War Drums Are Sounding in Europe

Europe is currently living through a period of escalating tension between Russia and Poland, a volatile mix where historical grievances intersect with modern geopolitical interests, and traditional military posturing is intertwined with cyber-attacks and “gray zone” provocations.

The incident of Russian missiles violating Polish airspace in September was not merely a fleeting breach but a stark alarm bell, forcing a re-examination of fundamental questions: What are the limits of deterrence against a nuclear power? How does international law balance the right to self-defense with the imperative of preventing an all-out war? And what role can NATO play in stabilizing security without igniting a devastating European conflict?

To answer these, we must delve into the underlying causes, the legal frameworks, and the potential flashpoints.

I. The Roots of the Conflict: History, Fear, and Rearmament

The tension between Russia and Poland is rooted in deep historical and political accumulations that have fostered persistent distrust and security anxieties.

For Poland, which endured invasions and domination by Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union, joining NATO and the European Union after the USSR’s collapse was a logical step to guarantee its security within a collective system. Warsaw views this alignment as its ultimate safeguard. Moscow, however, perceives NATO’s eastward expansion as a direct threat to its sphere of influence and sees Poland—with its strategic location and hosting of Allied troops and equipment—as a potential adversary and a forward base for the West.

In response, Warsaw believes that a strong deterrent is the only guarantee against history repeating itself. Consequently, it has significantly raised its defense spending and embarked on a massive military modernization program, purchasing advanced American missile defense systems, cutting-edge F-35 stealth fighter jets, and state-of-the-art M1A2 Abrams tanks.

These steps have been accelerated by the war in Ukraine, which has positioned Poland as the spearhead of support for Kyiv and a haven for millions of refugees. This role has placed it in an indirect but acute confrontation with Moscow. With the frequency of provocative incidents—from airspace violations to stray missiles—a pressing question emerges: Is the world on the brink of a wider confrontation that could open the door to a third world war?

II. The International Legal Framework Governing the Use of Force

The simmering tension between Russia and Poland is governed by a clear international legal framework that restricts the recourse to force and defines the legitimacy of any potential military action.

This framework is anchored in the United Nations Charter, which, after World War II, established the principle that states shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

• The Prohibition on Force: Article 2(4) of the Charter explicitly mandates that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Any widespread use of force outside the recognized exceptions is considered a violation of this cornerstone principle.

• The Right to Self-Defense: The Charter provides very limited exceptions, the most prominent being the right to self-defense, enshrined in Article 51. This article affirms the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs.” Should a clear attack on Poland occur, it would have the legal right to respond and could request support from its allies under the concept of collective defense.

• NATO’s Article 5: This concept of collective defense is operationalized in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty (1949), which states that an armed attack against one member shall be considered an attack against them all, obliging all members to take action, which may include the use of armed force. NATO leadership has repeatedly affirmed this commitment.

• The High Bar for Preemptive Action: The international legal justification for preemptive or preventive military action is not widely recognized. It is only considered in the narrowest of circumstances, requiring proof of an imminent and certain armed threat. Mere political disagreement or hostile alliances do not grant any state the right to use force.

Furthermore, in the event of a direct confrontation, International Humanitarian Law (IHL)—the laws of armed conflict—would apply. This body of law, including the Geneva Conventions, imposes rules for the protection of civilians, humane treatment of prisoners, and prohibitions on indiscriminate weapons. The war in Ukraine has shown significant challenges in adhering to these rules, raising concerns that any direct clash between two major powers in the heart of Europe would have severe humanitarian consequences.

III. NATO’s Central Role and the Stances of the Parties

NATO is the central pillar in the strategic calculations of both Poland and Russia.

• Poland’s View: Warsaw sees NATO as a genuine deterrent umbrella protecting it from any Russian adventurism. The alliance’s substantial support for Ukraine and its firm responses to airspace violations reinforce this view. Poland’s invocation of Article 4 for consultations after the missile incident highlighted Allied unity, while initiatives like the “Enhanced Forward Presence” bolster integrated air defense. Statements from NATO officials about downing violating aircraft reflect a hardened stance, reassuring Poland of its support.

• Russia’s View: Moscow perceives NATO’s eastward expansion as a breach of post-Cold War understandings and treats the alliance as a strategic threat that demands a response. It has enhanced its military capabilities in Kaliningrad, developed long-range missiles capable of striking deep into Europe, and utilized cyber warfare and disinformation to test and provoke NATO cohesion, often using Belarus as a proxy.

In essence, Poland and NATO frame their position as a legitimate defense of the international order, while Russia frames its actions as a defense of its national security. This tug-of-war translates into a race of military and political preparations, where any accidental incident or miscalculation could ignite a wider confrontation.

IV. Potential Legal Pathways to War

Despite public rejections of direct war, it is crucial to understand the legal scenarios or “pretexts” that could trigger a confrontation.

1. An Overt Armed Attack: The clearest legal justification for war is a deliberate military strike causing human casualties or significant damage. If Russia were to launch missiles into Poland (whether intentionally or by miscalculation), Poland would have the right to respond in self-defense and invoke NATO’s Article 5. The reverse, though highly unlikely, is also legally true.

2. Collective Defense and Reciprocity: If Poland suffers a clear aggression, NATO is treaty-bound to assist. This obligation could expand the conflict to include nations not directly targeted, potentially opening the door to a full-scale Russia-NATO war with nuclear risks. Conversely, if a single NATO member initiated an attack on Russia, the alliance would not be obligated to defend that aggressor, a crucial check on unilateral action.

3. Miscalculation or Accidental Escalation: The proximity of Russian, Polish, and NATO forces creates a wide scope for error. A simple incident—a stray missile, an aggressive interception of a reconnaissance aircraft, or a border skirmish—could be misinterpreted as an attack and lead to rapid escalation. Hotlines between NATO and Russia exist for this reason, but their effectiveness depends on cool heads during a crisis.

4. Fabricated Legal Claims: A party could fabricate a pretext to justify military action, much like the 1939 Gleiwitz incident used to justify the invasion of Poland. Today, Russia could attempt to frame Poland’s support for Ukraine as a direct act of hostility, though international law generally does not consider arming a defending nation as an act of aggression.

5. The Nuclear Threshold: The most dangerous aspect of any Russia-NATO confrontation is the potential use of nuclear or chemical weapons if a party feels an existential threat. International law heavily restricts such weapons, but the reality of mutual deterrence makes them both a restraining factor and an ultimate danger.

Ultimately, the outbreak of war remains a human decision more than a legal inevitability. The law provides a framework to identify aggressors and defenders, but it cannot prevent war if a party decides to breach it.

V. New Legal Concepts in Modern Warfare

The current tension reveals new facets of armed conflict that challenge traditional legal understanding.

• Hybrid Warfare: Conflicts are no longer fought solely with traditional means. States employ hybrid tactics—blending conventional force, cyber-attacks, disinformation, and economic pressure—to achieve goals without declaring war. Destructive cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure or the instrumentalization of migration could be considered an “armed attack” depending on their consequences, not just their means.

• Proxy War: The Ukraine conflict is a prime example of a proxy war, where Ukraine fights on the ground with extensive Western support. This dynamic partially applies to Poland, which is in a state of indirect conflict with Russia through its support for Kyiv. Legally, this creates a gray area; the moment a NATO member directly uses force against Russian assets, the conflict becomes direct, albeit with the potential to remain “limited.”

• The Avoidance of Formal Declaration: Modern conflicts often avoid formal declarations of war. Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine is a case in point. While this does not change the legal classification of an international armed conflict once fighting begins, it is used politically to limit the scope of the conflict and manage narratives.

• Technological Acceleration: Advanced technologies like drones complicate the legal picture. Is a drone a suicidal cruise missile or a stray piece of equipment? The speed of automated air defenses and the pressure of instant media and public opinion make it difficult for decision-makers to verify facts before responding.

Conclusion: On the Brink

The Russian-Polish standoff is poised between managed deterrence and a catastrophic slide into direct conflict. The mutual awareness of destructive power still provides a safety belt. However, the protracted nature of the war in Ukraine increases the risk of unintended escalation. In this high-stakes environment, activating diplomatic channels, steadfastly adhering to international law, and maintaining credible collective deterrence are the final lines of defense against a European and global catastrophe. The responsibility lies with decision-makers in Moscow, Warsaw, Brussels, and Washington to exercise restraint and uphold the minimum rules of engagement to prevent a conflict that would benefit no one.

Support Dawat Media Center

If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future. Support the Dawat Media Center from as little as $/€10 – it only takes a minute. If you can, please consider supporting us with a regular amount each month. Thank you
DNB Bank AC # 0530 2294668
Account for international payments: NO15 0530 2294 668
Vipps: #557320

  Donate Here