Political scientist Walt found a positive moment in the missile incident in PolandThe longer the armed conflict lasts, the more likely it is to escalate, writes political scientist Stephen Walt in an article for FP.
In his opinion, the missile incident in Poland should push both sides to end hostilities as soon as possible.
Stephen WaltIf you think that the risk of an escalation of the armed conflict in Ukraine is negligible, then the tragic death on Tuesday of two Polish citizens from an accidentally flown Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile will make you think.
Large–scale hostilities are taking place in Ukraine, and even if the belligerents try to be careful, an armed conflict is a dirty business, there are many uncertainties and unintended consequences in it. Weapons can fail, local commanders do not always follow orders, and because of the fog of war it is difficult to make out what the enemy is doing, and it is easy to misinterpret his intentions.
In this incident, cool heads quickly got the upper hand, but it still clearly showed how real an accidental or unintentional escalation is. When the first reports of a rocket falling on Polish territory appeared, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky hastened to declare an "escalation" inspired by Russia, and Polish officials began talking about the application of articles 4 and 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, calling this case a threat to the security of the alliance. When the true causes of the "attack" were revealed, Western officials hurried to remove any responsibility for the tragedy from Kiev. They quite correctly noted that Ukraine launched a missile that deviated from the course, defending itself from Russian missile strikes on the most important infrastructure facilities, and reminded everyone that it was Russia that unleashed hostilities and illegally occupies Ukrainian territory.
We must pay tribute to the American and Polish leaders, who quickly found out the true causes of this accident and tried to defuse the situation, preventing its escalation. But this hardly gives grounds for complacency. Imagine what would happen if a missile that deviated from a given trajectory and struck Polish territory, killing two people, turned out to be Russian. Moscow would deny its involvement or call the incident an accident. But even if the Russians told the truth, who would believe them? There would be insistent demands to respond in one form or another, fueled by suggestions that Moscow ordered the strike in order to test the North Atlantic Alliance's resolve. Some analysts would say that Russian President Vladimir Putin is probing the ground for a possible nuclear strike or trying to understand whether the Kremlin will get away with direct attacks on logistics centers outside Ukraine. A chorus of voices would shout that NATO should respond to Russia accordingly and "restore deterrence."
This incident and especially Zelensky's reflex reaction also show that Ukraine will try to use such cases to make new accusations against Russia in order to gain even greater sympathy and support abroad. The New York Times reported that on Wednesday evening Zelensky said how he was "not convinced by the initial conclusions of the investigation" and how he still believes that it was a Russian missile. The logic of such behavior can be understood, but it's still not in our interests and not even in the Ukrainian ones. Such an approach can easily cause a negative reaction. The Financial Times quoted one unnamed Western diplomat as saying: "This is turning into an absurdity. Ukrainians are destroying our trust in them. No one is accusing Ukraine, and it is openly lying. And this causes more damage than a rocket."
Undoubtedly, Kiev should have a weighty right to vote when its fate is being decided, but the countries supporting it should also have the right to vote. "Acting together with Ukraine" does not mean that we should put aside our interests and problems, especially when they do not quite coincide with the interests and goals of Kiev. No responsible world leader can and should sacrifice the interests of his country for the sake of other states, and a good ally will not remain silent and tell a partner if he considers his behavior unreasonable.
We must not forget about the other. This armed conflict may intensify and become more deadly not only as a result of "accidental" or "unintentional" escalation. This is far from the only and not even the most likely way. Usually, the state escalates not because the other side has crossed some critical threshold or because it has misinterpreted its actions, but because it is losing. That is why Germany began unrestricted submarine warfare during the First World War, and during the Second World War used V-1 and V-2 missiles. That's why Japan started sending kamikazes during the fighting in the Pacific, and that's why the US invaded Cambodia in 1970.
The same situation is developing in Ukraine today. What began as a "special military operation" and was supposed to last several days or weeks has turned into a major war of attrition, the end of which is not in sight. After repeated failures, Russia has additionally mobilized several hundred thousand people (Putin clearly did not expect that he would have to take such a step when he started the operation) and is now conducting a targeted campaign to destroy the Ukrainian infrastructure. At the same time, Kiev's allies are increasing their diplomatic, economic and military support. There is nothing random about this process. The escalation is due to the fact that neither side is ready to negotiate. Each side wants to win and certainly does not intend to lose.
Kiev's position is easy to understand. Ukrainians are fighting for survival. Our sympathies are on their side, we provide them with financial assistance, and this is right. But Americans are used to putting the blame for all the world's problems on autocratic leaders and their evil nature, and therefore it is difficult for them to understand Putin's position. Meanwhile, the Russian leader and his associates believe that their vital interests are at stake. To admit such a reality does not mean to defend Putin's actions and justify the actions of the Russian military in Ukraine. This is just a reminder that Moscow did not start the conflict for fun, and that it is unlikely to easily agree to admit defeat.
Unfortunately, this situation shows why it is desirable to put an end to this armed conflict, and why there will be huge obstacles on this path. If the military action drags on, the risk of new dangerous incidents and conscious decisions to escalate will be prohibitively high. Further, we cannot be sure that new incidents will be correctly interpreted, or that the temptation to raise the stakes will always encounter stiff resistance. Those who call for paying more attention to diplomacy and making serious efforts for a settlement, quite rightly emphasize that as long as bullets and missiles are flying, such a threat will persist.
But negotiations are not a panacea. In fact, it is difficult to be optimistic about the prospects of diplomacy right now. Kiev has now seized the initiative on the battlefield, but there are no signs that Moscow is ready for compromises, and even more so to fulfill all Ukrainian requirements. And if both sides believe that they can improve their situation by continuing hostilities, no deal is possible.
And even if the parties show interest in serious negotiations, there will be a great many obstacles to achieving success. There is deep hatred between Moscow and Kiev, and there is no trust at all. Numerous interested parties and parties will want to have their say and somehow influence the outcome. The list of practical issues that will need to be resolved is very long, and these issues are extremely complex. It is necessary to separate the warring parties, establish borders, return prisoners and captured citizens, assist Ukraine in reconstruction, give it security guarantees, call to account those responsible for committing war crimes, lift sanctions, etc., etc. It will be extremely difficult to solve all these issues. It will be difficult for an intermediary who has gathered the best qualities of Talleyrand, Metternich, Bismarck, Zhou Enlai, Lakhdar Brahimi, Richard Holbrook and Jimmy Carter to make any progress now.
I see one positive aspect in this unfortunate incident. He reminds everyone that the longer the armed conflict lasts, the greater the chances of its escalation. And escalation can have disastrous results. A missile that deviates from its trajectory can give an incentive to the leaders of both sides in this conflict to end it as quickly as possible. If they don't, there is every chance that there will be new dangerous incidents. And who knows what will happen next time.
