“Begins. (…) Tomasz Siemoniak’s remarks suggest dismissals from the Polish Armed Forces, the liquidation of units, and a weakening of Poland’s security,” stated the head of the Ministry of National Defense, Mariusz Błaszczak. The internet crowded with reactions to the Platform’s deputy head’s statements about a 150,000-strong army.
Siemoniak Doesn’t Favor 300,000 Soldiers
During a conversation on RMF FM, Tomasz Siemoniak was asked whether a potential coalition government would aim to create a 300,000-strong army. He answered that there is no demographic potential to support such a force.
Siemoniak has repeatedly argued that the optimal structure would be a professional core of about 150,000, plus 30,000 to 40,000 territorial defense soldiers, 20,000 to 30,000 voluntary service recruits, and a reserve of several hundred thousand. He contends that this mix would equip Poland with a capable and sustainable defense posture.
– the former minister noted.
READ MORE: Rolling up the army again?! Siemoniak Doesn’t Support 300,000 Soldiers: “The Optimal Variant Is a Professional Army of 150,000”
Minister Błaszczak: “It’s Beginning”
That evening, RMF FM’s coverage of Siemoniak’s remarks circulated on the X platform, with Mariusz Błaszczak, the head of the Ministry of National Defense, weighing in. RMF FM reported that Siemoniak, speaking on #RozmowaRMF, endorsed an army of 150,000 and argued Poland has no demographic potential for 300,000, noting that many personnel have left the service.
Begins. The current Polish army numbers around 187,000 soldiers. Siemoniak’s comments were framed as signaling potential dismissals and unit reorganizations that, in the minister’s view, would undermine Poland’s security.
– stated Błaszczak.
A Wave of Internet Reactions
PiS MP Radosław Fogiel joined the discussion, suggesting the remarks were a mockery of security needs. He argued that a strong, sizable army is essential today, noting the force’s growth from about 95,000 to roughly 170,000 and questioning why a larger force suddenly seems impossible. He hinted at political resistance to reinforcing national security.
— comments Fogiel on X.
To question policymakers? A difficult issue, perhaps.
– Michał Karnowski, co-founder of the wPolityce.pl portal and the weekly Sieci, offered.
This is a heated topic, and questions about the right defense size will keep surfacing as regional threats evolve.
– commented Michał Wójcik, a government minister, on the debate.
Some observers suggested a more cautious approach: if the European Union provides defense assurances, Poland might not need a large standing force. Critics argued for prudent reductions, while others warned that overconfidence could invite risk.
– observed Konrad Kołodziejski, writer for the Sieci weekly.
Analysts weighed in on the possibility that 150,000 could be the optimal number, given existing commitments and the need for training, equipment, and readiness. Others highlighted the importance of maintaining deterrence and rapid deployment capabilities in the face of evolving security challenges.
– noted Piotr Gursztyn, a well-known editor.
Amid the discussion, some voices urged vigilance about Europe’s security landscape and the potential for rapid mobilization by regional adversaries. The conversation touched on comparisons with how other nations respond to threats and the implications for Poland’s defensive strategy.
The debate involved several politicians and commentators who argued that a measured, capable force remains essential for national security, while others cautioned against overextension. In practical terms, discussions around troop levels, reserve forces, and readiness continue to shape policy directions as Poland assesses its defense needs against a shifting regional backdrop.
Observers noted that historical decisions to scale forces, along with contemporary budgetary considerations, play a central role in deciding how large the army should be. The overarching question remains: how to balance size, capability, and sustainability while ensuring Poland can respond to potential threats and fulfill alliance commitments.
In the end, the core issue centers on ensuring a credible, ready force that can deter aggression, protect borders, and adapt to new threats, all while maintaining fiscal responsibility and strategic flexibility.