Sikorski is currently a star on the global diplomatic stage, and his words are listened to carefully in Europe and across the ocean. He also knows how to break through in a media.
That's why his comments to the Financial Times – that Poland and other countries bordering Ukraine have a duty to shoot down incoming Russian missiles before they enter their airspace – didn’t surprise me.
Poland’s Foreign Minister explained it like this: "NATO membership does not waive the responsibility of each country to protect its own airspace. It is our constitutional duty. Personally, I believe that when hostile missiles are on course to enter our airspace, shooting them down would be justified self-defense. If they cross into our airspace, there is a significant risk of injuring someone with shrapnel."
By mentioning NATO membership, Sikorski wanted to convey that the United States – still the world's only military superpower – plays the leading role in the North Atlantic Alliance. And it is no secret, as recently reported by well-informed sources like American political journalism organization Politico, that the U.S. administration does not agree for weapons supplied to Ukraine to be used for attacks deep inside Russia. Simply put, it provides Ukraine with excellent weaponry but immediately imposes restrictions on how it can be used.
As a result, Ukrainians are unable to attack more broadly or with their most effective weapons, such as targeting logistical lines hundreds of kilometers behind the front lines, or airfields and ammunition depots deep inside Russia. Such attacks would not only cripple the Russian army but also greatly extend the supply lines for Putin's troops. The effect would be much worse and delayed supplies for soldiers on the front lines.
NATO also has its famous Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. In other words, other member states are supposed to immediately come to the aid of the attacked country. In NATO's 75-year history, this has happened only once — after the Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, when the United States invoked Article 5. The allies did not hesitate, and their assistance included participating in the invasion of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, which was then a haven for Al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, and various other terrorists.
And here enters the word "escalation". Many governments have argued that allowing Ukrainians to use Western weapons to attack targets inside Russia could provoke Putin to respond in a completely unpredictable way, possibly even striking targets on NATO territory. The same could be true of suggestions like Sikorski's, about shooting down Russian missiles over Ukrainian territory.
Estonia's Defense Minister, Hanno Pevkur, gave a great response to these concerns at the recent GLOBSEC Security Forum 2024 in Prague: "We've heard time and again that providing new weapons to Ukraine would escalate the conflict. And what happened? We provided howitzers, then tanks, then F-16s, and there was no escalation – except that Putin's forces are killing more and more civilians," Pevkur said. He compared Ukraine's situation, with restrictions on the use of Western weapons, to a boxing match where one fighter must keep an arm behind his back". "All such restrictions are foolish," Pevkur bluntly stated.
He called for supplying Ukraine with everything it needs as quickly as possible, without any "red lines" that Kyiv cannot cross in this war. Ukraine has the right to defend itself against aggression by all means.
"Let me state the obvious: a defeat for Ukraine would also be our defeat in the face of Russian imperialism. I am not always warmly received by my European colleagues when I ask: Is it better, in the name of defending freedom, to cut some EU funds and spend that money on the military and support for Ukraine, or to let Putin win?" asked Pevkur, who is also the leader of the liberal Estonian Reform Party. He added, "For me, the answer is obvious – freedom has no price."
Even more interesting was what Mette Frederiksen, Denmark's Prime Minister and leader of the Danish Social Democrats, had to say in Prague. "As a social democrat, I care deeply about things like the cost of living for citizens, wages, social care, or good public schools. But we live in times when military spending is equally important. Europe must defend itself and cannot rely solely on the United States," Frederiksen said. "I am proud that Denmark has provided all its F-16s, howitzers, and almost all of its weapons to Ukraine. I wish it had happened much earlier since we were prepared."
Frederiksen also emphasized that Ukraine should be given all the weapons it needs, without any restrictions on their use. "Ukraine has the right to defend itself and strike targets inside Russia, of course, in accordance with international law," the Danish Prime Minister added.
This is no longer a fringe opinion in Europe; such voices are now dominant in the EU and NATO – and rightly so. Ukraine needs all the help it can get, quickly and without limitations, because it is the victim of Putin's barbaric aggression.
Tłumaczenie: Patrycja Eiduka
This article was written in the framework of The Eastern Frontier Initiative (TEFI) project. TEFI is a collaboration of independent publishers from Central and Eastern Europe, to foster common thinking and cooperation on European security issues in the region. The project aims to promote knowledge sharing in the European press and contribute to a more resilient European democracy.
Members of the consortium are 444 (Hungary), Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland), SME (Slovakia), PressOne (Romania), and Bellingcat (The Netherlands).
The TEFI project is co-financed by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.
Dzisiejsza gazeta (e-wydanie)
