-Analysis-
WARSAW — The words of Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski were stark: Poland should shoot down Russian missiles over Ukraine.
It is a key intervention amid the increasingly hawkish voice of European countries regarding Putin’s aggression against our eastern neighbor. Sikorski is today a star of world diplomacy and his words are listened to carefully in Europe and overseas, notably in the U.S.. The Polish minister also knows how to break through the noise of the global media cacophony.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
Therefore, Sikorski’s words to the Financial Times that Poland and other countries bordering Ukraine are obliged to shoot down incoming Russian missiles before they enter their airspace did not surprise me.
The head of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained it this way: “Membership in Nato does not trump each country’s responsibility for the protection of its own airspace — it’s our own constitutional duty,” Sikorski said. “I’m personally of the view that, when hostile missiles are on course of entering our airspace, it would be legitimate self-defence [to strike them] because once they do cross into our airspace, the risk of debris injuring someone is significant.”
Mentioning NATO membership, Sikorski wanted to convey that the United States, still the planet’s only bonafide military superpower, plays the main role in the North Atlantic alliance. It is no secret: Politico wrote about it recently – that the American administration does not agree to the weapons transferred to Ukrainians being used to attack targets deep inside Russia. To put it simply: it provides excellent weapons, but immediately imposes restrictions on their use.
NATO’s enemy
Therefore, the Ukrainians cannot attack in a broader manner and use the most effective weapons, unable to forge logistics lines several hundred kilometers away from the front. Also, airports or ammunition depots cannot be reached deep in Russia. Such attacks would not only paralyze the Russian army, but would also significantly lengthen the supply lines for Putin’s troops. The result would be a much worse and slower supply of soldiers at the front.
NATO also has the famous Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an attack on one member of the Alliance is an attack on all of them. In other words, other countries should immediately come to the aid of the attacked nation. In the entire history of the 75-year-old NATO, this happened only once — after the terrorist attacks of Al-Qaeda on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. Article 5 was activated by the United States. The allies did not hesitate or complain, and their help included participating in the invasion of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, then a haven for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders.
This is where the word “escalation” comes into play. Many governments have said, and continue to say, that allowing Ukrainians to use Western weapons to attack targets inside Russia may result in Putin responding in a completely unpredictable way and striking, for example, targets in NATO countries. He would react similarly to Sikorski’s words about shooting down Russian missiles over Ukrainian territory.
Russian imperialism is real
These concerns were well answered by Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur at the last GLOBSEC Security Forum 2024 meeting in Prague: “We have heard so many times that if we give new weapons to Ukraine, it will escalate the conflict. So what? We provided howitzers, then tanks, then F-16s, and there was no escalation. Except that Putin’s troops are killing more and more civilians,” said Pevkur.
Ukraine has the right to defend itself against aggression in all possible ways.
He compared Ukraine’s situation with restrictions on the use of Western weapons to a boxing match in which one of the fighters has his hand tied behind his back. “Any such restrictions are stupid,” Pevkur added bluntly.
He also appealed to provide Ukraine with everything it needs as soon as possible. And without any “red lines” that Kyiv cannot cross in wartime. Because it has the right to defend itself against aggression in all possible ways.
“Let me state the obvious: Ukraine’s defeat would also mean our defeat against Russian imperialism,” Pevkur added. “I am not reacted to pleasantly by some of my European colleagues when I ask: in the name of defending freedom, is it better to cut some EU funds and spend this money on the army and support for Ukraine, or let Putin win?”
Pevkur, who also serves as head of the liberal Estonian Reform Party, offered his response: “For me, the answer is obvious, and freedom has no price.”
No more European niche
Also speaking in Prague, left-leaning Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen had an even more surprising point of view. “As a social democrat, I care about issues such as the cost of living of citizens, wages, social welfare and good public schools,” she said. “But we live in times when military spending is equally important. Europe must defend itself, it cannot count only on the U.S. I am proud that Denmark gave Ukraine all its F-16s, howitzers, and almost all of its weapons. I wish it had happened much faster because we were ready for it.
Frederiksen also emphasized that Ukraine should be given all the weapons it needs and no limits should be imposed on their use. “Ukraine has the right to defend itself and attack targets inside Russia, of course in accordance with international law” added the Danish Prime Minister.
This is no longer a European niche, such voices are dominant in the EU and NATO today. And rightly so. Ukraine needs all the help possible, because it was and is a victim of Putin’s barbaric aggression. Anything will help — fast and without limits.
