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.
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.