It seems that the Poles have combined this with efforts to help Ukraine militarily. The benefits for the Ukrainian army were only symbolic and temporary. But the risks to NATO member states would be serious.

At the beginning, the Poles announced that they were ready to supply Ukraine with their older MiG-29 fighters (probably 27 pieces). There has also been speculation about the possible involvement of other countries that have missions in their arsenal. However, Bulgaria immediately rejected it as an “absurd plan”. The same Slovakia.

The Poles’ efforts were partially supported by both Britain and the United States. But only as long as it was one decision and the responsibility of the Polish government.

Meanwhile, the Russian Ministry of Defense warned that it considered the air support of Ukrainian forces as a direct entry into the war against the Russian army. According to Russia, the countries that would take part in it were in danger of retaliation.

Polish bypass

Following this warning, Poland took the helm. And he came up with something that can’t be called anything but nonsense. In military and political terms.

The Poles have publicly suggested that they hand over their missions to the Americans at their base in Germany – so that the United can then supply them to Ukraine on its own line through some of the neighboring countries (which one?). With the help of NATO. In return, the Poles demanded that the Americans supply them with F-16 fighters.

The Americans were taken aback at first. They later rejected the Polish offer as “unsustainable”. They recalled that NATO did not intend to enter into a military conflict with Russia – and to expand the regional war into a world war. NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg made a similar statement last week.

It is good that the United States is cooling down Polish passions. The Poles’ idea was ill-prepared and irresponsible.

As Russia took control of Ukraine’s airspace, the 27 Polish migs did not significantly affect the force. Just a reminder: Ukraine had more than 220 fighter jets before the invasion. That was not enough to stop the Russian invasion, Ukraine avoided direct fighting and part of the fighters withdrew across the border.

On the other hand, NATO’s involvement in fighter supplies to Ukraine has massively increased the risk that the conflict will escalate and spread to some NATO countries. And the whole Alliance. All this without the fact that Ukraine with 27 miGs has regained its airspace.

In addition, every piece of “donated” fighter aircraft was missing in defense of NATO’s eastern wing. All Eastern European countries report that they have a large air defense capacity.

In words, both militarily and politically, it would be a senseless and ill-conceived action.

The idea of ​​Poles probably has its origins in the political decision to take Russian migrants out of service. Slovakia decides similarly. We want to withdraw the old migas, even before the newly purchased American F-16s arrive in Slovakia.

The decision to shut down and replace the migs is understandable. Russian fighters are dependent on Russian service companies and Russian military technicians in Slovakia (and Poland). As Russia is no longer a partner but a threat, the Slovak Air Force’s dependence on Russian service is unsustainable.

It is less understandable to promise decommissioned aircraft Ukraine. Especially if NATO cannot guarantee logistics (safe delivery of aircraft to Ukraine) and possible responsibility for the consequences.

Possible solutions

Strengthening their national defense capabilities should be a priority for NATO’s Eastern Wing countries. Also with the help of NATO forces. Slovakia has already found that premature cessation of migs and securing air sovereignty through partners will not be so easy. The addressed Allied countries are reluctant to guarantee the protection of Slovak airspace. In times of security crisis, fighters need to defend themselves.

Slovakia is to be partially protected by Patriot missile systems, and will be operated by Alliance troops from Germany and the Netherlands. In addition, however, it will be necessary to look for aviation. Without it, defense is not full-fledged.

It sounds older, but after the Russian attack on Ukraine, Eastern Europe does not have a strengthened defense capacity, but rather weakened (decommissioned missions have not yet been fully replaced).

Until that changes, adventurous ideas to move fighters to Ukraine, provoke Russia and risk the expansion of the conflict are extremely irresponsible.

As for aid to the affected Ukraine, only two appear to be effective options.

The first – and extremely risky – would be to accept Zelenský’s pleas and to involve NATO in the military conflict against the Russian army in Ukraine.

In such a case, not only the direct military consequences would be explosive (the extent of the threat can be reliably estimated by few). It would also be questionable which countries should deploy the maximum of their military forces. European? American? European military forces are limited, with no combat experience. Americans are many times better at it, but the willingness of Americans to bleed on the eastern edge of Europe is limited.

The only thing that can be estimated is that the spread of the conflict has hit the country of Eastern Europe the hardest. On the contrary, the least direct risks would be borne by countries at the same distance and in the nuclear club – the United States, Britain, and partly France.

There is no danger of the conflict spreading to other countries. NATO’s leadership has quite clearly rejected the possibility of Alliance countries directly entering the battle for Ukraine.

The military solution to Ukraine’s sovereignty – the expulsion of Russia by NATO forces – looks impassable.

The second solution is to put pressure not only on Russia (through sanctions) but also on the Ukrainian leadership (politically) to find a way to a ceasefire and cool the hot phase of the fighting.

All other options are just a gray area that will lead to the continuation of the bloody phase of the conflict. Including the suffering of the civilian population and the continuing threat to Ukraine’s neighbors.

From the point of view of some Western strategists, this may seem like a partially advantageous scenario. The Russians would be militarily and economically exhausted even without the direct deployment of Western forces. But the burden of war would be borne mainly by Ukrainians. Where appropriate, neighboring countries which have a moral obligation to assist refugees and to provide material support to the invaded partner country…

The Poles would certainly do well to think about their ideas first and agree with the Allies before publishing.

Because as a result, these online military discussions and empty promises only lead Ukrainian leaders by the nose. Which is the activity that benefits them the least today.