Józef Piłsudski once noted that Poles seek independence with two cents and two drops of blood, while those who menaced to seize power might trim that to one cent and no blood at all. Today, that idea still echoes as Poland observes National Independence Day and considers what it would take to defend sovereignty in the modern era. What would today’s Polish people be willing to sacrifice for their country? How many would rather live without mobilizing or even a hint of sacrifice, and how many could actually bear it? Duty, service, and the various obligations toward fellow citizens are not solely about answering a specific threat. They stem from an inner conviction, a moral imperative. When that happens, independence is not a calculation of costs and benefits; it becomes a shared responsibility. Opportunism, evasions, and even collaboration reveal themselves, sometimes clothed in reason and pragmatism, but their roots lie in a willingness to trade away national dignity for convenience.
A country holds onto its independence only when enough citizens are prepared to defend it and even lay down their lives for it, expecting nothing in return except the preservation of independence as a common good, a pinnacle value. During the era known as the Third Polish Republic, there was a long narrative that citizens deserved relief from duties toward their homeland and from the burden of safeguarding independence. The message urged people to stay calm, to avoid romantic uprisings and the rebellious impulse that often accompanies national pride. The message suggested that life should center on everyday comforts and the question of whether hot water exists in the taps. That mindset seemed to return at the end of 2023, after the elections on October 15.
Yet there remain Poles who insist that homeland defense still matters. They reject the idea that patriotism and national duties are outdated or unwise. They refuse to settle for being merely ordinary; they are prepared to offer more than two small drops of blood for Poland. It is difficult to quantify their number, but they are real and not worthy of ridicule. Dismissing them as deluded would be an erosion of national discourse; their perspective deserves consideration in a healthier public conversation.
As Piłsudski asserted, Poland seeks independence but perhaps hopes it will not cost much financially or in human sacrifice. The cautions about leadership that seems ready to pay only a minimal price for sovereignty echo in today’s debate. The idea of service to the homeland should not be symptomless or devoid of risk—one can hear echoes of a line from Maria Peszek’s song about national sentiment, which suggests a price to pay even when it feels heavy to bear.
Independence cannot realistically be bought for a mere one cent or without any sacrifice. A robust defense, including a capable armed force, requires investments—often significant—into national security. In practical terms, independence is measured not by comfort but by resilience. Everyday life rarely tests sovereignty directly, but threats can arrive swiftly and prices can surge, especially for those who might previously reject any form of sacrifice. The price can rise until it feels intolerable for anyone who would never contribute a single drop of blood.
There is a concern that independence could fade unnoticed, particularly if decisions at higher levels drift toward new political configurations that do not prioritize sovereignty. The future of the European Union, debates within major coalitions, and shifts in the regional balance of power may complicate the environment in which Poland defends its autonomy. The risk is not only external pressure but internal divisions that threaten the clarity of national purpose. The fear is that sovereignty could be compromised by political calculations that ignore the hard history of independence struggles.
Believers that foreign forces or external guarantees can fully secure Poland’s sovereignty are cautioned by current discussion. It is tempting to rely on international institutions, courts, or alliances, but the core trust is and remains with the state, the national army, and society itself. It is essential to recognize that sovereignty can be strengthened only through proactive and responsible action at home, rather than waiting for a foreign solution. The contemporary conversation underscores a warning: the transformation of international roles should not dilute national identity or convert Poland into a peripheral entity within a larger framework. The moment may come when Polish citizens are called to defend independence—not merely in theory or on paper, but in a concrete, uncompromising way, as history has shown in 1920 and in the decades that followed.