What is a government to do when attacks near its border are escalating and responding too aggressively could create a bigger security problem?
This is the question faced by Poland.
Russian drones struck targets near the Ukraine-Poland border on Sunday, leading Warsaw to promise a nonprovocative but serious response to Moscow. The attack destroyed a gas station and the locomotive of a passenger train near the Dorohusk-Yahodyn border crossing.
The incident occurred close enough to Poland to make its security concerns immediate. The train was on the Kyiv-Warsaw route. All passengers and crew were evacuated in time. Also nearby were two special trains with participants returning from a security conference in Kyiv.
The Polish government has responded by stressing that ongoing support for Ukraine is directly linked to Poland’s own security. Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz said supporting Ukraine was part of Poland’s reason of state and said that Poland’s security would worsen if Ukraine lost the war.
Poland Prepares Its Response:
This is a difficult problem for Warsaw.
Poland has to show it will not be forced to give up policies it sees as vital to its security in the face of attacks near its border. At the same time, it must not take isolated incidents and turn them into a wider confrontation without determining what happened and what the proper response is.
This distinction is important because deterrence is not simply a matter of responding strongly. It is also about making the response predictable enough that an adversary understands where the lines are.
Poland has already started thinking about how it will respond. Prime Minister Donald Tusk met with Poland’s security ministers after the attack, with top military commanders also attending. Tusk said Poland needs to strengthen the security of its borders and be prepared to coordinate a response with European allies if necessary.
The planned response will be “nonprovocative, but serious” and will enhance Poland’s security, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said.
The Cost of Getting the Response Wrong:
That approach reflects the central problem Poland faces. A response that is too limited might be seen as a lack of resolve. An unnecessarily escalatory response could increase the risk of a broader confrontation.
The challenge, therefore, is not simply whether to respond. This is about choosing the type of response that conveys deterrence without creating a new security risk.
This means being able to distinguish between different forms of pressure.
A government can harden its border security, improve surveillance, work with allies, protect transportation infrastructure and increase the costs of activities that directly threaten its territory. These measures can signal that an attack has altered Poland’s security posture without necessarily requiring a military response against Russia.
The Domestic Problem:
But public opinion is another problem for the Polish government that cannot be separated from the external threat.
A survey in July found 52% of respondents in favor of continued military assistance to Ukraine and 45% against. That’s down from 77.5% support immediately after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, when only 18.3% were against continued support.
That change puts a second pressure on the government.
Warsaw has argued that helping Ukraine is in Poland’s own security interests, but maintaining that policy requires continued public backing. With attacks along Poland’s border becoming more common and public support for ongoing aid waning, the government needs to explain why its policy is still needed.
This makes the attacks more than a military or border security issue. They also become a test of whether the government can hold together a coherent security policy when the public’s willingness to back it is changing.
The Danger of Treating Every Incident the Same:
Another problem is the increasing number of drone incidents and the need to distinguish between deliberate escalation and incidents that may have different purposes.
For example, a drone reaching the Polish coast does not necessarily represent the same threat as a drone attacking infrastructure near the border. A drone found washed up near Jaroslawiec on Monday appeared unarmed and initial evidence suggested it may have been for reconnaissance rather than combat, the DW report said.
That distinction matters.
If all unknown drones are assumed to be part of the same campaign, governments risk responding to different threats as if they were the same. But a too-cautious approach by authorities in identifying a pattern could miss a deliberate attempt to test defenses or intimidate neighboring states.
Poland therefore needs both capabilities at the same time: the ability to recognize patterns quickly and the discipline to find out what those patterns actually mean.
The Role of Allies:
This is also why Poland’s response cannot be viewed entirely as a Polish-Russian issue.
Tusk has said that if needed, Poland would consult with its European allies. That coordination could add another layer of deterrence and also reduce the odds that Warsaw would react to an incident on its own.
A coordinated response also sends a different message than an ad hoc one. It demonstrates that an attack close to a country’s border can trigger a broader security response without each incident having to turn into a military confrontation.
The point is not merely to demonstrate that Poland will respond. It is to demonstrate that Poland can act in a deliberate way.
The Broader Security Lesson:
The attacks around the Polish-Ukrainian border show how modern conflicts can generate pressure off the battlefield.
An attack does not have to directly hit the territory of a neighboring NATO country to affect the wider security environment, including infrastructure, transport routes and border areas.
Governments then have to make decisions under pressure, often with incomplete information and a population that may not agree on what the appropriate response should be.
So, Poland’s problem is much bigger than what to do after one drone strike.
It’s about having a security policy that can withstand repeated pressure without every incident shaping the next response.
Deterrence requires showing that attacks will have consequences. Controlling escalation requires knowing what those consequences should be. Maintaining public support requires explaining why the policy is necessary.
Poland now has to manage all three at the same time.