Poland MiG-29 deal flew to the brink of a disastrous war


There's a good reason U.S. officials on Monday quickly put the kibosh on Poland's plan to transfer its fighter jets to Ukrainians directly from a U.S. base in Germany — the proposal stood a good chance of drawing the United States and NATO directly into the fight with Russian and starting World War III.
"We do not believe Poland's proposal is a tenable one," a Defense Department spokesman said, just hours after the effort became public.
As long as Ukraine is able to stay in the fight against Russia, we're going to see plenty more debates and incidents like this. There's a real tension between helping Ukraine without helping it so much that the violence spills out across Europe. I've said it before: Prudence is hard. Escalation is easy.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Maybe too easy.
The Atlantic Council, a foreign policy think tank, has just published a survey of 37 experts — former diplomats and retired military officers — asking them to rank a baker's dozen of possible American interventions, evaluating options according to both their possible effectiveness and the potential risk they might escalate the conflict into a wider war between NATO and Russia. The menu included everything from humanitarian assistance to using special operations forces to "advise" Ukrainians to the establishment of the much-discussed no-fly zone.
Almost all of the options were considered at least somewhat risky by the experts. Just two proposals were ranked firmly on the "lower risk" side of the quadrant: Giving Ukrainians either unmanned drones or electronic warfare systems that can jam enemy communications and weapons while defending against such attacks. Even a proposed airlift of humanitarian supplies into the city of Lviv ranked on the riskier side of the spectrum.
"Any actions that involved U.S. or NATO personnel deploying to conduct operations inside Ukraine, even humanitarian operations, were rated as relatively more escalatory than militarily effective, with the riskiest being SOF [special operations forces] operations," the report's authors wrote. "The no-fly zone option was clearly identified as the one most likely to lead to NATO-Russia conflict — with all respondents saying it would entail a significant risk of escalation."
The experts were more bullish on providing weapons systems to Ukrainians to operate on their own. As it happens, that balance — give weapons, but don't get NATO personnel or facilities directly involved — is pretty much exactly what the U.S. and its allies are already doing. Even then, such actions are fraught.
By now, everybody should understand why a fight between the U.S. and Russia is a bad idea: You don't want two nuclear powers trading blows, at all. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be helping the Ukrainians. But it does mean that every judgment, every decision, is extremely delicate. This is not a moment for glib, cavalier decisions. The future of the whole world is at stake.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Joel Mathis is a writer with 30 years of newspaper and online journalism experience. His work also regularly appears in National Geographic and The Kansas City Star. His awards include best online commentary at the Online News Association and (twice) at the City and Regional Magazine Association.
-
Lemon and courgette carbonara recipe
The Week Recommends Zingy and fresh, this pasta is a summer treat
-
Corbynism returns: a new party on the Left
Talking Point Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's breakaway progressive party has already got off to a shaky start
-
Oasis reunited: definitely maybe a triumph
Talking Point The reunion of a band with 'the power of Led Zeppelin' and 'the swagger of the Rolling Stones'
-
Is the Trump-Putin bromance over... again?
Today's Big Question The US president has admitted he's 'p*ssed off' with his opposite number
-
'The risk to educational media for children has seemingly been lost'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
The Supreme Court and Congress have Planned Parenthood in their crosshairs
Talking Points Trump's budget bill and the court's ruling threaten abortion access
-
The last words and final moments of 40 presidents
The Explainer Some are eloquent quotes worthy of the holders of the highest office in the nation, and others... aren't
-
How Zohran Mamdani's NYC mayoral run will change the Democratic Party
Talking Points The candidate poses a challenge to the party's 'dinosaur wing'
-
Is Trump's military parade 'just a parade'?
Talking Point Critics see an 'echo of authoritarianism'
-
Is Trump's LA troop deployment about order or authoritarianism?
Talking Points President: 'We're going to have troops everywhere.'
-
'The answer isn't to shake faith in the dollar'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day