Parliamentary Session on Polish-Lithuanian Military Oath Controversy

In yesterday's session at Congress, debates ran high as members deliberated over who should swear an oath of loyalty - the Polish-Ukrainian Cabinet or the military directly. At the heart of the dispute was whether the current Cabinet, responsible for defense affairs, should continue to govern the armed forces amidst concerns over its efficacy and potential foreign influence.

The President's proposal suggested that the Cabinet officers reaffirm their loyalty in an oath. This met with pushback from representatives like Mr. Stanisław Małachowski, advocating for the military itself to pledge allegiance directly before state-appointed delegates. Critics argue the Cabinet's tenure has ended with the Parliament's opening session, making it inappropriate for it to command the military force, as per existing laws, until a new body is elected.

Supporters of the President's initiative argue that removing the Cabinet's governance, even temporarily, could leave the military without proper leadership, creating a power vacuum with potentially dangerous implications for national security.

After heated arguments and calls for unity from figures like Bishop Ignacy Massalski, the votes were split. In an unusual move to resolve the deadlock, the Congress resorted to secret balloting - a practice that hasn't been utilized in a while and required a vote in itself to agree on using outdated voting containers.

Ultimately, the majority sided with the President. The Cabinet will reaffain its oath amidst reassurances that the oversight of the military would still be under direct Parliamentary control, avoiding missteps experienced in previous years like the haphazardly extended orders toward the Ukrainian military.

The assembly adjourned without addressing critical issues like military size and funding. The failure to decide on these essential defense measures, in light of existing foreign policy challenges, provoked disappointment and concerns within the militaristic circles.

This standoff reflects deeper tensions in governance and apprehension about the status of national defense. Much to the viewers' surprise, discussions on increasing troop numbers and determining their funding did not progress. Such delays have raised alarm among officials over the military's readiness amid growing foreign tensions.

A follow-up session is scheduled for Monday, yet it remains to be seen if consensus on the direction of the armed forces can be achieved. As the President recuperates, anxieties simmer regarding the effectiveness of national defense strategies and the possible consequences of indecision.

For our readers who follow these events closely, expect more updates after the next round of debates unfolds at the beginning of the week.

Topics: military oath; Military Department; Confederation Marshals; Confederation Sejm (Parliament); duration of the Permanent Council; existence of the Military Department; Stanisław Małachowski's oath project; lawmaking; dissension between the Throne and the Nation; Military Commission.;