In recent times, Trump’s shifting stance on Ukraine has been so rapid and surprising that it could leave anyone dizzy. We hope our readers understand why we’ve been documenting these developments, along with other events related to the Ukraine conflict primarily in our Links section. A notable aspect of this situation is Trump’s peculiar willingness to engage with EU leaders who are eager to secure direct U.S. commitments and enhance NATO’s presence, despite their attempts to resurrect outdated and previously dismissed plans such as ceasefires, or even the introduction of peacekeeping forces in Ukraine. The latter option, as highlighted by anyone who has been attentive to Russian officials’ warnings, would be viewed as an act of war, provoking a robust response from Russia.
Take, for instance, the striking acknowledgment by Robert Kagan, a staunch advocate for Russia’s isolation, stating that with the support many EU member states have provided to Ukraine, these nations are already perceived as combatants. Consequently, Russia might consider itself justified in launching attacks against them. This observation coincides with recent exaggerated claims regarding supposed Russian aggression near the Ukraine border and in the Baltic region. Ironically, it reveals a dilemma for EU leaders who harbor animosity toward Russia, particularly as President Putin’s measured approach, which has frustrated both military and political hardliners in Russia, poses challenges for the EU leaders keen on escalating tensions.
Thus, the scenario envisioned by Korybko may not be as far-fetched as it initially seems.
By Andrew Korybko, an American political analyst based in Moscow, specializing in the global transition towards multipolarity in the New Cold War. He holds a PhD from MGIMO, affiliated with the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published on his website.
If Trump’s fluctuating statements on Ukraine amount only to political posturing regarding NATO’s goal of a strategic defeat for Russia, some members of the alliance may attempt to shoot down Russian jets circling over the Baltic Sea to compel the U.S. to escalate its involvement.
At the recent UN General Assembly, Trump stated that he endorses NATO taking down Russian aircraft that enter its airspace, but he also noted that America’s support would hinge on the specific circumstances. Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated earlier that the U.S. would only back this action if the Russian jets posed a threat. Concurrently, NATO released a statement expressing readiness to engage Russian jets, although NATO chief Mark Rutte later clarified that actions would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
That came just a day after Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski sarcastically suggested in an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council that Russia should not complain if its missiles or aircraft were shot down over NATO airspace. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk also stated that “We will decide to shoot down any flying objects that violate our territory without discussion,” although he later tempered his remarks, echoing Rubio and Rutte.
He added, “In situations that are unclear, like the recent flight of Russian jets over the Petrobaltic platform, it’s essential to think cautiously before taking actions that might escalate the conflict. I also need assurance that all allies will respond uniformly in these matters.” This broader context includes two recent questionable incidents involving Russia.
The first occurred in early September when several Russian drones reportedly entered Polish airspace, a situation potentially caused by NATO jamming prior to the anticipated Zapad 2025 exercises in Belarus. The damage suffered by a local residence was attributed to a misguided Polish missile. Following this, Estonia claimed that three Russian jets violated its maritime airspace, a claim that could be politically motivated to serve its interests with the U.S., as explained here.
Trump reinforced these narratives by promising that the U.S. would defend Poland and the Baltic states if Russia continued its alleged escalations. This was followed by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth telling his Estonian counterpart that the U.S. “stands united with all NATO allies” and that any breach of NATO airspace would be deemed unacceptable. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz also emphasized at the same UNSC meeting that “The United States and our allies are committed to defending every inch of NATO territory.”
Such statements of support regarding the prospect of NATO engaging Russian jets, although contingent on the context mentioned by Trump and Rubio, could encourage Poland, Estonia, and other Baltic nations to act preemptively on the false grounds of airspace violations. The objective would be to provoke Russia into retaliation against NATO, potentially igniting a dangerous crisis that these nations expect would culminate in a disproportionate ceasefire in Ukraine.
Trump’s reversal from stating that Zelensky “lacks the capability” to recover territory to now asserting that he could reclaim not only all of Ukraine’s lost territory but also parts of Russia’s recognized land with NATO’s assistance, has yet to translate into a significant rise in U.S. involvement. Should it turn out that these statements merely serve NATO’s narrative of achieving a defeat for Russia, some nations might escalate tensions by attempting to shoot down Russian jets over the Baltic in an effort to compel a stronger U.S. response.
