Yves here. Trump’s flip-flops on Ukraine come so fast and hard that they have the potential to induce whiplash. Hence we hope that readers are not disappointed that we have been chronicling these and other Ukraine-war-related events mainly in Links. Part of this picture is the truly bizarre way Trump has kept indulging EU leaders desperate attempts to keep the US involved by direct commitments and bolstering NATO as they keep trying to rework tired and previously rejected schemes like ceasefires and more recently EU peacekeeping/reassurance forces in Ukraine. The latter, as anyone with an operating brain cell or who has been paying attention to what Russian officials have repeatedly said would be an act of war by those states against Russian and would be met by Russian action.
Consider the remarkable admission by uber-Russia hawk Robert Kagan that based on the support of certain (as in most) EU members state to Ukraine so far, they are already combatants and Russia now would be within its rights to attack them. That in combination with the recent hysterics over not-well-substantiated claims of Russia aggression at the Ukraine border and in the Baltic, ironically confirms that Putin’s restraint, which per John Helmer has frustrated the Russian general staff as well as hawks in Russia, has become a problem for the Russia-hating EU leaders.
Hence the scenario Korybko sets forth is not as extreme as it may appear.
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website
If it turns out that Trump’s flip-flop on Ukraine was just him paying lip service to NATO’s goal of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia and he doesn’t ultimately escalate US involvement, then some of the bloc’s members might try to down Russian jets over the Baltic in order to finally force his hand.
Trump declared on the sidelines of the UNGA that he supports NATO shooting down Russian jets that enter its airspace but added that American backing afterwards would depend on the circumstances. Secretary of State Marco Rubio signaled earlier in the day that the US wouldn’t support this “unless [the Russian jets] are attacking.” NATO released a statement around the same time implying its willingness to shoot down Russian jets, which chief Mark Rutte later clarified would be decided on a case-by-case basis.
All of this came a day after Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski mockingly requested during an emergency UNSC meeting that Russia not “come here and whine” if its missiles or aircraft are shot down over the bloc’s airspace. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk also said on the same day that “We will take the decision to shoot down flying objects when they violate our territory and fly over Poland – there is absolutely no discussion about that” but then qualified his comment just like Rubio and Rutte later did.
He added that “When we’re dealing with situations that aren’t entirely clear, such as the recent flight of Russian fighter jets over the Petrobaltic platform – but without any violation, because these aren’t our territorial waters – you really need to think twice before deciding on actions that could trigger a very acute phase of conflict. I also need to be absolutely certain… that all allies will treat this in exactly the same way as we do.” The larger context concerns two dubious Russia-related incidents as of late.
The first occurred in early September when several Russian drones entered Polish airspace, yet that was arguably due to NATO jamming ahead of the then-upcoming Zapad 2025 drills in Belarus, while the damage that a local home experienced was revealed to have been caused by a wayward Polish missile. As for the second, Estonia alleged shortly after that three Russian jets violated its maritime airspace, which it has politically self-serving reasons vis-à-vis the US to lie about this as explained here.
Trump lent credence to the above upon pledging that the US would defend those two from Russia if it keeps escalating as he believes is the case. This was followed by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth telling his Estonian counterpart that the US “stands with all NATO allies and that any incursion into NATO airspace is unacceptable.” US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz also said during the earlier cited emergency UNSC meeting that “The United States and our allies will defend every inch of NATO territory.”
These statements of support in the scenario of NATO trying to down Russian jets, in spite of depending on the circumstances in which this might unfold per Trump and Rubio, could embolden Poland, Estonia, and other Baltic allies to attempt this over that sea on the false pretext that they violated its airspace. The purpose would be to prompt Russia into retaliating against NATO in order to spark a nuclear brinksmanship crisis that they expect would end by forcing Russia into a lopsided ceasefire in Ukraine.
Trump’s flip-flop from declaring that Zelensky “doesn’t have the cards” to win to now declaring that he could reconquer all of Ukraine’s lost land and maybe even some of Russia’s universally recognized land too with NATO’s support hasn’t yet led to any meaningful escalation of US involvement. If it turns out that he was just paying lip service to NATO’s goal of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia, however, then some of the allies above might try to down Russian jets over the Baltic in order to finally force his hand.
It worked well forever Blair when the LDs split the Tory vote in the noughties.
Blair failed conspicuously to regenerate in the north – even his own area in County Durham is still languishing after 80s Thatcherite destruction.
It is not just FPTP that is the issue. The UK’s population distribution with London as a primate city and disproportionate economic growth in London and the SE also skews parliamentary representation and works against regional centres and development. Andy Burnham has very strong arguments here..
The current government is top heavy with London and Home Counties types who think civilisation ends at Watford.
Burnham is no longer an MP. The chances of Starmer, or his like-minded successor, agreeing to allow Burnham to stand in a safe by election are pretty remote. Labour is dead, as is the Conservative Party. Maybe a big war with Russia is the only solution for both these neo liberal disaster zone parties.
And now Poland seems to be planning, not just the stationing of French or American weapons of mass destruction on its soil, but the development of its own nuclear weapons.
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2025/05/02/breaking-poland-is-developing-its-own-nukes-to-defy-russia/
Cue a whole bunch of nervous nations rushing to emulate Israel and North Korea now — a fine kettle of fish.
Peskov’s response has been to dismiss accusations of invading other countries’ airspace as “exaggerated hysteria”. (Sorry link in Spanish i didn’t found the English version).
Hysteria is indeed apt to describe the campaign which started with vdL’s plane jamming outcry. This goes well beyond the Baltic chihuahuas now with Denmark and Norway making their own claims of disruptions of their airspace with drones and using language that indirectly puts the blame on Russia but smells false flag all over again. “Hybrid systematic attack” sounds very much as “Putin must be responsible” without saying it directly. An atmosphere of threat is being created with these non-events elevated to the category of “most serious attacks ever”.
Childish as it is, it might indeed be the excuse for an otherwise unwarranted (and possibly unwanted) escalation if at some point someone tries to do a stoopid thing. Here i believe the objective is only to bring Trump to the “European” side and keep spending in Ukraine rather than eliciting a direct NATO-Russia confrontation, though stoopid things have potential to go out of control. This is the thing: stupidity is really out of control in the West. Is the hysteria only theatrics or is it real? So far i believe it is only theatrics and no one will really try to down a Russian fighter jet in international air space. The second question is then will it succeed to bring the US back to full Ukraine support? Trump’s rhetorical flip-flopping is, I believe, the reflection of chaos in his very same brain rather than the result of rational reasoning like the one suggested in Korbyko’s latest link. It might ultimately depend on the balance of power amongst those with access to the Oval office. Trump is like an electron without direction. Will the hysteria win the day?
Sorry to self-reply: Daniel Davies does a very good analysis in his latest interview with Glenn Diesen.Daniel Davies calls all this as bluff.
The hysteria about Russian drones over Poland / Denmark / Norway reminds me a bit of the hysteria about Soviet submarines in Swedish waters during the Cold War.
There were US and British submarines in Swedish waters that were allowed to escape and let the Swedes pretend they were Soviet. One of the reasons the security services were quite happy for Palme to be eliminated.
https://olatunander.substack.com/p/dual-state-the-case-of-sweden-part-38c?publication_id=1510517&post_id=136280842&isFreemail=true
Yes, but the context is now quite different if the actors are the same. Back them we had to fear communism. Communists were the bad guys. Now it is not that clear where the threat resides. Is it really that the Russians are so bad or is it only Putin? A fight between democracies vs autocracies? Really? Another important difference is the socioeconomic situation. Back then, the life style of a majority was improving and there was something, some apparent common ground, which might look worth defending. Now; Should we run to defend of our debt burdens and sporadic jobs?
“Here I believe the objective is only to bring Trump to the “European” side and keep spending in Ukraine rather than eliciting a direct NATO-Russia confrontation…”
Sounds like a group with tricks up their sleeves and not vassals.
And the war is coming in handy as a way to get that austerity cranked up.
If one follows Daniel Davis’ logic the trick is not working. Trump’s trick would be in his chaotic wording. He is saying, yes, you can do whatever you want, you can down Russian fighters on your own, and indeed win this war because Russia is in tatters as you say. So do it! But not with US money any more, and not with US security guarantees until you have definitely won this war. If you loose, it won’t be my fault but yours! You even keep buying Russian oil and gas and do not sanction China or India! He seems to be trying to turn the blaming game to his favour according to this logic.
I’m just pointing out they have tricks. That’s different, indeed, from saying the administration is being tricked.
https://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/have+a+trick+up+your+sleeve.html/
“If you have a trick up your sleeve, you have a secret strategy to use when the time is right. ”
It’s nothing to do with the strategy or plan actually working.
Ignacio writes: “This is the thing: stupidity is really out of control in the West. Is the hysteria only theatrics or is it real? So far i believe it is only theatrics and no one will really try to down a Russian fighter jet in international air space.”
Stupidity / hysterics: You’ll have to read some quotes from MEP Pina Picierno of the Partito Democratico (!!!), vice-chair of the Europarliament and warmonger on Palestine and Ukraine.
But it isn’t theatrics (I would not use that word as someone who writes for the stage): It’s kitsch. It’s a lot of sloppy feelings, manipulation, ambition, and fear seeking an outlet.
Theatrics would be to remind Picierno and others like her that in Mother Courage by Brecht, for all of Mother Courage’s blubbering and justifications, she’s a war profiteer who caused the death of all three of her children.
People like Picierno and von der Leyen see no consequences to their actions. I am reminded of a certain ultra-melodramatic politician who led his country into war, which then degenerated into a civil war within a larger war, who then ended up hanging by one leg in a gas station, with a look of disbelief on his waxen face.
All great heroes.
Also, recall that Trump seeks weakness. Recall Barbara Spinelli’s warning about letting the center of gravity of the European experiment tilt toward Poland and the resentful Estonians and Latvians (and something is indeed rotten in the state of Denmark). Egged on by England and Germany, someone like Trump thinks that he has found a weakness.
The weakness is the folly of years of resentments, which can be exploited.
Meanwhile, the excitable PIIGS are written off as not having any standing. The war in Ukraine will go on, as will the genocide of the Palestinians, which is a message that has gotten through to the Italian populace. Hence, the general strike. Hence, Meloni quoted in today’s Fatto Quotidiano that she isn’t “stupida,” that the Global Sumud Flotilla is an attack on the government. How unfortunate for her and her kitsch politics.
All of the incidents listed in Korybko’s article turn out not to be incidents of major concern. For instance, that violation of Estonia airspace turns out not to have happened at all: The Russian jets were in an agreed-upon international route.
If anything, we are seeing how social media are the home of the stupid, where they can tweet out their lust for war.
Expect more dubious incidents.
PS: And as I have mentioned: No, Pete Hegseth is not an alpha male. He’s a creature of social media.
My trouble with the English language. I should have not said theatrics. Bluff comes to mind. vdL is pure bluff, and she might think it is inconsequential for her but what if her bluff consists on methane gas?
Re Pete Hegseth.
Maybe the Deputy Defense secretary, Stephen Feinberg, actually runs the show.
Idk what to make of it. The baseline condition is that we have a complex dynamic system of politicians, administrators, military people, influencers (e.g. Kagan), media, and the rest sounding off in their way and pulling whatever levers of power they may have. Sometimes a pattern emerges and we want to discern what’s behind it. In this case the pattern is a series of hysterical headline news about Russian incursions and response postures each followed by what looks like quiet below-the-fold statements to military people on all sides to the effect that it’s all fake so let’s not really kick off.
So it does seem like yet another attempt to get USA back in the game. The last ten years has seen very many attempts by a wide range of actors to steer Trump. Sooner or later these always fail because the porridge brain doesn’t do strategy. It doesn’t have stable dispositions or any vision on policy.
Anyway, none of this makes me feel comfortable. The complex dynamic system is capable of chaotic behaviors (what was Lambert’s term? overly-dynamic?). Keeping the war going is existentially important to the majority of politicians in Europe, I don’t think they can manage that without the USA, Trump will do whatever he will do, and depending what that one day turns out to be, these girls and boys crying wolf today may turn to shooting some things. They already tried piracy on commercial ships in the international Baltic channel.
You said: “This is the thing: stupidity is really out of control in the West.” (em mine) but what if the thing is really: stupidity is really in control of the West?
Your way of framing the question is clever, much cleverer than mine, I admit. Who can feel comfortable in this environment, apart from the usual suspects? I have detected a sharp deterioration in latest vdL pics. She looks consumed, growing old fast. Is she personally paying a toll?
It’s easy for me to believe it. Years of pantomiming virtue while parading impunity would be traumatic to any normal psychology. The cognitive dissonance must be immense. Even the likes of Obama and uvdl can’t be completely immune to such stress.
Imagine if you had to decide whether or not to trip the wires that start a shooting war between the USA and Russia. Not doing so looks like it leads to defeat of Ukraine, i.e. NATO, Europe, the West.
Alexander Mercouris read Trump’s ‘flip-flop’ as sarcasm, stating “if you – Europeans and neocons alike – tell me Ukraine is still winning and the russian economy is ‘in tatters’ – then why bother me? Just march all the way to Moscow and finish the ‘paper tiger’.” The bottom line remaining “I’m out of here”.
Of course this is dangerous given the distorted minds of those people… they might as well shoot down russian planes misreading Trump’s intention – which they obviously do.
Korybko acknowledged Trump might not have meant what he said, but not in a very direct way, early on.
The bellicose utterings of Annie Appelbaum’s spouse and his “boss”…..
Makes Pepe’s imagery of yapping chihuahuas real!
Putting scarce NATO air defenses in the east is exactly what Russia wants! Costly, ineffective yapping!
Imagine if the yapping lead to a smacking.
Trump and his rather clunky use of irony. Exit stage left.
Imagine…
NATO shoots down a Russian jet, Israel starts firing on Iran again, and the Trump adimistration responds by keeping busy in the Caribbean.
No?
Of course, it’s doubtful Israel is left hanging.
I wrote that one in my sleep. “administration”
FWIW, the “dim” part fits the administration.
It sounds like the European elite are really panicking at the thought that Trump might pull the US out of Europe. Well, not so much the US leaving but all the money that the US spends in Europe. And to try to keep the US in Europe they are ready to sign any one-sided trade deal or promises to spend hundreds of billions of Euros in the US itself. No benefit for ordinary Europeans but plenty for the European elites. So here they are pretending that it is a war situation and they need the US to back them up if they start taking pot shots at Russian aircraft or ships. Trump will still give no guarantee that the US will come in and help NATO out if they get into a shooting war with Russia. It is one thing for Trump to say that they should shoot Russian planes down but he is not committing the US to help out if they do get into such a mess. You wonder just what the European elite will do to try to keep the US committed to the Ukraine and hence Europe. They are getting pretty desperate as Russia grinds their way to success.
It’s not “all the money the US spends in Europe”. The US doesn’t really do all that much useful spending here.
The European ruling class wants to see no interruption of the much more affordable sums (single billions might even be a high estimate) the US sticks directly into their own pockets to ensure their priorities are not aligned with those of their own people.
What would Mertz or Kallas or Nauseda do if their political futures depended on advancing the german, estonian, or lithuanian people and their interests? Do any of them even know many of those people?
I think Trump would like peace in Ukraine, he just doesn’t have a viable strategy to make it happen. Meanwhile, under their misconceived plan, the EU and Zelensky want to keep the war going believing they’re weakening Russia and eventually things will turn around in their favor. Shooting down Russian aircraft will not happen but dragging out the war will.
Moreover, the US is still in NATO and supposedly bound by certain obligations. There is a process for leaving under NATO’s Article 13. However, according to Wiki, “Most recently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, enacted on 22 December 2023, prohibits the President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without approval of a two-third Senate super-majority or an act of Congress.”
Between the EU, Zelensky, and Putin who, in fact, has a strategy to reach his goals, Trump is basically boxed in. At least until the Ukraine military collapses and then everybody scrambles to figure out how to clean up the mess and who to blame.
NATO, however, can be functionally destroyed. There is no commitment for any NATO member to do anything “explicit”–Art 5 requirements are vague to extreme. If Russoa whacks a NATO member that gets out of line–say, sink an Estonian vessel engaging in “piracy,” or worse, an “warlike act of aggression” on high seas (a blockade is an act of war, after all), possibly followed by destroying their naval installations involved, and nothing happens, then NATO is functionally dead methinks–at least not as a general war alliance that the warmongers think it is. And that, I think, is a good thing for everyone.
The ever forever gungho Daily Mail never disappoints. Its latest foaming at the mouth about Russian aggression headline screams Russian warships sailing in UK waters.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15133213/royal-navy-shadows-russian-warship-uk-waters.html
However, if you bother to read the body copy, the waters in question are the North Sea and English Channel, both international waters as far as international navigation goes. At least most commentators seem to see through the scaremongering, apart from a rabid few obsessed with calling anyone with an ounce of intelligence a Putinbot or similar.
Current Russian air-to-air missiles out-range their NATO equivalents, so a shoot-down of a Russian drone or aircraft from Polish territory will result in at least a shoot-down of a Polish plane over Poland. If the Europeans think Trump is going to start a nuclear war over such incidents, they are mistaken. The EU nations are playing stupid games.
Arguably President Putin has conducted the SMO cautiously, recognising the value of civilian lives in the Ukraine as much as he values the lives of Russian forces and the people of the Donbass. It is said that there is a sense amongst parts of Russian civilian society and its military that President Putin has been ever so slightly to cautious and that this has led the fanciful and fevered imaginations of many of Europe’s midget political “leaders” to the view that the President will continue to act with the same level of cautions optimism he has shown so far and that the euro-midgets can bounce up and down and shout loudly to attract the attention of both their withering supporters and President Trump, who, it would seem, also has an imagination in a superposition of two or more realities in the same instance.
This is just an idle speculation but how do you think the West will react if a Russian plane or ship is attacked in international airspace or waters and President thinks, “Enough is enough, time to get tough”, and simply takes out military bases, shipping and cargo ports posessed by, say, the seven most annoying states in NATO’s European community en masse using hypersonic and thermobaric missiles?
It’s just a thought experiment and I am aware that Russia has no desire to waste it’s time and treasure by invading Europe, but it might shift the thoughts of the Russophobes and neo-cons towards a less tangential relationship to the reality of the balance of forces at play in Ukraine and other parts of the world where the West has miltary or decapitation ambitions. Anyway, an idle speculation which helps to while away the time as the long drawn out and unnecessary slaughter on the edge of Europe and the western supported genocide in Gaza are slowly drawing to what may well be inconclusive conclusions.
“not-well-substantiated claims” repeated often enough are believed by most to be substantial. With those, and “plausible deniability”, one can go a long way.