Of Marc Champion*

There are at least five lessons that Europe and the US must draw from its unprecedented decision Russia to launch drones to Polandin the context of yet another mass attack on Ukraine. All of this requires either immediate reaction or reassessment.

First and most important lesson: No one should in the future reject the idea that Russia – who fights so hard in Ukraine – could ever attack a NATO member. He just did so, despite the statement by the Russian Ministry of Defense on Wednesday that he had no intention of hitting goals in Poland. According to Poland Foreign Minister Radoslav Sikorski, 19 drones invaded the Polish airspace, which is enough to make it clear that it was intentional energy and to invoke Poland Article 4 of NATO, according to which the allies are called upon.

According to Fabian Hinz, of the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, the analysis of the currently available drones shows that they were Gerberas models, a cheap drone model designed for the Russian army in China. They have multiple roles, either for attack or for distraction. What is more important than the drones developed is that the Russian president Vladimir Putin He has made it clear from the beginning of the war that he considers the extension of the Western Alliance with the integration of the countries of the former Soviet bloc as part of the “main cause” behind his decision to invade a neighboring state. If NATO does not comply with its demands, it will continue to exert pressure, not because it is afraid of the West, but because the alliance restricts the sphere of influence that is determined to rebuild for Moscow.

Secondthe attack highlights the obvious fact that Ukraine is Europe’s first and best defense against a vengeful, revisionist Russia.

Let us think for a moment the idea that Putin will eventually achieve his goals in Ukraine, occupying all the territories from Odessa to South to Sumi in the northeast of the country, while also imposing a change of regime in Kiev, which will bring to Kiev, which Distper. The case of Belarus clearly shows that Putin does not need to understand a country to place his rockets, his troops and his defensive systems there. Drones invasions, fired from a much shorter distance – and so with less time to react NATO defenses – would be just one of the many tools available at its disposal for further destabilization efforts.

Thirdlyas Phillips O’Brien wrote, an Air Force Specialist and Strategic Studies Professor at St. Andrews of Scotland, NATO’s dependence on a series of expensive aircraft and missiles to break just a few of the Russian drones that invaded the Polish airspace shows how unprepared the alliance’s defense remains after four years of war in the neighboring country. “May God help them if they are confronted with 600 UAVs and missiles in a single night,” as is usually the case in Ukraine, he said.

Now ask yourself if – by remodeling Russia’s economy for war and finding the limits of Europe’s will and ability to resist – Putin, who was willing to invade a country of size in France with a power that is a fraction of the size of today.

A quarter The lesson is that this war has shown that Putin does not need to invade a country to attack her. This can be done through cyberattacks and sabotage, or with rockets and drones that are fired at tumors that would seem unlikely a few years ago. Russia does not need to be close to a country to target it, even if it significantly increases the options available. Indeed, Russia does not need to invade to test NATO and the stability of the Article 5 Collective Defense clause. This test started, with O’Brien calling it to “exercise” Moscow in Poland.

The way the US will now react – either with an absolute and clear commitment to Poland’s defense, or with anything less than that – will be critical. The decision will determine whether Putin will retreat – having received his answer – or whether he will continue to look for further weaknesses that will expose and destroy an alliance that has proven to be a “paper tiger”, changing geopolitical calculations throughout Europe. Without a substantial US for security, Putin will be on the right track to succeed where his predecessors failed in the Kremlin, from Joseph Stalin and after: to cut Washington from Europe and to make Russia the dominant military force to the European.

Endthe Russian nightclub against one of the best armed NATO Member States shows the devastating consequences of Europe’s military impotence and the lack of US political will. The combination of these factors allowed Russia to make advance in Ukraine this year.

US President Donald Trump and Kiev’s allies in Europe and Asia had to exert financial and military pressure on Russia, motivating the Kremlin to negotiate that would lead to a sustainable end of the war. Instead, Putin, safe thanks to his alliances with China, Iran and North Korea, increases pressure on Ukraine and its allies. His hope is that Kiev’s allies will either leave Ukraine, or persuade her to succumb to Putin’s war goals and change the balance of forces in Europe.

This was just a warning blow. None of these extreme outcomes do not have to happen due to two factors. Kiev has Armed Forces – and, at the moment, a capacity for the manufacture of drones and other critical weapons – that no European country in its west can hope to compete in the near or medium -term future. And Europe – with the US support – still has more than enough resources to help this power to stop Putin in Ukraine. The ball is now on the NATO stadium.

*Marc Champion is a columnist in the Bloomberg Opinion column and covers issues related to Europe, Russia and the Middle East. He was previously director of the Wall Street Journal office in Istanbul.