would show that this whole supposed peace is true. Well, it's a complete fiction, it's irrational. I'll repeat it again. It all comes down to the need to train a huge population of Poles, at least in a basic way, so that excellent Polish commanders, excellent Polish units, have resources of people who have at least basic training. Although I personally believe that we have such great instructors on the market and in such a high volume, that they are able to train not only in a basic way, but also in a very large number. But in an incredibly advanced way, civilians are being used for their own money. The Polish state does n't even have to spend a lot of money on civilian shooting ranges. Using civilian ammunition, using their own weapons, which the shooters possess, after all. All it takes is courage and action. We need to act here and now. We need to act. We need to convince local governments to be our ally, not our enemy, so that it doesn't end up like in Olkusz, where the mayor is closing the first two shooting ranges. He's already lost the case against these seven shooting ranges, and the Provincial Administrative Court in Krakow has found that he illegally closed these shooting ranges. But what good is it if they haven't been operating for many, many months? People aren't training there, the military isn't training there. So, there's a huge amount of work, so organic, and a great appeal to politicians to grow up with the size of the offices they hold. Exactly, and unfortunately, such pessimistic attitudes deepen the conflict. Mutual divisions in the country are deepening when it comes to the justice system. We can, right? One step at a time. We're already hearing today, for example, that the presidential election may be invalid, what all this could lead to, that this isn't a political conversation, but we ca n't escape it either. Mr. Editor, I have a problem with this crisis, and this crisis is probably the biggest in the history of the Polish state. I don't know. I hope it will never happen in this area. My own view is extremely critical of Donald Tusk, extremely critical. I'll tell you right away that what I'm about to convey, I'm trying to convey from a scientific perspective, not a political perspective, completely divorced from politics. Ladies and gentlemen, imagine or recall a situation where Donald Tusk gathered a dozen or so distinguished professors in a room. I emphasize that from many universities, and in front of them he said that he would apply the PZU law, he would apply the law as he understood it. What astonishes me is that these professors didn't get up and leave, and what's more, they didn't slap us. Imagine an identical situation. He's speaking as a lawyer, a university professor, a law professor at a university. I'm speaking as a lecturer on the principles of legal interpretation. I was struck by it, it did n't hurt me, it hit me, it hit me, this speech as a scientist. Now imagine Donald Tusk gathering in a room. Engineers, and you say from today on, physical formulas that were developed and proven are no longer valid. He will start using them today or tomorrow as he understands them. PR, all bridges would collapse. Please, he gathers mathematicians and says, I know that over hundreds of years, science has developed, scientifically proven theorem that 2 plus 2 gives us 4, but from tomorrow on, I will apply the principles I deem appropriate. Perhaps they may contradict what you are teaching. Now, I will tell you the second part of why I believe that these professors, these law professors, should react drastically at this meeting because it is an attack on their dignity. This is my personal opinion, it is an attack on their dignity. I will finish, but I apologize, I must conclude, because these people spent decades teaching students the principles of legal interpretation, that is, how legal norms are created from legal provisions. You understand, they gave grades to those who did not know how, they gave negative grades, and to those who did, they gave positive grades, and suddenly these people who devoted their entire lives to studying law, to studying law for entire years, are sitting in a meeting with Donald Tusk and they hear that Donald Tusk is throwing all their achievements into the trash can. He takes the blog and throws all their achievements into the trash can. He throws all the books, publications, studies, everything they believed in, everything they taught their students, into the trash can and said, "From today on, I will apply the law as I see it." Of course, a bit of nonsense, but that's what Tusk's statement boiled down to. So I'm asking all law professors from all universities not to frame my statement within any political framework. I completely distance myself from politics. For 25 years, I've been serving governments to a greater or lesser extent, and therefore, I'll say practically all of them, to a greater or lesser extent, I've cooperated with all of them, so please don't frame my statement within any political framework. Literally, but please take yourselves seriously. Serve all of us citizens seriously. Can someone who is the prime minister, who serves as prime minister, come and say that from today on, I'm changing or will change the rules of science? And today we hear, well, we, as citizens, simply say that this has already gone far. But we also heard a similar narrative from the other side, and it should also be mentioned that this law was being bent by judges. Some lawyers felt that these were already very far- reaching actions by Law and Justice. At the beginning, without a doubt, Madam Editor, this is how it is. I believe that the way the previous government implemented the reform, the so-called reform, was the wrong direction, it was the right one because the reform was necessary. But the method was completely wrong. It wasn't about starting some kind of generational war under the previous government, in quotes, dividing judges into the old system and the new system. That wasn't the point. We should conduct the reform technically, meaning we should determine which judge applies the rules, interprets the law, applies the regulations correctly, and has the right ruling, and which doesn't. This is a measure of technical competence. We should select judges, like everywhere else. If you have a good tile installer and he lays your tiles evenly, you say he's good, but if he lays them badly, you say he's bad, but you don't ask the one who lays the tiles badly. Whether he represents one political party or another is irrelevant to us. Exactly, there isn't, and how can we get out of this conflict now, Professor, because I'm wondering now. I imagine that this Machine and this scale of mutual hatred are already at play. We often hear this in media statements. It's so twisted that we hear the state tribunal here. And now, what is this supposed to look like? Should some prosecutors, for example, Pro Bodnarowski, be fired or not? Is there any chance of breaking this stalemate, and that we do n't have to compare ourselves to others? I see it, I see it, I honestly see it, I think about it almost every day and I see such a possibility. I believe that universities and, specifically, law interpretation departments, specifically, law interpretation departments, have a key role to play now. This is because law, contrary to what is commonly wrongly claimed, is a classic science subject. It is a classic science subject, and from regulations, you can create a strictly defined norm using strictly defined formulas and rules. You can't create different legal norms with precisely defined content of regulations. Now, we should separate for a moment the constitutionalists who feel competent and probably rightly feel competent, but we should take a step back for a moment. We should ask to create a commission of law professors from law interpretation departments in so-called jurisprudence, and they should all interpret the regulations. Interpretations of the Constitutional Tribunal are unfair. In my opinion, I apologize, I take it back because I am starting to be politically stigmatized. What I said now is completely the result of my interpretation of the law, and they should conduct a PR argument, a scientific argument, applying all the principles of legal interpretation in force in Poland, and say yes, we, the scientific community, we, the law professors, claim that there were either or not these, we claim that there was either correct or incorrect, correct or incorrect composition of the Constitutional Tribunal, applying the principles of legal interpretation, will be a body that is so, and political, after all, universities and professors at universities represent different political and scientific views. Finally, the real purpose of science and scientists will be heard, i.e. to be a stabilizer, the truth, and to let the greatness of Polish science be heard in this situation and to break away from politics as such. I believe this is the only way, I really don't think about this every day. Of course, I conducted my own arguments and principles of legal interpretation of the regulations that have been analyzed here for many months. I don't want to share this here and now on air because it will be treated as representing one side or the other, and I completely don't That's the point, you know, ladies and gentlemen, I don't care who governs me, in the good sense of the word, in the sense that if someone governs me well as a citizen, I will vote for them. I mean, we need to learn a little bit of political ecumenism, in the good sense of the word. I mean, we need to break away from the fact that we're so familiar with all the tables in the family at family meetings about some policy, about some politicians' interests. Political ecumenism in the good sense of the word. If someone governs us well in accordance with the applicable regulations, we will vote for them. If not, if they break these rules, we should stigmatize them. Especially since these divisions often feel like they're artificially forced into our mentality. The old principle of divide and rule is already there, and we have to answer for ourselves who benefits from it and who loses. At the end of this road, and here we'll put a full stop. Professor Mariusz Miąsko, professor at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Warsaw, also a lawyer, security agent, security expert. Thank you very much for the interview. Thank you very much. kra