WASHINGTON -- Poland is offering to pay $15,000 a year for every US soldier stationed on its territory and cover infrastructure costs as Warsaw and Washington move closer to agreeing on establishing a permanent American military base, a senior Polish defense official told RFE/RL.
Deputy Defense Minister Paweł Zalewski said in an interview in Washington on September 25 that negotiations with the Pentagon are now focused on how to implement the plan, including the forces, capabilities, and possible locations involved.
“We are discussing with the Pentagon different variations of the execution of the decision,” Zalewski said.
While declining to say which US units could be deployed or where, Zalewski disclosed new details of Poland’s offer to Washington.
“We are offering very special conditions for American troops,” he said.
“We will cover the costs of infrastructure. We are also covering the cost of each American soldier stationing in Poland by $15,000 per year.”
Asked who would pay, Zalewski replied: “It’s paid by the Polish taxpayers.”
The offer underscores Warsaw’s determination to secure a permanent US military presence as the Pentagon reviews the deployment of American forces across Europe.
President Donald Trump said on September 17 that progress was being made toward establishing a US Army base in Poland and that its location could be announced soon.
The United States already has thousands of troops in Poland, mostly on a rotational basis, and the country has become a major hub for NATO operations along the alliance’s eastern flank.
Zalewski said the details of any permanent deployment remain under negotiation and are being discussed in the context of Washington’s broader review of its European military posture.
“We are discussing different variants, different variations of troops, of capabilities, of locations,” he said, adding that Warsaw expects greater clarity after the review is completed.
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
For Warsaw, the significance of a permanent base goes beyond the number of troops stationed there.
“Permanent bases create permanent commitment,” Zalewski said, adding such a deployment would be less dependent on changes in the political or military environment while also sending a direct signal to Moscow.
An attack on Poland, he said, would risk bringing Russian forces into direct conflict with US troops.
“It makes a very important, urgent message to [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin that the US has strategic interests in Poland, and that attack on Poland would be the attack on US armed forces in Poland,” Zalewski said.
He also argued that a permanent US presence should not be seen simply as Washington doing Warsaw a favor.
“This permanent base is not the outcome of a certain kind of altruism,” he said, but reflects “very well understood American interests.”
Poland has rapidly expanded its military and invested heavily in American weapons systems. The two countries have also deepened energy ties, including cooperation with US companies on Poland’s first nuclear power plant.
Security experts said a permanent base would strengthen Washington’s commitment to NATO’s eastern flank but cautioned that its significance would depend partly on what happens to US forces elsewhere in Europe.
“A permanent US base in Poland would be an important signal of American commitment to NATO’s eastern flank, especially as Washington reviews its wider military posture in Europe,” David Cattler, a former NATO assistant secretary-general for intelligence and security, told RFE/RL.
But Cattler, now a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, said allies would be watching the broader outcome of the US review.
“Allies will judge the whole picture: what forces and capabilities remain, how quickly they can reinforce Poland and the Baltic states, and whether they can operate together effectively,” he said.
“A base would strengthen deterrence if it adds real capability to the eastern flank. It would do far less to reassure allies if accompanied by substantial US reductions elsewhere in Europe.”
Matthew Boyse, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former US deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, said the negotiations reflected Poland’s growing role in NATO.
“These base talks showcase Poland’s continuing value as a major NATO ally,” Boyse told RFE/RL.
Poland has sharply increased defense spending in recent years and has emerged as one of NATO’s biggest military spenders relative to the size of its economy.
“Instead of complaining about ‘reliability,’ Poland is pulling out the stops,” Boyse said. “The administration sees and appreciates that.”
Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the prospect of a permanent base would be welcomed in countries closest to Russia but cautioned that uncertainty remains over Washington’s broader approach to Europe.
“The prospect of a permanent US base in Poland is good news for Poles and others along NATO’s eastern flank, especially amid growing concern about the threat posed by Russia,” Kupchan told RFE/RL.
“Nonetheless, this is still a time of uncertainty for NATO,” he said, citing Trump’s sometimes contentious relationship with allies and the Pentagon review that could reduce the US presence elsewhere in Europe.
Warsaw’s push for a permanent American presence comes as Russia appears increasingly willing to take risks against NATO members.
“Russia’s readiness to accept higher risk is visible, and Russia is ready to escalate,” Zalewski said.
He pointed to recent incidents that Poland has linked to Russia, including airspace violations and alleged acts of sabotage, saying they illustrated the pressure facing countries on NATO’s eastern flank.
Poland, he said, is responding both through its alliance with the United States and through NATO.
For Warsaw, a permanent American base would add another layer to that deterrence by making clear that any military confrontation involving Poland could immediately involve US forces.
“Permanent bases create permanent commitment,” Zalewski said.
