On Tuesday, November 15th, 2022 Polish state media reported that a Russian made S – 300 missile struck a grain silo in Prezwodow, Poland, signaling what Poland described at the time as a major escalation of the Ukraine war. Subsequently, Poland has come to deny that Russia fired the missile. So much is known about the strike.

Whatever the exact circumstances of the events unfolding around the missile strike in Poland, it is worth nothing that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who could not have known about the failure of his air defense system at a point so far removed from the core of Russia’s barrage, seized upon the incident to encourage its neighbor, Poland, to evoke Article 4.

Zelensky’s ability to encourage Poland to evoke Article 4 is a testament not only to Zelensky’s desire to expand NATO’s proxy war but to its inherent instability. It is capable of spiraling out of control any day, hour or minute.

Within minutes after the failed missile landed on a grain silo in the eastern village of Prezwodow, Zelensky, who is well known for provocations, seized upon the explosion which killed two innocent Poles to seek a further demonization of Russia.

In his demonization, Zelensky blamed Russia for the missile attack, claiming Russia, which has retreated to the Western bank of the Dnipro in Kherson to avert a bloodbath before winter, sought to attack Poland.

Zelensky, however, made absolutely mention of the fact that the strike behind Poland’s border hit a grain silo, of which there is absolutely no military significance whatsoever. The Polish town of Prezwodow does not contain a major deployment of Polish troops, tanks, artillery, or weaponry. It is not a major hub of logistics for the supply of Ukrainian weapons.

Zelensky, nonetheless, categorically blamed Russia for the attack, calling the move a “very significant Russian escalation” and an “attack on collective security.”

Zelensky added, “Today, Russian missiles hit Poland, the territory of our friendly country. People died… It’s only a matter of time before Russian terror goes further… We must act.”

Falling in line with the president of Ukraine, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba called for the United States to respond by sending advanced fighter aircraft to Ukraine on the day of the incident.

Kuleba called on NATO countries to arm “Ukraine with modern aircraft such as F-15 and F-16, as well as air defense systems, so that we can intercept any Russian missiles. Today, protecting Ukraine’s skies means protecting NATO.”

While the United States has shipped numerous weapons to Ukraine, the United States has not shipped F-16. The reason is most likely that Ukrainians are incapable of protecting the advanced weaponry from the Russian Federation, which is allegedly trading captured NATO military equipment to Iran, which specializes in reverse engineering, in exchange for Iranian drones.

So far there are accounts that Russia traded both Stringer and Javelin anti-tank missile defense systems to Iran in exchange for Shahed 136 drones. If there is reluctance to supply Ukrainian armed forces directly, Biden, nonetheless, continues his pledged commitment to deploy the United States of America’s own Air Force in Ukraine.

Earlier this month, the Pentagon confirmed that active-duty US military personnel were operating inside Ukraine, including Marines guarding the US embassy. Pentagon officials are said to be directing the distribution of US arms shipments deep within Ukraine. It is unclear from the confirmations whether these Pentagon “officials” are among those whom Biden pledged to deploy in the Air Force.

In July, Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov tweeted a tweet with a declaration that that the country should be viewed as a “testing ground” for US defense contractors. In his tweet, he stated: “We are inviting arms manufacturers to test new products here.”

On the same day Zelensky blamed Russia for the incident, the White House requested $47.7 billion in addition funding for the war, including $21 billion for weapons. More than double the total amount spent on US weapons shipments to Ukraine, which have up to this point amounted to $18.2 billion, the request for additional funding for the war appears to unparalleled in the history of the United States’ war funding for proxy war. It appears to be a historic sum of money dedicated to a foreign force fighting a war abroad.

A day later, on November 16th, 2022, the United Nation’s Security Council convened a special meeting to address the incident. Despite acknowledging her ignorance of the incident, UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, U.S. Representative to the United Nations for the United States of America, exploited the incident to shift blame for what is being described now as an accident.

Before “[extending] our deepest condolences to the loved ones of those Polish citizens who were killed,” Mrs. Thomas-Greenfield stated:

“While we still don’t know all of the facts, we do know one thing: This tragedy would never have happened but for Russia’s needless invasion of Ukraine and its recent missile assaults against Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure.”

Rife with hypocrisy, her condolences for the loss of Polish life flies in the face of the tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers who have died fighting for the United States in its and NATO’s proxy war against Russia, not to mention the Russian soldiers or generals, for that matter, assassinated by the Central Intelligence Agency during the outset of the war.

While ultimately leaving the door open about how to interpret the event, Mrs. Thomas-Greenfield’s statement may be seen as a statement of solidarity with Zelensky in terms of innuendo especially where Mrs. Thomas-Greenfield mentions Russia’s “recent missile assault” which has devastated Zelensky’s ability to keep face among members of his population against Russia. It seems to suggest that should Russia continue to strike deep within Ukraine, Ukraine may stage a provocation.

Nonetheless, NATO nations, the vast majority of which agreed openly through televised press briefings to consolidate around a swift and unified response to what they described at the time as a Russian provocation, have rolled back their rhetoric from “provocation” to “accident.”

Addressing the representatives of the NATO military alliance on Wednesday, November 16th, 2022, Jen Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary of war, stated:

“Since the start of Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, NATO has increased vigilance across our eastern flank,” where Stoltenberg means Poland, who is now armed to the hilt with more than 44 battalions of tanks.

While pointing out that the attack took place amid “another massive shelling of the entire territory of Ukraine and its critical infrastructure, conducted by the armed forces of the Russian Federation,” Stoltenberg added:

“Our preliminary analysis suggests that the incident was likely caused by a Ukrainian air defense missile fired to defend Ukrainian territory against Russian cruise missile attacks. But let me clear: this is not Ukraine’s fault. Russia bears ultimate responsibility as it continues its illegal war against Ukraine.”

The fact NATO nations rolled back their rhetoric on the attack leads one to believe their readiness to enter the war may not be as strong as Zelensky’s or the United States’.

In a reflection of the divisions arising from Zelensky’s provocation, Zelensky has begun to adamantly deny the conclusion that NATO members reached in regards to the “accident,” disputing that the Russian made S-300’s explosion beyond the Polish border originated from a failure of Ukraine’s own anti-aircraft defense system.

In an televised press briefing, Zelensky emphatically denied NATO’s conclusion: “I have no doubt from the evening report to me personally — from the commander of the air force to commander-in-chief [of Ukraine’s military Gen Valerii] Zaluzhny — that it was not our missile or our missile strike.”

Responding to Zelensky’s emphatic denial, the Financial Times reported that a diplomat from a Nato country in Kyiv expressed the following: “This is getting ridiculous. The Ukrainians are destroying [our] confidence in them. Nobody is blaming Ukraine and they are openly lying. This is more destructive than the missile.” [1]

The fact that divisions within Europe’s NATO member states are arising in response to the Russian made missile attack in Poland, at once, shows the desperation of Zelensky’s provocation, and the extent to which NATO members are ill-disposed to Zelensky’s provocation. It is not to be taken lightly that NATO members, who have used Zelensky to orchestrate NATO’s proxy war, have used the word “ridiculous” to describe his attempt to provoke those NATO members to enter the war prematurely. The puppet may not be the puppet’s master and right now the show on.

Nonetheless, whatever the disposition of the NATO nations, Zelensky, who is well known for staging provocations with various Western intelligence agencies such as Britain or the United States of America, failed to achieve his objective of exploiting the tragedy to expand the war but, nonetheless, succeeded in sending Russia a NATO warning.

His NATO warning is that he is capable of staging a casus belli for NATO member states to convene under Article 4 before eventually evoking Article 5. This is far more than merely “ridiculous.”

Although Zelensky’s NATO warning did not result in an immediate escalation, a missile strike or several missile strikes of “Russian made missiles” launched by Ukraine more deeply within the territory of Poland may be the straw that breaks the camels back. Whereas only a few Polish farmers from a remote village in Prezwodow, Poland, are perfectly capable of being the subject of “deep condolences” for the sake of declaring an “accident,” a far more devastating provocation may force NATO members to take an entirely different perspective, at which point the invocation of Article 5 may suddenly become unavoidable. This why Zelensky’s provocation is far from “ridiculous.”

Article 5, which has not been evoked again since September 11th, 2001, is the article under which NATO member states are required to provide assistance to member states whose security is under threat of war. Although what transpired appears to be less of an accident than a forewarning, the invocation of Article 5 would be, for all intents and purposes, the initiation of a major escalation of the Ukraine war.

While many states such as the United States of America, Britain, Israel, Syria, Belarus, Iran, Poland or others from the European Union are indirectly involved in the war through the supply of weapons, training, logistics, or various types of funding or services, the invocation of Article 5 would transform their indirect involvement into open, direct involvement, undoubtedly escalating the war into a world war.

[1] – [“Ukraine and western allies at odds over missile that exploded in Poland”; ft.com, October 17th, 2022]