Missile strike on Poland

Missile strike on Poland:  will this lead to invocation of Article 5 as President Zelensky hopes?

Yesterday’s incident of missile strikes on the Polish side of the border with Ukraine which killed two has been denounced by the Russians as a ‘provocation.’ The logic of such an incident would be for Poland and its NATO allies to denounce Russia as the culprit, as the violator of the sanctity of NATO territory, and to threaten Russia with the invocation of Article Five of the Alliance, a declaration of war in all but name. Indeed, that is precisely what we heard from President Zelensky in his first statements about the incident, and he was seconded by leaders of the war-mongering jackal states in the Baltics.

In fact, so far the Polish reaction appears to be restrained.  Their president, Duda, has called upon his compatriots to remain calm while an investigation is underway. Polish authorities would say only that fragments of the missiles recovered at the site show that they were “Russian made,” which by itself means very little since both sides to the conflict use “Russian made” military hardware.  Meanwhile, in far off Bali, Joe Biden responded to journalists’ queries, saying that examination of the trajectory of the missiles which struck farmland on the Polish side of the border with Ukraine made it ‘unlikely’ that they were launched from Russia. Of course, journalists did not ask the necessary follow-up question: so what does this known trajectory tell us about where in fact these missiles were fired from? And who is likely then to have fired them?

This morning’s Financial Times article on the subject adds speculation that possibly the missiles were part of the Ukrainian air defense system and were fired to bring down Russian cruise missiles attacking their energy infrastructure but “went astray.” In this same reporting, they do not bother to ask whether the fragments truly indicate ‘air defense’ projectiles or ground to ground missiles, which presumably would be manifestly evident from the large fragments seen in photographs from the site.

All of this prevarication and hesitancy on the part of the U.S. and Polish authorities in pointing fingers at the culprit for the attack in Poland is in direct contradiction with the longstanding pattern of U.S. and Western behavior in what we know were false flag incidents directed from Washington or London. In such cases, accusations against the Russia over the downing of Flight MH17, or against the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria over alleged chemical attacks on his own civilian population followed within minutes of the given incidents.

So I ask again, what happened yesterday in Poland and who is to blame?  To find a plausible answer, I suggest applying the time proven Roman guiding principle of investigation and ask cui bono, whose interests are served by what has happened? This is a simple, reasonable approach which regrettably has gone out of style in our days of Information Wars. 

Cui bono points to the Kiev regime as responsible for the missile attacks on Poland, for the sake of finally bringing NATO openly into the fight on their side against Russia.  Poland is not yet ready for war against Russia, and will be ready only many months from now when it receives major arms deliveries from the United States. The USA does not want an unplanned escalation from proxy war to war of the principals that could easily lead to a Russian nuclear attack on the homeland. It is only Mr. Zelensky’s regime that can hope for total chaos in order to survive the destruction of his country’s core infrastructure that is now well on the way, at last.

Of course, in Washington, in Brussels these considerations must be well understood by key personnel. The coming consultations over activating Article 4 of the Alliance treaty, officially recognizing a threat to their territorial integrity, revolve around formulating a determination of responsibility for the incident that avoids blaming the present darling of our solicitude, Ukraine, for attacking a NATO country.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2022

Postscript: 16 November afternoon. The latest statements from Poland and the U.S. in the past hour or so are saying the missiles which landed in Poland were Ukrainian air defense missiles, not downed Russian cruise missiles.  Since the US has recorded the trajectory of the missiles by one of its spy planes on location near the border, they know from where the missiles were launched and whether air defense units were there. They also have the missile fragments from the crash site and can identify exactly what type they were if they so wish.  For their part, the Poles are indicating that they will not activate Article 4 provisions of the Alliance after all. We may assume that knowing what they do, they would prefer to remove this whole incident from public discussion as quickly as possible.   The Russians say their attack on infrastructure came nowhere near the Ukrainian border with Poland, and that is completely believable: they want to avoid precisely what happened yesterday. So what is the chief lesson of this event: that the Americans understand it was a provocation by the Zelensky regime and they were quick to snuff it out because they absolutely want to avoid any possibility of the conflict going out of their control and escalating to nuclear war.

15 thoughts on “Missile strike on Poland

  1. Mr Doctorow,

    Thank you for this article. You mentioned NATO’s Article IV and I took a moment to look it up:

    “The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.”

    Now, considering recent events and particularly the collective EU sanctions against the Russian Federation I was prompted to think that perhaps Germany should be “consulting” about their loss of “political independence”. Perhaps they can achieve a little consensus with their neighbours and equally subjugated European states.

    I took a further look at Article 5 and not that whatever actions are taken in “collective defence” that NATO commits to report to the UN Security Council and cease actions when peace is restored by the UN. What they expressly omit is to wait for approval for any action by the UN Security Council.

    Such is NATO, the “rules based order” rather than a “law based order”.


  2. I have just read that Zelensky’s request of a no-fly zone (which he probably hoped to obtain thanks to the missile in Poland) has been denied. Good news I think. From my humble observation point, I can measure the difference in public opinion between this recent development and the story of Bucha. In March, the discovery of those bodies so outraged the public opinion that the flow of weapons was not met with much opposition, despite the fact that Russia denied responsibility. Now, two Poles have been killed and NATO space violated, again, with Russia denying the attack. But now the Western people fear for their lives, so no matter what happened, best not to question and react. I fear for my life and I have not slept one hour last night but I was glued to the news. Enough is enough. As a journalist once said, “the choice is between a nuclear exchange or the end of Ukrainian freedom. Tough choice.” I call that a no-brainer instead!


  3. A word on last night’s massive strikes against Ukraine: This is indeed a response to westerners on “3 points:

    1- The UN said it is studying a legal mechanism so that “frozen” Russian assets and property will now be “confiscated” and given to Ukraine. Pure and simple theft.

    2- Zelensky has made public his conditions for “negotiating” with Russia. In particular, it demands the withdrawal of all Russian forces from the “occupied territories” including Donbass and Crimea, on the other hand it demands that Russia pay Ukraine an advance of 50 billion dollars.

    3- This is in addition to the conditions of a secret “peace plan” transmitted by the Americans to Russia a few days ago which includes the resignation of Vladimir Putin (!), the organization of elections in Russia with the participation of Navalny (here he is again. Currently in prison for fraud), the placing under international control of Russian nuclear structures, and the international control of certain Russian strategic companies.

    This plan has of course never been made public, and one suspects the reception that the Kremlin has reserved for it….

    In response, therefore, massive strikes yesterday. No doubt the answer will be understood.



  4. I think the correct Roman term for interpreting this incident might possibly be charta tigris for it has exposed in a matter of hours the entirety of NATO’s theatrics in Ukraine, theatrics which had it not been for the catastrophe caused by the financial sanctions, including the outright theft of 300 billion dollars, imposed on Europe, cough, Russia and the growing clarity of Russia’s ultimate victory, might have produced in the fullness of time the desired regime change on Russia as a bonus over the subjugation of Europe.

    As it is, if Russia is not so stupid as to yield to the US’ increasingly hysteric pleas for negotiations, Russia will achieve its aims and NATO will be exposed as an imperialist project of the US over Europe. One might say that this was obvious from the moment Nord Stream II was destroyed, and one would be right.

    Champagne all around in the Kremlin and a bitter draught indeed in the White House.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Here are some photos of the missile debris with an analysis of their structure, including links to the sources of the photos.

    It appears that the debris is from an S-300-launched missile that missed its target, as they often do, and simply fell to earth at the end of its trajectory.

    If this is true, and the US has satellite tracking, that would explain the rather modest response.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. From what we do know now, the rocket that fell in Poland was an old Soviet-era S-300 anti-aircraft/missile rocket that went astray when it missed its target, as has often happened before. (In such cases, the destruction caused by such Ukrainian missiles and debris falling out of the sky was predictably blamed on Russian “barbaric” attacks on Ukrainian civilian structures. In this case, Zelensky, as always, immediately began accusing the Russians, but his are the ravings of a man who who is clearly losing touch with reality.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Well, I believe the Duran mentioned that the Flight MH17 report/ruling will be released any day (tomorrow?) from the European kangaroo court that decided evidence will not be considered. The decision is of course a known outcome. Maybe that’s why the powers that be seem to have quickly sweept the lame Uki narrative aside to make the for Flight MH17 ruling so the MSM jump on that again (and again and again).

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Polish animosity towards Russia is scary considering nuke weapons. – According to the Non-Proliferation Treaty these US missile systems being placed in Europe are unlawful -. We should create a fuss about it! – U.S. MISSILE SYSTEMS IN POLAND AND ROMANIA THREATEN RUSSIA & WORLD – Distinguished Swiss geopolitical analyst, former intelligence officer, Jacques Baud reports: ” The AEGIS missile systems installed by the U.S. in Poland and Romania use Mk41 launchers. They can be used to launch either anti-ballistic missiles or nuclear missiles. The Radzikowo site in Poland, is 800 km from the Russian border and 1,300 km from Moscow. In his discussion “The Hidden Truth about the War in Ukraine,“ Baud says “Their presence in the immediate vicinity of Russia’s national territory can indeed lead to nuclear conflict.
    For in the event of a conflict, it would not be possible to know precisely the nature of the missiles loaded in the systems, should the Russians therefore wait for explosions before reacting? Having no early-warning time, the Russians would have practically no time to determine the nature of a fired missile and would thus be forced to respond pre-emptively with a nuclear strike. Not only does Vladimir Putin see this as a risk to Russia’s security, he also notes the United States is increasingly disregarding international law in order to pursue a unilateral policy. This is why Russia’s President says European countries could be dragged into a nuclear conflict without wanting it. This was the substance of his speech in Munich in 2007, and he came with the same argument early 2022, as Emmanuel Macron went to Moscow in February.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Personally, I feel Russia should have destroyed those Agis bases in Poland and Romania with hypersonic missiles on feb 24 when she started the SMO. It’s well within her rights and NATO would have totally powerless to respond. But that’s just me.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. I wish to reiterate, although you certainly don’t need to include it in the website, that there is absolutely zero risk of nuclear war arising out of the conflict in Ukraine. None. The Article 5 frenzy from Ukraine and Poland, and the immediate and unambiguous response from the US are much more than enough evidence. The Western “response” to the SMO is pure theater. Obscene, morally abhorrent theater, but theater nevertheless. More a gladiatorial contest for the benefit of Western spectators than a war… from the point of view of the West. From the point of view of Russia, it is 1941.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The entire NATO effort is theatre, of the most melodramatic kind. It is designed to recreate the image of an principled alliance of fraternal peoples, victors in a long war against Hitlerism, making a stand against ruthless aggression from the east.
      It was mendacious nonsense in 1949.
      In 2022 nobody, outside of the more hysterical members of the public, believes a word of it. The tragedy was our lives in the Cold War-and, more importantly, the tens of millions of victims of anti-communism
      This is farce: a ‘coalition of the satellites of the Empire ‘willing’ the emigre fascist led Ukrainians to an impossible victory.
      A bad script badly produced and acted by bored amateurs.
      The coalition of the willing. And the hoping. And the delusional.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. The nuclear threat for the entire world is real, America is the only country to have deliberately used nuke weapons on civilians, not just once in Japan, but twice, days apart, when you would think enough horror was perpetrated in the first horrifying release on civilians in Hiroshima.
    See = Brandon’s “Usable Nukes” Are Fast-Track to Jopocalypse Brandon’s “Usable Nukes” are the Fast-track to Jopocalypse, by Mike Whitney – The Unz Review
    EXTRACT – –“ Stephen Young, Union of Concerned Scientists Maybe you’re one of the millions of people who think the US would never use its nuclear weapons unless the threat of a nuclear attack was imminent . Well, you’d be wrong, because according to the recently- released Nuclear Posture Review, the bar for using nukes has been significantly lowered. The new standard reads like this: (nukes can be used) “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.”
    “Defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies”??
    That’s a pretty broad net, isn’t it? That could include anything from a serious threat to national security to an ordinary economic competitor. And that loosy-goosy definition appears to be just what the authors were looking for. The hardliners wanted to fundamentally change US nuclear doctrine so the conditions under which nukes could be used was greatly expanded. The obvious objective of this dramatic policy-shift is to eliminate any obstacle to the free and unfettered use of nuclear weapons. Which is precisely what the neocons have always wanted; a green light to Armageddon. Now they got what they wanted. Here are a few of the changes in policy that suggest that a full-blown nuclear war is no longer a remote possibility, but an increasingly likely prospect.”

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.