Should a high-performance Russian missile land in a Baltic country, it would be the moment of truth for the pro-war group within NATO.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy may believe he has reason for satisfaction at the drone attack he carried out deep inside on airfields in the Russian Federation’s European part. The sophistication of the attack betrays the involvement of another country in its planning, and the information is that it is Britain. Tactically, the attack was brilliant and flawless.
The Russians were caught by surprise, even as they made the inexcusable error of exposing long distance strategic bombers in the open rather than in well covered and protected locations. The Russian aircraft were in the open possibly because of the New START Treaty of 2010 between Russia and the US, according to which such bombers have to be in the open for verification purposes. Zelenskyy may have torn up the New Start Treaty by such a breach of faith. Such bombers were not needed for an attack on Ukraine, a country which borders the Russian Federation.
They were meant for targets much farther away, including Britain and France. Once again, Ukraine has been used as a sacrificial pawn to serve the military interests of the major European powers in NATO. As for the country that Zelenskyy rules much after his legal term in office is over, it has provided ample justification for a substantial Russian riposte.
Vladmir Putin has been caught flat footed, and in the labyrinthine, ruthless world of Russian power politics, any impression of weakness may turn out to be terminal. As for Putin, he appears to have considerably mellowed from what he had earlier been, when he ensured the separation of the Russian-speaking parts of Georgia and later, Ukraine. He appears to be in thrall to a cautious Kremlin bureaucracy, holding back his possible punches at displays of NATO, sorry Ukrainian, audacity. In these days of advanced drones and missiles, was destroying some manned aircraft that were close to obsolescence worth it for Ukraine? Was the media publicity and deserved adulation at his attack worth the risk for Ukraine? It was not, but the former comedian has remained committed to the script handed over to him by his NATO paymasters, just as he has been during his career as a superstar in comedy. From making audiences weep with laughter through comedy acts, Zelenskyy is now acting out a tragedy for the Ukrainian people, not to mention the Russian population, by his relentless prosecution of a war that he cannot reasonably expect to win.
Meanwhile, Starmer, Macron, Merz and Von der Leyen may luxuriate in the belief that the Russian bear has been weakened, which indeed it has. The difficulty is that directing through their proxy Zelenskyy the attack on Russian airfields may have resulted in a Pearl Harbour moment for the master of the Kremlin. Just as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941 made US entry into World War II, the attack and destruction of several Russian bombers may have made a disproportionate response from Russia inevitable. And no longer just in Ukraine but inside a NATO country as well. Not Poland anymore, now that a Conservative has been elected President, who is likely to join hands with Orban in Hungary to press for an exit from the Ukraine war, but more likely one of the Baltic states, that have emerged as much a champion of the war as the Starmer-MacronMerz trio. Indeed, the group of 9 Nordic countries has called for the immediate entry of Ukraine into NATO.
Even though they may believe the Russian bear under Putin has been tamed, and war between Russia and NATO is therefore impossible, it may be possible that Putin will firm up his stance, given the multiple provocations flung in his direction by the alliance. It has been pointed out several times by this columnist that had the USSR had the spirit to attack Taliban bases in Pakistan, the war in Afghanistan would not have proved the disaster it became for the Soviets. Should a high-performance Russian missile land in a Baltic country (according to the media narrative but not official comment immediately put out by the Kremlin, “accidentally”), it would be the moment of truth for the pro-war group within NATO, excluding the US now that Trump is the President. Would Starmer, Macron and Merz declare war on Russia in the textbook manner prescribed for NATO?
What would voters in the UK, France and Germany think of such a complete change in the circumstances of war and make their respective countries direct participants in the war that has been ongoing since 2022? NATO has never fought a war in Europe, and has had a less than stellar record in the wars it has been engaged in Asia and Africa. Article 5 of NATO has been torn to shreds since President Trump indicated that the US was not willing to join in a war with Russia over Ukraine, a country which was once part of the USSR to no apparent detriment to the European countries in NATO.
Russian strategists know that the destruction of much of its long-range bombers by an attack scripted elsewhere than in Ukraine is a Pearl Harbour moment for Putin. If he were to give a less than wholly disproportionate response to the attack, it would be a matter of time before he is edged out of the Kremlin. Voters have no use for Putin Noveau, they want Putin to remain what he was until recently. Both the people of Ukraine and Russia want an end to the war. The only way to end it may be to call what several in Russia believe to be the bluff of NATO, that even the “Coalition of the Willing” in Ukraine is ready for a kinetic war against the Russian Federation.
Pearl Harbour was a tactical victory for Japan but a strategic disaster for wartime Japan. In much the same way, the brilliant and successful attack on Russian air bases deep inside the European part of Russia may turn out to be so for the Ukrainians, now facing a disproportionate attack from Russia, and perhaps not just them.