Is Poland next?

Many commentators are asking this question, and not out of idle curiosity.

Some are convinced that from the start the Russians saw the conquest of Ukraine as the first stage of their invasion of Poland, and only the courage of the Ukrainian army has made them suspend their plan.

But suspend doesn’t mean abandon. There are signs, and their number is growing, that Putin is about to launch a false-flag operation against that Nato member. The false flag will show the colours of either Belarus or the Wagner Group, with the Kremlin claiming innocence.

The same strategy was given a trial run in 2014, when the occupation of the Crimea and other parts of the Ukraine was supposedly carried out by the ‘little green men’, who had nothing to do with the Kremlin. That stratagem could have duped only those wishing to be duped, such as Nato governments scared witless of any direct confrontation with Putin.

Shortly after the Wagner Group staged its mutiny in June, at least 4,000 of its militants were transferred to Belarus, setting up camp near Mogilev. Apparently they are armed only with infantry weapons, having left their armour and artillery behind. Yet even infantry weapons could be sufficient to stage a deadly provocation.

The SS troops in Polish uniforms that on 31 August, 1939, attacked the Gleiwitz radio station didn’t have tanks and cannon either, which didn’t prevent them from providing a pretext for the Nazi invasion of Poland the next day.

One would think that the Belarussian dictator, Putin’s stooge Lukashenko, would feel uneasy about the presence on his territory of thousands of armed bandits who recently almost succeeded in taking Moscow. He has to realise that taking Minsk would be an easier proposition, but Lukashenko doesn’t have a choice in this matter.

According to him, the Wagnerians are chomping at the bit and looking westwards. This is how he describes the situation: “I said, ‘Why do you want to go west?’ So they say, ‘We control what happens: let’s go on an excursion to Warsaw and Rzeszow.”

The former is of course the Polish capital, whereas the latter is a key military hub through which supplies are flowing into the Ukraine. Rather than being a sightseeing trip, that ‘excursion’ would constitute an invasion of Poland.

At the same time the Russians deployed tactical nuclear missiles in Belarus. This violates every known non-proliferation treaty, but Putin assured the world that Russia remained in control of those weapons.

However, Lukashenko then spoke out of turn, claiming the decision of when to go nuclear, and against whom, was his to make. It isn’t. But should the Russians support Wagner with a tactical nuclear strike, they could cite that pronouncement as proof of their innocence. It’s all that ghastly Lukashenko’s fault.

If Nato decided to retaliate, it would have an excuse to accept Putin’s lies and strike at Belarus instead. Russia would then see it her moral duty to come to the aid of her loyal ally, screaming all over the world about Nato’s dastardly aggression.

Americans are trying to preempt that ploy by telling Putin they can see right through it. Asked about the presence of Wagner mercenaries on the Polish border and whether she sees it as a real threat to Nato, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US Ambassador to the UN, said: “We certainly worry that this group… is a threat to all of us.”

She then added that “any attack by the Wagner Group will be seen as an attack by the Russian government.”

These are fighting words, but so far they have been uttered only by a relatively minor official of one Nato member. Though we don’t know what sort of messages are being sent through unofficial channels, so far we haven’t heard a statement to that effect from Nato at large, all for one and one for all.

However, the messages sent by deeds rather than words are unequivocal: the West is willing to do all it can, and possibly even more, to avoid a military conflict with Russia come what may. Drip-feeding just enough aid for the Ukraine to fight but not enough for her to win is about as far as Nato seems willing to go.

Now, I have always assumed that Article 5 of the Nato Charter says it all loud and clear: an attack on one member is an attack on them all. I – and I am sure some of you – saw that as a sort of tripwire arrangement. One shot fired at any Nato member pushes the button for cruise missiles flying in the opposite direction.

Then a friend of mine, who is more meticulous in such matters, suggested I read the actual text of the Article rather than relying on generally accepted inference. And what do you know: no tripwire is anywhere in evidence.

Not to bore you with its turgid prose, I’ll put the full text in the post-scriptum. But the upshot is that the use of armed force is only one option, and each member will decide whether to exercise it either individually or in concert with other members. What they unequivocally undertake to do is to report the situation to the UN Security Council, of which Russia is one of the five permanent members with veto power.

In other words, Article 5 doesn’t warn any potential aggressor that any ‘excursion’ on his part will bring about an instant violent response. In fact, one struggles to see how the existence of that provision changes the current situation, one involving the Ukraine.

Nato has always had the option to interfere militarily, but has chosen not to do so because it has no appetite, nor any obligation, to fight Russia. Fine. But the way I read it, Article 5 neither obliges Nato to stop Russian aggression by force nor boosts its appetite for such a confrontation.

Hence Putin, unable to make much headway against the Ukraine, may feel he has little to fear if he decided to test Nato’s resolve by an ‘excursion’ into Poland, false flag or otherwise. The situation is fraught with lethal danger, and the West’s vacillation makes it more so.

P.S. The full text of Article 5, as promised. See what you make of it: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

“Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”