Poland has the money. What it lacks is a defense strategy

After more than 36 years in uniform, Gen. Tomasz Piotrowski has taken the helm of a business platform. In an interview with XYZ, he discusses, among other things, the lack of a strategy, regulatory overload and a deficit of trust – and explains how Poland should prepare for war and tap the potential of its domestic defense industry.

Gen. Lt. (ret.) Tomasz Piotrowski has joined Pracodawcy RP, a Polish employers’ organization, as chairman of its Security and Defense Platform. In an interview with XYZ, he outlines his ambitions and offers an unequivocal diagnosis: Poland has the money, people and companies capable of building a modern defense industry. The problems, however, are a lack of strategy, regulatory overload, institutional silos and a deficit of trust. Rather than adding more procedures, the general argues, Poland needs a clear objective, greater courage among decision-makers and confidence in its own capabilities.

Poland has the potential. What it lacks is direction.

Michał Szcześniewski, XYZ: After years of commanding the armed forces at the highest levels, you have moved into the business world. What has surprised you most?

Gen. Tomasz Piotrowski, chairman of the Security and Defense Platform at Pracodawcy RP: Looking back, business and the armed forces have turned out not to be as far apart as I had thought. What did surprise me, however, was how many artificial barriers we have created – formal, structural and legal ones. Above all, they hinder communication.

In a well-functioning state, communication should be much more constructive. There should be fewer barriers so that we can operate more effectively. This is not just about business efficiency, understood as making money. It is about ensuring that state institutions, security services and the armed forces function as a better-coordinated mechanism – one that enhances security and strengthens citizens’ trust.

If there are no barriers within the state and we communicate effectively with one another, we are automatically stronger. It then becomes harder for a potential adversary to sow doubt and anxiety or influence the situation inside the country.

Should business teach the state how to be more efficient?

Yes. Business is focused on results, profit and coherent regulation. In public institutions, we sometimes fall into complacency – we convince ourselves that things are fine and that the systems we have created are working properly. Yet all too often, we continue to perpetuate mechanisms that simply do not work.

On the other hand, business can also learn something from the state. Not everything can be measured by financial performance. There are intangible things – security, education, culture, the arts and strategic processes – whose results may not become visible for years.

First, a national security strategy; then domain-specific strategies

What is the most important change the state should make today?

Adopt a national security strategy. This is one of the most important issues I raise wherever I go.

If we do not have a national security strategy, no industry will have a foundation on which to build its own sector-specific strategy. We will not know what the space strategy should look like, how to develop the defense industry, or what other strategic documents should contain. Without a common foundation, the whole system will remain incoherent.

It is a bit like building a house starting with the roof. The foundation is missing.

If we do not have a national security strategy, no industry will have a foundation on which to build its own sector-specific strategy.

So what entrepreneurs need above all is a vision?

Yes. If we do not know where we are going, no road will take us there. Companies want to know what their activities are ultimately meant to achieve, what objective the state is pursuing and over what time horizon.

Once we know what the objectives are, it becomes easier to invest, build capacity, tailor products to requirements and protect the domestic sector.

Another problem is the lack of consistent, open dialogue. The state should regularly tell citizens what it wants to achieve and how public funds are being spent. Every one of us pays taxes, and we would like to know what that money is being used for.

“Put decision no. 145 in the shredder”

You talk a lot about deregulation. What, specifically, needs to change?

Deregulation is very important, but it cannot mean layering yet another set of regulations onto an already overregulated system. We cannot regulate every possible scenario through legislation.

One example is Decision no. 145/MON, which governs contacts between the armed forces and the Ministry of National Defense and contractors. I am a strong advocate of repealing it.

This is not a call to stop regulating altogether. It is about sending a symbolic message: we trust that you know how to do your job. We trust the industry’s good intentions, that the end user knows what they need, and that we properly understand the policy guidelines and security requirements.

And we, as regulators, should be able to coordinate all of this intelligently.

Trust instead of more safeguards

You say trust has to be one of the most important elements. How do we build it?

We need to create legislative solutions based on the assumption that people want to do their jobs to the best of their ability. That applies not only to soldiers, but also to civil servants, law-enforcement officers and representatives of state institutions.

If we build the system on the assumption that everyone is potentially dishonest or unwilling to do their job properly, we will not create internal cohesion or trust.

At the same time, the potential of our people is enormous – Poles, Polish businesses and people working at mid- and lower levels of institutions. Many of them say it plainly: give us a goal, tell us what it is meant to achieve and what direction we should take, and we will get it done.

Give us a goal, tell us what it is meant to achieve and what direction we should take, and we will get it done.

The private sector is not a threat to the state-owned defense industry

Should private companies play an active role in shaping Poland’s defense sector?

Absolutely. There is enormous potential in the private sector. With all due respect to the state-owned defense industry, private companies have very substantial capabilities. There is also a strong understanding among them of the need to strengthen national security.

I do not see this as a threat to the state-owned sector. Artificial barriers, however, create the impression that state-owned and private companies are competing for funding and other benefits. Yet at the working level, when people actually sit down together and talk, there is a genuine willingness to cooperate and find synergies.

“Poles shouldn’t have to prove to one another that their solutions are good”

There is still a problem with trust in Polish-made products…

Yes. I would like Poles to stop having to prove to one another that their solutions are good and instead simply trust that they are.

Too often, we are impressed by what comes from abroad without appreciating what we have in our own market. I think this is primarily a result of a lack of trust, including at the cultural level. Sometimes it is simply easier for us to believe that something from abroad is good.

This also matters for exports. If a foreign partner asks who in Poland uses a particular solution and the answer is “no one,” even though the company has customers in Europe, the Middle East or Asia, doubts can arise.

If we used these products ourselves, we could point to our own example abroad: we use this solution, it works, and it is good.

The money is there. The problem is coordination.

When it comes to military procurement, is the bigger problem the amount of money available or how it is spent?

Definitely the latter.

I have the impression that we have enough money. Of course, it is not an bottomless pit, and we need to determine the scale of our needs and the direction we want to take, but funding is becoming increasingly available. We have domestic capital and private investors, while banks are increasingly confident in the defense sector, particularly in dual-use technologies.

On top of that, government spending on defense is rising. The main challenge, therefore, is how to manage and coordinate these efforts intelligently.

Definitely [the bigger problem is] how the money is spent.

We also need to move away from a silo mentality. The attitude that “this is mine, this is my problem, I’ll handle it myself” is still prevalent. Instead, we should work together to solve problems more effectively.

We cannot simply copy everything happening in Ukraine

The war in Ukraine has radically accelerated the development of military technologies and changed the way warfare is conducted. Has the Polish Armed Forces drawn important lessons from it?

We cannot simply transfer everything we have learned from the war in Ukraine or the situation in the Middle East directly to Poland because we feel threatened. We have regulations that we must comply with, and that is a good thing. Public procurement law is designed to protect public funds.

We should draw rational lessons from these conflicts. The point is not to copy Ukraine, but to ask how its experience should shape our own solutions and how we can avoid the mistakes made there.

I am not saying this to suggest that we are doing things badly or that we cannot cope. We must, however, remember that we are a country operating in peacetime.

A modern military is about more than AI and robots

After 36 years of service, you have witnessed enormous technological change. Is the future of the military primarily about robotics, artificial intelligence and new technologies?

We cannot reduce this to equipment alone. Above all, the role of the military has changed. In the past, the armed forces would define their requirements for industry, and industry would provide the appropriate solutions. Today, as part of multi-domain operations, the military must be able to leverage the latest technological advances and quickly adapt them to its needs.

At the same time, I remember the period when capabilities were being cut. In 2008–09, the artillery lost 36% of its authorized positions. We reduced air-defense, artillery and missile-force capabilities. Today, fortunately, circumstances are forcing us to rebuild them rapidly.

That experience is important because it allows us to see what mistakes we made and what we need to avoid today.

There will be no return to the old draft. But will everyone have a role to play in national defense?

Should Poland bring back compulsory military service?

Not in the form it took in the past. Drafting people into the military, putting them through basic training and requiring 11 months of service would be unnecessary and ineffective today. It would create more frustration than benefits.

But we should absolutely consider a universal form of service in support of the country’s defense. The Constitution is clear: everyone has a duty to defend the homeland. So the question is not “whether,” but “how” the state can make smart and effective use of its citizens’ potential.

What could that look like?

Not everyone who undergoes defense training needs to put on a uniform and go to war. If someone is excellent at public communications, for example, they could be trained to work in that area. Someone else might have skills that are useful in logistics, cybersecurity or other areas essential to keeping the state functioning.

The model should be universal and mandatory, but everyone should serve where their skills are most needed. This applies to both women and men – every citizen has the same rights and the same obligation.

The most important thing, however, is to give people a clear sense of purpose. I teach at a leadership school, where I ask students what the constitutional duty to defend the homeland means to them. About 80% say, “I am ready to make the sacrifice.” But then a second answer quickly follows: I would need to know the purpose. I would need to know what it is meant to achieve. If we do not define the mission, people will ask themselves: What exactly am I supposed to do?

A leader cannot be afraid of a drop in the polls

So we also need political courage?

The courage of the entire leadership class. Leaders must be willing to recognize that a particular solution is necessary, propose a specific model and accept that it may cause dissatisfaction.

Responsible leadership means accepting that not everyone will like every decision. Sometimes you have to tell citizens: this is a difficult decision, but we have to make it. And then start implementing it, even if that means risking a drop in support.

NATO works only as well as its members prepare

And what about trust in our allies? Can we still have complete confidence in NATO?

Absolutely. Trust is one of the foundations of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. But its effectiveness follows directly from Article 3 – the obligation of each member state to develop its own defense capabilities.

It is difficult to expect countries to commit fully to defending a country that has not previously built up its own capabilities. That is why I prefer to look at this as a glass half full. We created these mechanisms and have partners such as Finland and Sweden precisely so that we can be confident they will work effectively if the need arises.

Not another talking shop

How will you judge the success of your work after a year?

Not by the number of conferences or workshops. I would like to hear from businesses that we have actually managed to improve something.

What matters most is which mechanisms we have managed to unblock, whether we have improved efficiency, and whether the small companies that came forward to work with us will be able to say after a year: we genuinely benefited from this.

And I am not talking only about signed contracts. I hope companies will become more visible, strengthen their production capabilities and improve communication with the state. If it turns out that something can be changed at the micro level, it is worth trying to scale those solutions up.

That is exactly how I believe the Security and Defense Platform should operate. I do not want it to become another talking shop that collects recommendations, passes them on and organizes yet more meetings.

Dialogue matters. So does gathering information. But even more important is turning that information into concrete action. We need to implement solutions and then assess the results they produce.

Key Takeaways

1. Poland’s problem today is not a lack of money or expertise, but a lack of strategic direction. According to Gen. Piotrowski, the state has growing resources, a strong pool of talent and capabilities across both the private and state-owned defense industries, as well as people capable of developing modern solutions. The problems, however, are the lack of an overarching national security strategy, institutional silos, excessive regulation and insufficient coordination. Without clearly defined objectives, companies do not know which technologies and capabilities to invest in, while the state fails to make full use of the resources available to it.
2. One of the biggest challenges facing Poland’s defense industry is a lack of trust—both between the state and business and in domestically developed products. The general argues for moving away from a system built on the assumption that every participant in the process may be potentially dishonest or incompetent. Greater trust in Polish companies could facilitate cooperation with the armed forces and strengthen exports, because domestic references and evidence that products have been successfully tested by Polish users can be powerful arguments for foreign customers. Under this model, the private sector should not be treated as a competitor to the state-owned defense industry, but as a complement to its capabilities and a source of innovation.
3. Strengthening national security requires not only modernizing the armed forces, but also changing how the state and citizens think about their responsibilities. Gen. Piotrowski cautions against mechanically copying the lessons of the war in Ukraine or reducing military modernization to AI, robotics and new weapons systems. Poland should draw its own conclusions from those experiences and rebuild its capabilities, while also creating a universal model for citizens to contribute to national defense based on their individual skills. That, in turn, requires political courage: leaders must be willing to make decisions even when they are unpopular, and clearly explain to citizens what those decisions are intended to achieve and why they are necessary.