Overnight on Sunday, a Russian cruise missile, which was fired towards Ukraine entered Polish airspace, where it remained for 39 seconds. The Polish authorities confirmed that the situation was under control, with the country's defense minister stating that if there had been the slightest indication it was heading towards a target on Polish territory, the missile would have been shot down.

However, according to security expert Rainer Saks, Poland could have sent an important message to Russia by destroying the missile.

"The destroyers were in the air. In fact, the decision was taken not to shoot down the missile. I consider that a mistake. It would have been better if it had been shot down as soon as it entered Polish airspace. However, I think it would have been even more beneficial, if it had been said that we are now going to shoot down missiles coming from Ukrainian territory," Saks said.

"Of course, that has to be agreed with the Ukrainians. I think it would help to avoid further incidents. At the moment, Russia has seen that the reaction to this is a little bit uncertain. It may encourage [Russia] to carry on in the same way or encourage it to act recklessly," he added.

According to Saks, it makes no difference at which particular location, or from which NATO country,  there is no response to such incursions, because if there is a pattern of no response, the potential threat will spread. "This is the kind of situation for which NATO should be thinking about how it demonstrates that the deterrence is really there," Saks said.

"At this point, a military conflict with NATO would be disastrous for Russia"

Asked Saks whether Russia might attack NATO and how soon this could happen if it were able to conquer Ukraine and also capture Ukraine's military resources.

"Even after [a potential] conquest of Ukraine, it would be difficult to attack immediately. It would take decades to integrate [military resources] in this way, in a situation where the territory has been occupied in the way they are doing now. A conquest in itself would take a long time. However, it would also require a really huge army to control this hostile territory, to somehow pacify it, to integrate it, and that would not be an easy process," Saks said.

"I think that is also the reason why the full-scale invasion was not launched in 2014," he added.

Saks does not believe Russia would really want to get into a war with NATO now. "It has been seen time and again that Russia does not want to give any signal that it is crossing borders. But the point is that if it can put pressure on NATO, that NATO itself will start to retreat, and this will start to affect the strategic position, so Russia will gain more of the strategic initiative," he said.

"I would still maintain that a military conflict with NATO now would be disastrous for Russia," Saks said.

Saks remains convinced, however, that if Russia were to launch a military attack, NATO would be ready to act.

He added that what also deters Russia from direct military conflict with NATO is the very real risk of further escalation. "It would be very difficult to contain the escalation of this conflict. It is not possible to contain it within any particular space or certain conventions. It will escalate very quickly into a nuclear war because both sides will be forced to respond aggressively to one other," Saks said.

"The U.S. does not have a clear vision of what it would like to achieve in Ukraine"

Speaking about the U.S. stalling when it comes to providing of aid to Ukraine, Saks said that, on the battlefield, the Ukrainians have been able to control the situation using the military equipment and munitions they have produced themselves, and with the help of European countries.

However, the Ukrainians are facing a problem with the so-called 'smart bombs', which Russia is currently using to attack Ukrainian positions on an enormous scale. The deployment of F-16 fighters by the Ukrainians would help against this, Saks said.

The security expert said that withholding the aid package was an attempt to discredit Joe Biden, precisely due to the U.S. presidential election campaign.  He said it showed the vulnerability of the U.S., when a campaign takes on such proportions that it overshadows the country's own strategic interests.

"The problem is also that there is no type of clear vision on the Democratic side either. The problem here is the lack of a strategic vision. If the administration and the Democratic Party knew very precisely and were able to engage with like-minded Republicans in Congress about what specifically ought to be achieved in Ukraine and what needs to be done to achieve that, it would be much easier to move forward. At the moment, however, it's very much about abstract amounts and how to deliver that technically," Saks said.

"We see a lot of uncertainty here. And the fundamental problem is that all the aid being given to Ukraine is reactive. It's very much reactive to what Russia has already put in place, rather than preventative, to give Ukraine the opportunity to build up some capacity so Russia is forced to start pulling back," Saks said.

The process is also complicated, he added, by the restrictions on military aid for Ukraine. "And that makes the end result questionable. It will motivate Russia to continue with this war," Saks said.

According to Saks, while the Biden administration may be uncertain, it does not show any fear of Putin.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!