Ample media attention is given these days to the envisaged gas deal between Poland and Russia's state-owned gas giant Gazprom, and its pending approval by authorities in Brussels. At a meeting with President Komorowski on September 1, the European Commission's President, Jose Manuel Barroso, confirmed that the Commission was backing the deal, claiming it would help improve bilateral cooperation with Russia. Whatever that really means.

The Commission seems, or seemed, to be worried about the impact of the deal on competition within Europe's single gas market, as the agreement imposes fixed conditions over a period of a quarter century.

At the same time, another dispute is ongoing that is receiving considerably less attention in the Polish press. The German government, no doubt under pressure from interest groups connected to the controversial Nord Stream gas pipeline project, objects to the construction of a brand new LNG terminal at Świnoujście, on the shores of the Baltic just north of Szczecin.

The terminal will bring substantial investment outlays and high-quality employment to a region afflicted by major layoffs in the ailing shipbuilding sector. For these reasons, this important initiative was granted EU funding and it is this funding that Germany is now vehemently trying to block. Germany claims that the terminal poses an environmental threat and that it is not in line with the famous, or infamous, Natura 2000 Directive which intends to protect bird habitats.

First of all, exactly how Germany plans to block the funding is questionable. EU funds are allocated according to a very elaborate procedure and at this stage of the process, member states have very little to say. This is something the Commission has already confirmed.

The German government will now presumably try to pressure the EC at the highest political level, but would they really do that just to protect a few birds?

It is obvious that there is something more to this than environmental protection. Something smells here ... The Świnoujście terminal poses a threat to unspoken German-Russian ambitions to dominate the energy supply infrastructure in the north-eastern part of Europe.

The judgment of the Polish government in this respect is, in my view, correct, and its concerns are legitimate. But it is not enough for the responsible minister to simply publicize the issue. The prime minister and president need to come out and unambiguously defend the Polish cause – and with the same determination with which Mr Komorowski has defended the Gazprom deal.

Poland must go full steam ahead with the construction of the terminal. And it must insist on the fact that EU funding for it is justified. Not only because this is a sustainable investment in an environmentally friendly energy source. But also, and perhaps more importantly, because the development of the terminal implements the EU's objectives to diversify energy supply and reduce Europe's, and particularly Central and Eastern Europe's reliance on dominant and in many cases capricious suppliers such as Russia.

Today's Polish political elite and its media are extremely lucky - lucky that most foreign journalists don't understand Polish. Lucky to have a monopoly on news and opinion not only in Poland but also abroad. Foreign media have little choice other than to blindly copy the Polish mainstream newspapers.

So if one hears that "foreign media" or "western society" are worried or concerned about Jarosław Kaczyński running for President, one has to keep in mind that these are often the recycled opinions of loyal Polish journalists.

This is a beautiful self-fulfilling prophecy, and quite frankly it is dangerous for the sustainability of the Polish democracy.

I distinctly remember Charles Crawford, formerly the United Kingdom's ambassador to Poland, saying after his first meeting with the late President Lech Kaczyński that the character he had been presented by the Polish media bore no resemblance whatsoever with the sensible and balanced personality he actually met and had long and profound discussions with about current affairs.

What this and many similar anecdotes prove is that the Polish media fail to fulfill their role of unbiased guardian of the Polish democracy. For a foreigner, it is astonishing to observe years of tasteless insult directed at Lech and Jarosław Kaczyński by leading and often respected Polish opinion formers. And it is even more astonishing to see them get away with it. What in mature western European democracies is simply not done, seems only normal in the public life, and seemingly among a large part of the Polish elite and its electorate.

You would never see the likes of Die Welt, Le Monde or the Daily Telegraph openly promote, support and fuel obscene and mostly uni-directional slanging matches. It is one thing to be critical of policies, but for instance to openly call the French President or the British Prime Minister a coward, idiot or chuff, would be unacceptable and would unmistakably have serious legal repercussions.

I always wonder why, more than twenty years after a soft revolution (or evolution), there is still no objective, multi-opinion mainstream media in this country? How different would be the picture of Jarosław Kaczyński, his late brother, and their pro-reform political family if only the Polish media and opinion formers treated them fairly and objectively. If the debate were about substance, and not about how tall they are and what pet they have.

The next round is on July 4, and fortunately the choice is in the hands of the real people, not of a small and much too powerful group of influencers.

Because, at the end of the day, in the words of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, "the real reformers are the people."

Lech Kaczyński was a great European, he just wasn't a European at any cost. A few weeks have now passed since the tragic events in Smolensk that wiped out the lives of Poland's political elite, and it is time to consider the European testament of the late president.

Perhaps not the greatest public relations wonder, Lech Kaczyński was a statesman in his own particular way, and an intellectual with a clear vision for his country, who tried to stand above party politics and who sought justice for those who held privileged positions during the communist era and kept their influence after the transition of the early 90s. The latter brought him many enemies in his homeland.

Poland's late president was the kind of European that Brussels doesn't seem to like. He was disagreeable and uncomfortable, which did not suit most of his counterparts and indeed his domestic political rivals. He did not want to accept impunity for decades of communist terrorism and could not imagine how one can build a strong united Europe without justice and fair punishment. He warned us that we can and should not blindly trust the dogmatic multilateralism that is deified by so many in Brussels. He was so much more realistic than most about Poland's position in Europe, and Europe's role on the world scene. Uncomfortably realistic.

Lech Kaczyński reminded us of our dependence on the United States, and on the value of maintaining strong relations with the most stable democracy in the world. Often criticized for his trust and confidence in America, he recognized that Poland and Europe, not ultimately capable of self-defense, need the US - and no-one else - as their strongest partner.

He recognized the need for a prudent strategy on Russia, and rightfully pointed to the stranglehold the powerful empire in the Levant still has on parts of Central and Eastern Europe. He was one of the few to remind us of the ruthlessness with which Russia continues to treat its much less powerful neighbors, and of Russia's long-term strategy to increase its power reach.

With the death of Lech Kaczyński and of so many, too many, who really cared about Poland and put the interests of the country above their own political interests, the country has undoubtedly changed. We can only hope that their memory be kept alive and their legacy be carried on by a new generation with real political courage. Sadly these are, so far, nowhere to be seen on the political landscape.

A rather irrational attack on Germany's economic policies by the French minister of economic affairs appeared last week in The Financial Times. Christine Lagarde accused Germany of "squeezing salaries to boost its trade surplus at the expense of euro zone partners," during a time of high budget deficits and sluggish economic recovery across the euro zone.

Here, Ms Lagarde is essentially accusing Germany of protectionism.

The Gaul to complain

In fact, Germany has a hugely successful, high-quality export economy, which is the engine that not only keeps Germany running, but arguably the whole of the EU in these dire times.

Does Ms Lagarde really care so much about the welfare of Greece, Italy, Portugal and other struggling economies in the euro zone to rush to their aid by making such blunt statements? Highly doubtful. This political outburst was arguably one on France's behalf, and France's behalf only.

Fighting off the French ambush, Rainer Brüderle, Germany's minister of economic affairs, said a day later that, "For countries that in the past lived off their entitlements and neglected their competitiveness, to point their finger at others is humanly and politically understandable, but still unfair." And this is putting it mildly. A statement such as that by Ms Lagarde, directed at the country that in the case of a collapse of one of the weaker economies of the euro zone is likely to pick up a large part of the bill is, to say the least, out of place.

A spokesperson for German Chancellor Angela Merkel commented that it is better for Europe to think about a unified growth strategy rather than to oblige some states to artificially hold back to the benefit of the weakest. And rightfully so, for, if that is what Europe is about, we had better stop it right here, right now.

Don't mime the French

What does this dispute really show? First of all, that in times of crisis and hardship in Europe, everyone is on their own. More importantly, though, it shows that we might need to be wary of the French model of economic and monetary policy, which is too focused on public incentives, protectionism and political meddling with money matters.

Seven years into Frenchman Jean-Claude Trichet's reign over the European Central Bank (ECB), the euro is weakening in comparison with the dollar and years of corruption, lies and mismanagement in Greece and other countries threaten to bring down the entire construction of the euro zone.

The ECB is unstable because it is a political instrument along the lines of the French model. If we want to expand it, we need to fix it first. And Poland would be well advised to insist on a radical review of the euro system, something along the lines of the US model, before it even considers joining.

It has taken a while but it's finally done and dusted: we have a new European Commission.

Although a lot of media and public attention has been going to Mr Barroso's new team, a lot of power is actually in the hands of officials that the average European never gets to see or hear about. These are the members of the different cabinets, the private offices of the commissioners.

It is surprising, if not worrying, to see that for 27 EU commissioners there is no single senior Cabinet member from Poland, let alone a Head of Cabinet. Why not? Poland has been a Member of the European Union for long enough to be considered equal when it comes to such strategic appointments. More than half a decade since Poland's accession, there are plenty of competent Polish officials who know how to navigate the Brussels bureaucracy and its political intricacies.

Members of cabinet are appointed by every commissioner personally, in a rather opaque process and without much accountability.

Often times they largely determine their commissioner's agenda. A commissioner typically surrounds him- or herself with about six or seven of these confidants whose topical knowledge is often limited but whose political intuition is all the more outspoken.

The Polish commissioner, Janusz Lewandowski, picked a Luxembourgian Head of Cabinet, Marc Lemaître. In fact, Mr Lewandowski has only two other Poles among his private staff, Angelika Chomicka and Przemysław Słowik. This would all be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that commissioners from other countries - in particular the usual suspects such as France, Germany, and Spain - appoint their compatriots, and often their political friends, to highly influential and very well-paid posts in their private offices.

These people do push a national agenda although they are in fact not supposed to. Strategic posts in the key Cabinets of Competition, Internal Market and Industry, are full of French, Italians and Spaniards, especially now that some of these legacy Member States start realizing that the end may be near for the more-than-average privileges they have enjoyed for so long.

A missed opportunity for Mr Lewandowski and Poland? A lack of involvement from Warsaw in what are important decisions for Poland's future in the EU game? Stay tuned.