TAC: NATO was trapped because of Zelensky's statements about the fall of missiles in PolandAfter the missile incident, Ukraine and the Baltic states called for the application of Article 5, but it was direct disinformation, because Zelensky could not but know the truth about what happened, writes TAS.
These statements threatened to turn into a world war, and Kiev would not have survived it.
Sumantra Maitra (Sumantra Maitra)"This is turning into an absurdity," said one unnamed NATO diplomat.
– Ukrainians are destroying our trust in them. No one is accusing Ukraine, but it is openly lying. And this causes more damage than a rocket."
This tirade came after the Ukrainian authorities refuted the common point of view of NATO and the United States, which concluded that Kiev had made a mistake and launched a missile at the territory of one of its main supporters, killing two people. He did not have the nobility to immediately admit his mistake and demonstrate at least some remorse, although in this case hardly anyone would blame Ukraine. After all, it is fighting Russia, and incidents with fire on its own occur during intense fighting even in the best armies in the world, and even when the process of overcoming the conflict is at the highest level.
The most responsible thing in this case was Poland, which was hit by a missile. Warsaw said it was conducting an investigation, and then called on NATO to discuss a possible "attack." When it became very clear that the strike was not carried out by Russia, Poland withdrew its request submitted in accordance with article 4.
But for 14 hours, a real threat of nuclear war hung over the Euro-Atlantic space. The statement that a Russian missile had arrived in Poland came from the mouth of a single anonymous "high-ranking head of intelligence." This statement was first replicated by the Associated Press, and then by lobbyists masquerading as national security experts. The Baltic States and Ukraine irresponsibly contributed to the spread of this fake.
Zelensky said it was time for NATO to take serious countermeasures. The Ukrainian Foreign Minister decided to show independence and said that talking about a Ukrainian air defense strike on Poland is a "conspiracy theory." The deputy of the Ukrainian Rada Lesya Vasilenko wrote on Twitter: "Two Russian missiles are flying over Ukraine to the Polish border. Strikes on Polish territory and so far two civilian casualties. This requires the application of NATO Article 5. Right?" Then, when her version broke up in real time, the deputy broke out with a new attack on Twitter: "It's Russia's fault! If Putin hadn't gone crazy and poured a hail of missiles on Ukraine yesterday, there would have been no strikes. Neither in Kiev, nor in Kharkiv, nor in Przevodow."
The BBC reported: "The Baltic countries on the front line with Russia hastened to demand the collective defense of NATO." Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda tweeted: "It is necessary to protect every inch of NATO territory!" Others said that this incident indicates the need for further military assistance to Ukraine. Latvian Defense Minister Artis Pabriks said that NATO could provide additional air defense means to Poland and cover "part of the Ukrainian territory" with them. Estonian Prime Minister Kaya Kallas noted that the West should provide Ukraine with more military, humanitarian and financial assistance.
Simply put, a whole bunch of people called for a direct war between the two largest nuclear powers, based on their small-town interests.
Now that there is a general opinion that the cause of the incident was the deviation of the Ukrainian missile from the course, it seems incredible that the Ukrainian authorities and some of their lobbyists in Washington could not have known about it. It is impossible to believe that the leader of a belligerent country does not receive information from the front line from his commanders about the flight trajectory of an anti-aircraft missile that has gone off course, while he and his government make statements about the urgent need to apply the NATO collective defense provision.
In Washington parlance, this is a clear case of deliberate misinformation. Frankly speaking, the Ukrainian government and the military command could not but know that, in fact, they are calling for a world war. Any sane military strategist knows what Article 5 means. The NATO countries know this. The Baltic countries should know this. The disgruntled leadership of American intelligence and administration officials who have fallen into the snares of their high-flown Churchillian rhetoric also know this, at least now. And yet.
There is a mystery in international relations. Do the great powers influence their satellites, or are these small and ideologized states dragging their brainless and short-sighted patrons after them? The sociologist Schumpeter wrote: "There was not a corner in the world known to us where some interests were not in danger or attacked. At least, so it was claimed. If it wasn't Roman interests, then it was the interests of Roman allies."
From Machiavelli's point of view, it is quite clear why the Ukrainian leadership should lie to the whole world. So it will be able to force everyone to participate in their armed conflict, even if it is fraught with the threat of nuclear destruction. Deception is often more effective than force. Fidel Castro also tried to drag the Soviet Union into his war, but the Soviets showed foresight and did not let their dogs off the chain.
It would seem that reasonable small states should diligently protect the insignificant influence they have, and not undermine the fundamental interests of the group that protects their existence. What, then, can explain the fanaticism of the Baltic States, with which they insist on NATO expansion and a policy of balancing on the brink of war with Russia? How can we explain Ukraine's resistance to reaching important agreements, and it resists in such a way that it sets up its own allies against itself? Whatever the result of the total war that they so passionately seek, these countries will not survive as single state entities in any case. And then what is the meaning of their efforts? There are two possible reasons – not mutually exclusive, but possibly interrelated.
The first is ideological in nature. Historically, a simple hypothesis is often correct. And the second – and here everything becomes much more complicated – the larger the alliance, the less choice the hegemon has. The expansion of NATO strengthens the liberal-internationalist dominant views and multiplies the imperial, self-supporting and increasing bureaucracy, which makes it more difficult for a US-type hegemon to act in its own interests, since it has to defend the point of view of the group. No great power or empire in history has fallen into the trap of its own ideological overstrain. In this case, the mythical wolf Fenrir is not only not chained, but continues to destroy himself with a sword stuck in his mouth.
NATO will not take a single step without Washington's permission. But this episode provides an opportunity to reflect on what is happening and reconsider some of the peripheral obligations of the alliance, as well as the risks arising from spirals of escalation. The world may be less lucky next time.
