Gocuł questions the leadership of Poland’s Ministry of National Defense
In a direct Onet interview, former Defense Minister Mariusz Błaszczak asserts that if Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz follows General Mieczysław Gocuł’s recommended path, he could encounter problems similar to those faced by past ministers Klich and Siemoniak. Błaszczak argues that Gocuł does not fully grasp how modern force development planning and national war preparation operate, suggesting that current realities of defense planning are being overlooked.
General Mieczysław Gocuł, who previously served as Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Army and now serves as the Military Advisor to the Minister of National Defense as well as Head of the Defense Ministry’s Audit Team, gave Onet a wide-ranging interview. He outlines several concerns about how the Defense Ministry has been managed in recent years.
He notes that crucial strategic documents seem to be missing and describes this as the tip of a broader set of problems within the ministry. He also lists what he views as irrational defense purchases made by his predecessors.
The defense chief, Mariusz Błaszczak, counters that Kosiniak-Kamysz would struggle to act effectively within the framework Gocuł advocates, a situation that could have serious consequences amid ongoing conflicts and security challenges. Błaszczak also points to delays in compensations for border service that have raised concerns among servicemen.
In a separate Onet post, Błaszczak responds to Gocuł’s claims and presents his interpretation of the department’s operational needs as documented internally. He cites papers describing urgent requirements and argues that these needs were valid during Gocuł’s tenure as Chief of the General Staff.
Urgent needs and timely decisions
Błaszczak contends that the assertion of missing urgent procedures is unfounded. He maintains that the rules governing urgent acquisitions were properly used to address immediate threats, and that this approach existed within the framework during Gocuł’s tenure as well. He questions whether prolonged analyses should delay equipment modernization when the eastern border is under strain and Poland stands on the front line of regional security.
According to Błaszczak, Gocuł supports a system that would limit the minister’s ability to approve purchases, tying decisions to vague recommendations and dragging projects out for years. He argues that such an arrangement would stall modernization and could jeopardize national security. He frames this stance as controversial at a moment of regional risk.
Błaszczak emphasizes that defense taxpayers’ money and procurement transparency must be protected. He claims that Gocuł’s model would revive a slow, centralized process that delays modernization. He notes that the period from 2007 to 2015 saw few major arms contracts beyond the Caracal helicopter deal, implying that leadership continuity is essential for consistent policy execution.
Readers should recall that Błaszczak has criticized the lack of a clear national defense plan and unified positions on major defense issues. He points to debates about the army’s size and composition and advocates for a coherent, forward-looking approach supported by solid planning documents and strategic priorities.
A claim of falsehood addressed
Błaszczak challenges the charge that strategic defense planning documents do not exist or are outdated. He maintains that the modern process for programming the armed forces and national war preparations is understood and that the current leadership has produced strategic documents and priorities. He asserts that claims about missing or outdated security strategies are inaccurate and that planning documents are indeed in force and guiding decisions.
He notes that present leadership has publicly spoken about priorities rooted in strategy work conducted with the presidency and aligned with official national security considerations.
Despite Gocuł’s questions about the existence of important documents, the current Defense Ministry has stated that its priorities align with strategic materials prepared in cooperation with state leadership. The ministry highlights the security strategy and the development program for the Polish Armed Forces for 2021–2035 as foundational elements guiding policy and modernization efforts.
Supporters of Kosiniak-Kamysz cite these documents as the basis for pursuing a unified and transparent defense posture. They argue that a clear, shared position is essential for addressing core defense questions and ensuring a consistent modernization path.
Calling for a single, clear stance
Another discussion centers on the proposed size of the army. The debate includes plans to build a strong land force and to reach a total force that combines professional soldiers, territorial troops, and a voluntary mobilization component. Supporters say the plan rests on solid analyses from the General Staff and is tied to the Armed Forces Development Program and related strengthening measures. They argue that a unified stance from the ministry’s leadership is essential for the plan to proceed smoothly.
While some voices challenge the 300,000-strong figure, others say this target should be considered alongside active reserves. Recent statements by defense leaders reflect a search for a coherent stance on army size that aligns with strategic goals and current security realities. The debate continues as varying visions are presented, with the defense community seeking consensus on the best path forward.
In reflecting on procurement and modernization, the discussion turns to processing efficiency. Critics describe the arms market as not a simple retail space where everything is available; they emphasize the need for thoughtful, timely procurement. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, demand for modern equipment rose, underscoring the need to replace outdated post-Soviet gear with capable, up-to-date systems. The goal is to balance rapid modernization with responsible budgeting and reliable supply chains, a balance many political forces have supported since 2015.
There is an ongoing emphasis on completing contracts and advancing strategic acquisitions that strengthen Poland’s defense posture. The ongoing work includes pursuing partners in international markets, securing technology transfers where feasible, and building a robust defense industrial base that can meet Poland’s security needs now and in the future. The conversation remains dynamic as policymakers weigh options and seek broad consensus among political affiliations and the public at large. The aim is to secure a stable path for modernization while maintaining transparency and accountability in defense decisions.
Overall, the debate highlights the need for shared national defense priorities, a clear planning framework, and steady progress in modernizing the Polish Armed Forces to meet contemporary challenges. It underscores the importance of unity within the Defense Ministry and the value of informed debate in shaping Poland’s security future. The dialogue continues as stakeholders assess past actions, present priorities, and the best way forward for national defense.