Poland is moving ahead with a sweeping reform of its armed forces. At first glance, the changes appear to focus solely on restructuring the military command system. A closer look, however, reveals something much broader-a shift in the country's entire military paradigm, operational logic, and, arguably, its philosophy of war. It is not difficult to understand what Poland is preparing for.
Poland's Military Strength and the Next Stage of Modernization
Among NATO members, Poland arguably fields one of the Alliance's most combat-ready armed forces, with Turkey being the obvious exception. Turkey, however, occupies a unique strategic position, with the Middle East serving as its primary security focus.
Although Poland cannot match France or the United Kingdom in missile capabilities or air power, it possesses one of Europe's strongest land forces. In terms of the ground component available for any future large-scale conflict, Poland clearly ranks among NATO's leading military powers. Polish volunteers have also been widely reported as participating in the conflict in Ukraine, while the country's defense industry continues to expand rapidly.
The Polish leadership has now decided to move to the next stage of military modernization by adapting the command structure to wartime requirements.
What Does That Mean in Practice?
Lieutenant General Krzysztof Karol, who is overseeing the reform, outlined its objectives in an interview with Defence24. According to him, the central purpose of the reform is to redefine how Poland intends to command military operations during wartime.
The statement sounds deceptively simple, even somewhat vague. Later in the interview, however, the general introduces a more sophisticated concept-reverse engineering.
The obvious question is: whose experience is Poland planning to reverse engineer?
The term itself implies taking someone else's solution apart, studying how it works, and then recreating or adapting it.
In this context, there are only a few possible models: the United States, which has long shaped Western military doctrine; Ukraine, whose armed forces possess the most recent large-scale combat experience; or Russia.
Learning From Modern Conflicts
Ukraine offers valuable battlefield lessons, but its military command system is also subject to considerable criticism. While it has introduced numerous innovations, many observers point to persistent organizational problems and management shortcomings.
The United States, meanwhile, remains a global leader in military theory and doctrine, yet its experience in large-scale conventional warfare is considerably more limited than the conflicts currently unfolding in Eastern Europe.
For that reason, General Karol's reference to reverse engineering appears more rhetorical than literal. Ultimately, Poland will have to develop its own solutions.
That should not be underestimated.
Poland has produced generations of distinguished scientists, engineers, and military thinkers. The debate currently taking place within the Polish defense community is serious, detailed, and deserves careful attention rather than dismissal.
Why Poland Is Reforming Its Military
The need for reform stems from Poland's position within NATO's defense architecture.
Under the Alliance's strategic planning, Poland serves as one of the frontline states expected to respond first should the regional security situation deteriorate.
Military organizations distinguish between peacetime and wartime structures. Even during wartime, there remains a clear separation between frontline combat formations and rear-area support.
General Karol explains that, until recently, Poland's armed forces followed the traditional American model, under which the military is divided into two major components:
- the institutional force;
- the operational force.
From Two Forces to One Integrated Army
Poland adopted a broadly similar structure by 2014. The timing was no coincidence.
The perceived Russian threat following Crimea's reunification with Russia became the catalyst for Poland's accelerated military modernization.
New structures, including the Operational Command and, later, commands responsible for territorial defense and special operations, were established during this period.
Today, General Karol argues that a frontline military can no longer remain divided into institutional and operational components. Instead, it must function as a single, integrated force.
From Readiness to Transformation
The 2022 NATO Strategic Concept emphasizes the need to create armed forces capable of performing their missions in peacetime, during crises, and in wartime without major internal restructuring.
For Poland, that means extending the tempo and mindset of wartime operations into everyday military service.
The traditional division between institutional and operational forces is expected to disappear.
Instead, the new system revolves around two permanent concepts:
- readiness;
- transformation.
Rather than maintaining two separate armies, Poland intends to create a single force in which both processes operate simultaneously throughout the military hierarchy.
"Transformation in Contact"
General Karol refers to a concept also being tested in the United States.
"Imagine a soldier operating a piece of equipment while maintaining direct communication with its manufacturer. The manufacturer receives immediate feedback on what should be changed or improved, implements those modifications, and the updated system is tested again."
In Western military terminology, this model has become known as Transformation in Contact (TiK).
The concept represents far more than a new organizational procedure linking frontline units with logistics and industry.
Its primary purpose is to reshape the mentality of the individual soldier by fostering continuous tactical adaptation and procedural improvement.
Doctrine Written on the Battlefield
The new model allows commanders to use fresh combat experience immediately to develop new tactics, operating procedures, technical requirements, and recommendations for defense manufacturers.
Under this approach, military doctrine is no longer written exclusively by the General Staff every fifteen or twenty years after lengthy analysis.
Instead, doctrine evolves directly on the battlefield in real time.
The same principle extends across every domain of modern warfare-land, air, cyberspace, and outer space-reflecting what Western militaries describe as multi-domain operations.
Looking Beyond Today's Battlefield
General Karol emphasizes that the reform is intended to prepare not simply for the lessons of Ukraine but for the wars of the future.
Even after active hostilities eventually end, military innovation will continue.
The overarching objective is to build a military command system capable of processing every new situation as rapidly and effectively as possible-without lengthy delays for approvals, budgeting procedures, procurement competitions, and other peacetime administrative processes.
At the same time, many Polish officers remain concerned that such an extensive reorganization could create additional bureaucracy and reduce efficiency rather than improve it.
As a result, the reform is moving forward cautiously.
It still requires extensive debate within the Polish Sejm, and its implementation will inevitably involve substantial additional funding.
Even so, discussion of military reform has become one of the central topics within Poland's defense community.
It is a debate worth following closely.
