The Polish missile tragedy shows accidental escalation is preventable

When what seems to have been a Ukrainian S-300 air defence missile accidentally hit the village of Przewodów in Poland, killing two farm workers, it became at once a litmus test of national attitudes and a reminder of the wider dangers of the war in Ukraine.

At first, confusion about what had happened allowed everyone to reach for their favourite conclusion. There were suggestions that this was a deliberate Russian attack to test Nato’s will, and calls for the alliance’s Article 5 – whereby an attack on one member should be considered an attack on all – to be invoked. Poland’s early assessment that this was a ‘Russian-made missile’, which could still apply to much of Ukraine’s arsenal, too, was quickly turned into a ‘Russian missile’ in clickbait headlines.

Meanwhile, the usual instant experts on Twitter were claiming that it was not an S-300 but an air-launched Kh-101 cruise missile of the sort the Russians were firing at Ukrainian targets. Some even suggested an S-300 fired from Belarus as a crude surface-to-surface missile.

Kyiv, spotting an opportunity, presented the tragedy as an ‘attack on collective security’.  Certainly at first, the Nato apparatus swung into action with the apparent expectation that there would be a case for the less serious Article 4, which simply allows member states to call for discussions about a security concern.

“

In the longer term it will be interesting to see how this incident plays out in the deeper debate in the West

Strikingly though, from the very first, the United States was urging calm, with President Biden saying that it was ‘unlikely… that it was fired from Russia.’ Shortly thereafter, strategic leaks from the US intelligence community began asserting that the missile had been Ukrainian, noting that its trajectory had been tracked by their radar. This even got an unusual note of thanks from the Kremlin, with Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov noting that ‘in this instance, attention should be paid to the measured and more professional response from the American side’.

Even more striking was Poland’s cautious response. Warsaw has been one of the most hawkish European powers in this conflict, for reasons both historical and geopolitical. Nonetheless, they avoided undue alarmism in the immediate aftermath, and today, President Andrzej Duda – a man who has called Russia an 'empire of evil' – nonetheless told a press conference there was no evidence the missile had been fired by the Russians. Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki likewise added that Warsaw would not be invoking Article 4.

The truth, then, seems indeed that this was a Ukrainian S-300 launched in response to the night’s heavy Russian barrage of attacks. Usually, missiles like these will, if they fail to hit a target, self-destruct high in the atmosphere, the 25-150 kilos of high explosive in their warheads (depending on the model) dissipating themselves relatively safely. However, the basic design dates back to the 1970s, and even the most modern systems will sometimes malfunction.

Of course, had Moscow not been prosecuting its vindictive campaign of massive attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets, there would have been no need for the air defence launch. The moral responsibility lies squarely on Putin’s shoulders.

In the longer term, though, it will be interesting to see how this incident plays out in the deeper debate in the West. On the one hand, it will be used by those eager to focus on seeing Russia defeated militarily. Already there are calls to see it declared a ‘terrorist state’. Renewed suggestions have been made that Nato should impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, even though this would hardly have prevented this incident and would be tantamount to opening direct combat operations with Russia. Certainly this makes the case for further supplies of newer and presumably more reliable Western air defence systems.

There are also those arguing that, following Kyiv’s string of victories culminating in the liberation of Kherson, this is the time to start talks, or at least talking about talks, with Russia. Some condemn this as appeasement, but there is no reason why any such discussions need entail either territorial concessions to Putin or the ceasefire than the Russians so desperately need to rearm and regroup. In any case, they argue, tragedies such as this one demonstrate the wider risks of the war and the danger of unintended escalation.

However much Moscow claims to be open to discussion, though, it is hard to see what grounds there are for meaningful conversation given its refusal to countenance the return of occupied territories. Nonetheless, those calling for talks make the point that until they begin, no one can truly know where they may go.

Is either camp talking to the other? Generally not, and the speed with which each has moved to appropriate the Przewodów incident demonstrates just how entrenched they both are. Nonetheless, if there is a shred of silver lining to be found, it is that while Nato and Moscow alike may consider themselves to be in a virtual state of – political, economic and social – war, they are also keen and able to prevent any accidental escalation into a shooting one.