Long but interesting speculation from Poland on what may come next.
The example of yesterday's conference and Macron's words clearly shows what Russian information activities/propaganda look like.Even before the reports from the conference, the statement was used, not by Macron but by the Prime Minister of Slovakia - because it was populist and in a tone optimal for propaganda activities. On its basis, hundreds of comments were posted about sending soldiers from Poland and NATO "to the front" and "to fight". "Opinion leaders" associated with RUS information centers were also launched. These are the usual accounts, I won't advertise them. Generally, infoops in all its glory. Don't fall for this.And what does it look like in real life?
What was agreed at the conference?Firstly - probably for the first time since 1945 - Europeans basically discussed their own security on the continent and the international order. Of course, I would not draw conclusions about Europe's strategic independence, etc., but changes are clearly visible.Secondly, France is becoming a leader in Europe where Germany does not want it. And I emphasize that the tightening of France's course is nothing new - it began in 2021 as a result of the recognition of Russia's preparations for war. France is a country that has not only tactical nuclear weapons but also a doctrine of de-escalating their use. Unlike Russia.Thirdly, France recognized the very active interference of RUS agencies in social and electoral processes in France. From yellow vests to attempted cyber attacks on elections.
As a result of the above, and then of Russia's bandit and completely unjustified subsequent aggression against Ukraine, there was, firstly, a hardening of France's course towards Russia and, secondly, a search for consolidation of security mechanisms in Europe and replacing the USA in them, which may return to isolationism as a result of changes at the top of power. As a result, the French president emphasized the need to strengthen security to prevent any future Russian attacks on additional countries and indicated countries that may be targeted by Russian expansion: the Baltic Sea and... Poland.Fourth: the essential term is "strategic ambiguity" used by Macron and the statement "Today there is no consensus to send troops in an official and approved way to the site. But in terms of dynamics, nothing can be ruled out".The mere mention of such considerations is an entry into the next level of escalation and is also a violation of a certain taboo about not sending soldiers outside NATO structures and not sending them to Ukraine. Why did Macron consciously use this? This is another element that Russians need to start considering quite seriously. The signals for RUS in recent quarters are clear:- Europe will, to some extent, replace the US in supporting Ukraine in terms of ammunition and SpW- Finland and Sweden in NATO- maintaining economic aid for the AU allowing the war to continue- breaking a certain taboo and openly considering sending the army to Ukraine.
Personally, I think that this is showing the Russians that prolonging the conflict and a war of attrition will not bring Russia success, and I also suspect that "red lines" have probably been established, the crossing of which by the Russians will result in an avalanche of escalation of Western aid.This means that Russia may open another strategic direction (if it gathers the forces to do so), but in return it may expect a no-fly zone over, for example, western Ukraine. Or it may reach the Dnieper, but this will result in sending, for example, a military contingent. Etc. Of course, this is deliberately unstated publicly as part of the "strategic ambiguity" that the Russians must now begin to factor into their calculations. Who understand only the language of strength - they perceive consensuality as weakness.
France is currently not consensual with Russia, for two years it has been speaking in an understandable language in the Kremlin, Poland and the UK as well.Does this mean that we are going to have a war? Well, Russian expansionism is a fact, territorial or political claims to the Baltic states are a matter of time. The Russians do not lack the will to do so, but they lack the opportunity because of the losses they suffer in Ukraine and what a political and strategic nightmare this war is for them. As long as Ukraine wins this war politically, Russia cannot reach the Baltic Sea. This is what is at stake.
To put it more brutally: it is better to fight a war to defend the Baltics in Ukraine than in the Baltics.Of course, someone may write that the weakness of the land forces of the European NATO armies means that Macorn's threats are empty. Well, no. Wars are won in the space, cyber, air, sea and finally land domains. And in the first four European countries - even without the USA - are a power compared to Russia, a dwarf. The threat to send a European air component with 80-120 multi-role combat aircraft to Ukraine would mean the beginning of the end for Russia of its dreams of reaching the Dnieper. And they know it very well. Macron did not express "empty threats" - Europe has a huge advantage over Russia in at least four domains. It is a matter of political will and consensus to use it.Therefore, Russia will focus on information/propaganda activities to scare, for example, Poles with such a vision. Additionally, hybrid activities will probably be intensified.PS. NATO countries have been sending officers and policemen to Ukraine for a long time. Firstly, specialists from the UK and France who protected the embassies of these countries even before the outbreak of the war. Of course, subordinating e.g. GIGN gives a loophole because these are not SZ. Secondly, in Ukraine already in 2022, there were, for example, 98 Polish policemen - sappers who helped demine the area around Kiev and beyond.Most difficult operations - including direct deliveries and evacuation of captured equipment - are organized via PMC."
"
