That warning comes alongside broader concerns about Russia’s future military capacity. Tomczyk said Russia is not currently capable of defeating NATO, but argued that Warsaw cannot treat the Alliance’s present advantage as permanent. A NATO assessment cited in the reporting suggests Russia could rebuild its military potential by 2027; the timing and scale of that recovery would depend partly on the outcome of the war in Ukraine.

A new way of assessing risk

The most important shift in Warsaw’s language is how it classifies threats. Tomczyk said Poland no longer divides scenarios into “realistic” and “unrealistic.” Instead, it considers them “probable” or “improbable.”

That does not mean every scenario is expected to happen. It means that a scenario judged unlikely—including a major Russian provocation—cannot simply be dismissed as impossible or assigned to a distant, fixed timeline. Poland’s planning is therefore based on uncertainty: prepare for risks that may not materialize, rather than wait for clearer warning signs after a crisis has begun.

Poland’s preparations extend beyond the battlefield

Tomczyk described the response as a whole-of-state effort. Poland is expanding and modernizing its armed forces while also preparing energy facilities and critical infrastructure to withstand potential attacks or disruption.

The approach also includes the East Shield fortification program and its SAN counter-drone component. The planned system is designed as a layered defense combining detection, electronic warfare and kinetic options such as machine guns, artillery and missiles. Initial capabilities have been projected within roughly six months, with full deployment expected to take about 24 months.

The design reflects the changing character of the threat. A serious confrontation could begin with drones, sabotage, infrastructure attacks or ambiguity over who carried out an operation—not necessarily with a conventional invasion. Building resilience into communications, energy and border defenses is intended to reduce the opportunities for coercion and confusion.

Why captured Ukrainian drones are part of the concern

Polish officials had already warned about a possible Russian false-flag operation involving captured Ukrainian drones. Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz said Russia could use seized Ukrainian systems to mislead NATO countries or provoke a response. One scenario discussed by Poland involved a drone swarm appearing over Poland or another country on NATO’s eastern flank with markings suggesting that the aircraft belonged to Ukraine.

Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski also warned that Russia might use captured Ukrainian drones in an operation designed to make an attack appear to have come from Kyiv.

These statements described a hypothetical tactic, not a confirmed operation. Their significance lies in the kind of risk Warsaw is preparing for: an incident that could damage infrastructure, create uncertainty over attribution and test NATO’s political response before any conventional escalation.

The 2027 concern is about avoiding complacency

The reference to 2027 is a planning horizon, not a guaranteed date for an attack. Polish officials have linked it to assessments that Russia could restore military capabilities after the war in Ukraine, depending on how that conflict develops.

Tomczyk’s point was that Poland should use the time available to strengthen its defenses rather than assume Russia will remain unable to challenge NATO. The distinction matters: current Russian limitations may reduce the immediate risk of a conventional confrontation, but they do not eliminate the possibility of future rearmament, hybrid operations or limited provocations.

Why the August 15 parade mattered

Poland’s Armed Forces Day parade on August 15 offered a public expression of the same strategy. More than 2,000 personnel and roughly 300 pieces of equipment took part in what was described as the country’s largest military parade.

The display was not only ceremonial. It showcased Poland’s accelerating military modernization and sent a deterrence message to allies and potential adversaries amid Russia’s war against Ukraine.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said Poland’s army will soon become Europe’s largest, presenting military scale and modernization as central to national and regional security. The stated objective is not simply to defend Polish territory in favorable conditions, but to create forces capable of operating under extremely difficult circumstances and strengthening NATO’s eastern flank.

The broader strategy: readiness to prevent war

Taken together, the statements from Warsaw describe a policy built around readiness rather than certainty. Poland is not saying that a Russian attack is inevitable or that a major provocation will definitely occur within months. It is saying that the range of plausible risks has widened—and that treating some of them as impossible would be dangerous.

The response combines military expansion with protection for energy and critical infrastructure, counter-drone defenses and preparation for deceptive or ambiguous attacks. The underlying calculation is straightforward: a state that is harder to intimidate, disrupt or surprise is more likely to deter aggression before it escalates.

That warning comes alongside broader concerns about Russia’s future military capacity. Tomczyk said Russia is not currently capable of defeating NATO, but argued that Warsaw cannot treat the Alliance’s present advantage as permanent. A NATO assessment cited in the reporting suggests Russia could rebuild its military potential by 2027; the timing and scale of that recovery would depend partly on the outcome of the war in Ukraine.

A new way of assessing risk

The most important shift in Warsaw’s language is how it classifies threats. Tomczyk said Poland no longer divides scenarios into “realistic” and “unrealistic.” Instead, it considers them “probable” or “improbable.”

That does not mean every scenario is expected to happen. It means that a scenario judged unlikely—including a major Russian provocation—cannot simply be dismissed as impossible or assigned to a distant, fixed timeline. Poland’s planning is therefore based on uncertainty: prepare for risks that may not materialize, rather than wait for clearer warning signs after a crisis has begun.

Poland’s preparations extend beyond the battlefield

Tomczyk described the response as a whole-of-state effort. Poland is expanding and modernizing its armed forces while also preparing energy facilities and critical infrastructure to withstand potential attacks or disruption.

The approach also includes the East Shield fortification program and its SAN counter-drone component. The planned system is designed as a layered defense combining detection, electronic warfare and kinetic options such as machine guns, artillery and missiles. Initial capabilities have been projected within roughly six months, with full deployment expected to take about 24 months.

The design reflects the changing character of the threat. A serious confrontation could begin with drones, sabotage, infrastructure attacks or ambiguity over who carried out an operation—not necessarily with a conventional invasion. Building resilience into communications, energy and border defenses is intended to reduce the opportunities for coercion and confusion.

Why captured Ukrainian drones are part of the concern

Polish officials had already warned about a possible Russian false-flag operation involving captured Ukrainian drones. Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz said Russia could use seized Ukrainian systems to mislead NATO countries or provoke a response. One scenario discussed by Poland involved a drone swarm appearing over Poland or another country on NATO’s eastern flank with markings suggesting that the aircraft belonged to Ukraine.

Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski also warned that Russia might use captured Ukrainian drones in an operation designed to make an attack appear to have come from Kyiv.

These statements described a hypothetical tactic, not a confirmed operation. Their significance lies in the kind of risk Warsaw is preparing for: an incident that could damage infrastructure, create uncertainty over attribution and test NATO’s political response before any conventional escalation.

The 2027 concern is about avoiding complacency

The reference to 2027 is a planning horizon, not a guaranteed date for an attack. Polish officials have linked it to assessments that Russia could restore military capabilities after the war in Ukraine, depending on how that conflict develops.

Tomczyk’s point was that Poland should use the time available to strengthen its defenses rather than assume Russia will remain unable to challenge NATO. The distinction matters: current Russian limitations may reduce the immediate risk of a conventional confrontation, but they do not eliminate the possibility of future rearmament, hybrid operations or limited provocations.

Why the August 15 parade mattered

Poland’s Armed Forces Day parade on August 15 offered a public expression of the same strategy. More than 2,000 personnel and roughly 300 pieces of equipment took part in what was described as the country’s largest military parade.

The display was not only ceremonial. It showcased Poland’s accelerating military modernization and sent a deterrence message to allies and potential adversaries amid Russia’s war against Ukraine.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said Poland’s army will soon become Europe’s largest, presenting military scale and modernization as central to national and regional security. The stated objective is not simply to defend Polish territory in favorable conditions, but to create forces capable of operating under extremely difficult circumstances and strengthening NATO’s eastern flank.

The broader strategy: readiness to prevent war

Taken together, the statements from Warsaw describe a policy built around readiness rather than certainty. Poland is not saying that a Russian attack is inevitable or that a major provocation will definitely occur within months. It is saying that the range of plausible risks has widened—and that treating some of them as impossible would be dangerous.

The response combines military expansion with protection for energy and critical infrastructure, counter-drone defenses and preparation for deceptive or ambiguous attacks. The underlying calculation is straightforward: a state that is harder to intimidate, disrupt or surprise is more likely to deter aggression before it escalates.