Did Natalia Panczenko threaten riots? We check the facts

Natalia Panczenko did not threaten riots; in February 2025, she firmly denied these reports, pointing to the manipulation of her words. In June 2026, CEDMO analysts confirmed that her statement had been taken out of context. This resolution ends a year-and-a-half-long media cycle in which accusations of inciting social unrest served as a tool to discredit the activist.

In brief

In February 2025, the media published false information suggesting that Natalia Panczenko was announcing riots in Poland.
The activist identified the accusations as disinformation, pointing to the deliberate manipulation of her statements by political circles.
A CEDMO report from June 8, 2026, officially verified these reports as being based on taking words out of context.

February 2025: The beginning of the media storm

It all started on February 5, 2025. The "Fakt" newspaper published an article citing Natalia Panczenko's words, suggesting that riots could break out in Poland. This publication initiated a chain of events in which the activist's statement became the focal point of accusations of blackmailing the country with anti-Ukrainian tensions.

Four days later, on February 9, 2025, Radio Wnet published a piece that explicitly posited the thesis of blackmail. According to the narrative presented by this station, Panczenko was allegedly aiming to destabilize the situation in Poland by inciting anti-Ukrainian tensions. These accusations were part of a broader campaign aimed at the activist, which included attributing intentions to her that she had never expressed.

The situation escalated on February 10, 2025. The Onet portal published a report on the accusations that Panczenko directed at the Confederation (Konfederacja). The activist accused politicians of this group of deliberately spreading disinformation. On the same day, the "Wprost" weekly described the resulting confusion as a "classic case of disinformation." At that moment, the public debate was based on contradictory messages. On one hand, right-wing media maintained the thesis of blackmail; on the other, Panczenko pointed to manipulation.

Two days later, on February 12, 2025, the TVN24 station published information about the activist's appeal. In it, Panczenko called for an end to the dissemination of false information regarding her statements. Despite this, the process of building a negative image of the activist was already at an advanced stage. The audience, lacking insight into the full context of her words, received selected fragments intended to build a sense of threat.

The mechanism of disinformation: How were the words twisted?

Natalia Panczenko's statement, which became the spark for the conflict, was an analysis of growing social tensions, not a declaration of intent or a plan to carry out riots. The mechanism that led to the creation of the false narrative was based on the technique of recontextualization. This involves isolating single sentences from a broader statement and assigning them a meaning that contradicts the sender's intent.

In February 2025, media outlets involved in this campaign exploited the fear of social instability. The suggestion that the activist was threatening riots was an interpretation, not a quote. As a result, instead of a discussion about real social problems, the public's attention was directed at the figure of Panczenko herself.

The effectiveness of this manipulation stemmed from the fact that for a large portion of the audience, the information about "threats" was more sensational than the explanations of the person involved. When Panczenko explained her statement in the media on February 12, 2025, this message had to compete with already established headlines about "blackmail." Disinformation in this case did not consist of a lie in its pure form, but in creating an alternative reality in which the activist acts as an aggressor, not a commentator on the social situation.

Political support and hate in 2026

The year 2026 brought a continuation of actions aimed at Natalia Panczenko. Old, manipulated statements from February 2025 were reintroduced into circulation, becoming fuel for polarization. On January 6, 2026, the OKO.press portal published an analysis regarding anti-Ukrainian attacks in the media. The text pointed out that the rhetoric aimed at the activist had penetrated the mainstream of public debate. Jan Krzysztof Bielecki and Leszek Miller were mentioned as examples of people using such rhetoric.

This state of affairs proved that the once-created narrative of a "Ukrainian threat" involving Panczenko had stood the test of time. It operated independently of facts, becoming a permanent element of the political arsenal.

However, the balance of power regarding support for the activist changed. On March 2, 2026, Radosław Sikorski publicly thanked Natalia Panczenko for her work. This gesture was a clear political signal. By taking a stance on this matter, Sikorski explicitly opposed the wave of hate that had been flowing from right-wing circles for over a year. This support, however, did not silence the attacks, but rather shifted them to a higher level of polarization. The matter ceased to be just a question of interpreting one statement and became part of a broader dispute over the role of Ukrainian activists in the Polish public sphere.

CEDMO verdict: The finale after a year and a half

On June 8, 2026, CEDMO analysts published a report that definitively closed the case. Experts analyzed Natalia Panczenko's statement in the context of reports about arson and alleged riots. The conclusion was unambiguous: the material regarding the activist's threats was a manipulation based on taking quotes out of context.

This report provided official confirmation of what Panczenko had communicated as early as February 2025. The mechanism identified by CEDMO consisted of the deliberate transformation of a description of social phenomena into a prediction of criminal acts. The year-and-a-half period separating the first accusations from the experts' verdict was a time during which disinformation effectively shaped social attitudes.

During this time, public opinion was fed information that, in retrospect, proved to be groundless. The CEDMO rectification, although substantive and based on reliable analysis, reached the audience at a time when the original manipulation had long since achieved its political goals. The information verification system proved insufficient in the face of the speed at which sensational content spreads.

What this means for you

The case of Natalia Panczenko shows that in the Polish public debate, a "news" story based on manipulation is extremely durable. A recipient who does not follow fact-checking with a year's delay is left with an image of events that has little in common with reality.

The operational conclusion for the recipient is one: every sensational report about a "threat" from a specific public figure should be verified by reaching the source of the statement. If information evokes extreme emotions, it is usually a signal to check whether the quote has been cut out of a broader context. In the current state of the debate, the only effective method of protection against manipulation is to refrain from basing opinions solely on headlines and to look for official reports from fact-checking organizations such as CEDMO, even if they appear with a significant delay.

Questions and answers

Did Natalia Panczenko actually want to blackmail Poland?

No. This accusation appeared in right-wing media in February 2025 and was never supported by any evidence. It was the result of manipulating the activist's statement.

Why did the matter of the activist's statement return in 2026?

The topic returned in June 2026 in connection with the publication of the CEDMO report, which finally verified that the original allegations were based on taking words out of context.

What position did Radosław Sikorski take on this matter?

Radosław Sikorski gave Natalia Panczenko public support in March 2026, thanking her for her work in the face of the massive wave of hate she was facing.

What did the CEDMO report from June 8, 2026, confirm?

Analysts confirmed that the material regarding the alleged threats to incite riots was a manipulation that consisted of isolating fragments of the activist's statement from a broader context of social situation analysis.