Russia’s attack on Poland is anything but straightforward or ordinary. It is nothing less than a military attack by a third country on the European territory of a NATO state.

The first such episode since 1949, when the North Atlantic Treaty was signed. There is no precedent for such an attack—even during the Cold War’s hottest episodes, both sides demonstrated restraint, mindful that an escalation could lead to the worst.

In short, the sort of action we are now seeing can only be described as “playing with fire”.
What if the defenders respond? Where could a military conflict between Russia and NATO lead? Who is there to rein the situation in, if it starts to spiral out of control?

These are dangerous and, above all, uncharted waters.

The reckless Russian action seems to have been encouraged by two factors.
First, by their estimation that the Americans will not involve themselves fully, seeing as the US wants to disengage from Europe. And second, by the recalibration of the strategic data now that Europe, and not the US, is Russia’s main adversary.

The Russians believe that Europe is weaker, defensively vulnerable, and lacks the will to mount a committed push back against Russian pressure.

They also believe that if Europe bends, it won’t just be Ukraine that falls back into Russia’s arms, but all the Eastern European nations that belonged to the Soviet sphere of influence until 1990.
And Moscow isn’t wrong.

The attack on Poland is a perfect fit for this logic. The Russians want to test the opposition’s resistance before taking their next step.

Of course, as the Russians see it, the break-up of the Eastern bloc in 1990 remains a “historical mistake”, or an “accident” at best. Which is fascinating as a subject for an academic conference. But when drones and missiles are involved, Russian policy assumes the form of an unveiled threat.
NATO’s reaction in this case was measured. It invoked Article 4 of the Statute not Article 5, which relates directly to a military attack.

But what happens next is unclear. It is subject to the persistence of Russia, the intentions of the United States, and the determination of Europe. But most of all, it depends on the certainty that playing with fire is good for no one. Least of all the person who strikes the match and risks being the first to be burned.