Ukraine Likely Feels Jaded After NATO Said That It Won’t Allow Poland To Intercept Russian Missiles
Although they’re playing a dangerous game of nuclear chicken with Russia, NATO is still exercising a degree of self-restraint, albeit solely due to its self-interest and not out of any so-called “responsibility”.
One of the most reported-upon aspects of the newly clinched Polish-Ukrainian security pact, which was summarized here and analyzed at length here, was that Poland agreed to discuss the interception of Russian missiles over Ukraine. The caveat though was that this would “follow necessary procedures agreed by the States and organisations involved”, and outgoing NATO chief Stoltenberg just said that his bloc is against doing so after the US and UK expressed a similar stance earlier in the year.
Ukraine likely feels jaded after Zelensky hyped up this “provision to develop a mechanism for intercepting Russian missiles and drones in Ukraine’s airspace aimed at Poland” during his press conference with Tusk in Warsaw last week after they signed their security pact. Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski, who’s one of the EU’s most infamous anti-Russian hawks, probably feels foolish too after claiming the day prior to Stoltenberg’s comments on Sunday that Poland was still “exploring the idea”.
In hindsight, this clause was only included in the Polish-Ukrainian security pact as a means of Warsaw signaling its support for Kiev even though it was never going to unilaterally act on that proposal since it explicitly included the requirement that it be “agreed” by NATO. It might also be that Zelensky, Sikorski, and the other anti-Russian hawks in those two countries thought they could convince the Anglo-American Axis to approve this escalation, however, hence their optimistic comments about it.
Nevertheless, their refusal to greenlight the Polish interception of Russian missiles over Ukraine speaks to the fact that NATO is still reluctant to escalate in a way that risks drawing the bloc directly into the conflict, though that doesn’t mean that some countries might not intervene unilaterally. France and Poland already talked about doing so under certain conditions, but it remains unclear whether they’ll actually go through with it if the time comes such as if Russia achieves a military breakthrough.
In any case, whatever they might do in that respect is separate from NATO as a whole authorizing the interception of Russian missiles, which could prompt Russia to target their air defense systems and thus lead to NATO feeling pressured to directly strike Russian targets whether in Ukraine or Russia proper. Although they’re playing a dangerous game of nuclear chicken with Russia, NATO is still exercising a degree of self-restraint, albeit solely due to its self-interest and not out of any so-called “responsibility”.
Zelensky, Sikorski, and their ilk might therefore collude to stage a false flag incident of some sort for moving the needle on a conventional NATO intervention in Ukraine instead of risking a “coalition of the willing” going in without any ironclad promises that Article 5 would protect them. After all, they’re heavily invested in that scenario since it would reassure Kiev that it won’t suffer a strategic defeat if Russia achieves a military breakthrough, but it’s too early to predict what form this might take.
Regardless of whatever ends up happening, the takeaway is that NATO (or rather, the Anglo-American Axis that’s most responsible for its decisions) has thus far kept the most vicious anti-Russian hawks at bay by refusing to approve Poland’s interception of Russian missiles over Ukraine. This doesn’t mean that they’ll be able to do so indefinitely, but it’s still significant that they haven’t capitulated to their latest escalation proposal, which shows that there are still some coolheaded figures behind the scenes.
"...still reluctant to escalate..."
Not sure 'still' is the best applicable adverb here. It implies their reluctance to escalate is a continuation of their previous reluctance, if indeed 'reluctance' had ever been an appropriate description of NATO's approach to escalation until now. I don't believe it ever has been; in fact, I would posit the US, using NATO as a mask, has been anything but reluctant, and only too eager to escalate, since they perceived Russia as being unable to resist their will, since the conscious decision to expand NATO eastward, and ultimately overwhelm Russia to reduce it to more easily-managed and -controllable state(let)s, as the former Yugoslavia so dramatically, later, demonstrated, by the application the Reagan/Baker/Bush means of dealing with the dissolution of the USSR and reunification of East and West Germany. [end run-on sentence №1] In fact, I believe the escalation went back further than that, to operation 'Paperclip' and the dispersion of ex-German (Nazi party) collaborators from the Ukraine throughout the nations of the 5-eyes. There's a strong argument to say the Balfour Declaration (1916) would have been a good place to start, or success of the British military campaign in Crimea (https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/crimean-war) of 1854-56. In any case, I have trouble accepting 'reluctance (to escalate)' as part of any description of the UK(UN)US (NATO)'s approach to Russia's access to an ice-free port.
"...NATO is still exercising a degree of self-restraint, albeit solely due to its self-interest..."
Well, yes, I agree with that, but I'd more comfortably call it 'self-preservation' than 'self-restraint'.
Michael Witney (https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/mike-whitney) has long been one of my favourite sources of confirmation bias. Recently, particularly these past couple of years, he's been joined by a veritable plethora of other such skilfully perceptive analysts and writers, such as your good self, Mr Korybko. There's a far deeper wealth of intelligence for NATO analysts to take advantage of than there ever has been before. Increasingly, it would be difficult for them to ignore this wealth.
Yesterday, Global Research published a piece of Mr Witney's work (https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-defeat-nato-ukraine/5862824), quoting analysis from Will Schryver (on 'Twitter' ['X']), "The current front-line inventory of US tactical ballistic missiles and sea- and air-launched cruise missiles would present no greater technical challenge for Russian air defences than what they have already seen and defeated in the Ukraine War. The significance of this battlefield development defies exaggeration. It alters the war-fighting calculus that has been assumed for many decades. 'Empty Quiver', Will Schryver, 'Twitter'". This is just one of a multitude of reasons to explain how and why Russia has defeated the US and NATO in the Ukraine. NATO, and it's most lofty Ivy league US analysts, are only too painful aware of them. They may still be desperately looking for some means to explain the temporary setback they are experiencing in their efforts to overwhelm, dissolve and take over the Russian state(lets). 'It's because Biden's too old.' 'It's because Vance is a hillbilly redneck and Americans are too stupid to know what's good for them.' 'It's because... Everybody else is a pussy and no-one's brave enough to step up like Uncle Sam has...' Yeah, right!
The simple truth is that the Russians have thrashed all three shades of shit out of the Americans' perceived 'projection potential' — defeated them incontrovertibly — and there's nothing the Americans, nor all their kings' men, can do to change that. The more noise they make, the more obvious (and embarrassing) their defeat will be for them. They should be SO profoundly grateful the Russians aren't bigmouths, shouting their tits off about how they've vanquished the Americans c/w vassals. Fortunately, so unlike the Americans, they're wiser than that.
To go back to the beginning (here), 'reluctance' has little to do with it. It's all about practicality.
Give it a little time. We go through this dance with every escalation.