By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has condemned NATO’s perceived inaction regarding recent alleged Russian airspace violations, urging a more aggressive response, including shooting down encroaching aircraft. Several NATO members, including Estonia, Poland, and Romania, have reported airspace breaches, leading to Article 4 consultations and fighter jet scrambles. While Russia denies the accusations, the situation raises concerns about a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia, particularly given the devastating weaponry possessed by both sides. Despite these tensions, NATO continues to support Ukraine in its defense against Russia’s ongoing invasion.
Read the original article here
Zelensky Criticizes ‘Weak’ NATO Response to Russia Violations
It seems like a fairly common sentiment – and frankly, it’s hard not to agree – that Zelensky is right to call out what some perceive as a weak response from NATO to Russia’s actions, particularly when it comes to airspace violations. The feeling is that NATO, a defensive alliance formed to protect its members, should be taking a much firmer stance, and the current approach is falling short.
This isn’t just about abstract ideals of strength. The argument goes that Russia is testing boundaries, pushing limits, and if they aren’t met with decisive consequences, they’ll keep pushing. The situation with Turkey and the downing of a Russian aircraft years ago is often brought up as a case study. While the political ramifications were significant, the event itself didn’t trigger the kind of broader conflict some might have expected. The subsequent hesitancy from certain NATO members, particularly Germany and France, is seen as the beginning of a problematic pattern. It raises the question of whether member states can genuinely trust NATO to act in their defense, particularly when faced with something that needs a strong response.
The core of the criticism centers around the idea of appeasement. The fear is that NATO’s reluctance to “pop Russia in the mouth” is sending the wrong message. Russia, described as a “schoolyard bully,” is seemingly emboldened by the lack of a stern reaction. There’s a sense that the diplomatic language, the warnings, the constant need for meetings, are insufficient. Instead, it’s suggested that a more robust approach is warranted, with an emphasis on shooting down encroaching drones, which are seen as more of a taunt than an actual threat.
It’s understandable that a nuclear war is something everyone wants to avoid, but the argument made here is that restraint can be misconstrued as weakness, especially when dealing with an actor like Russia. The assertion is that this kind of perceived weakness only encourages further aggression. Living in a region like the Baltics gives people a particularly strong perspective on this. They see the airspace violations not as accidents, but as deliberate provocations. The fear is that Russia might be deliberately pushing boundaries to provoke a stronger reaction from NATO, possibly as a pretext for further escalation.
There is some understanding of a need to avoid World War III, but it’s felt that the time for warnings and meetings should be over. The idea is that it’s time to back up the words with action, that constant violations of airspace require an immediate response.
However, the situation isn’t a simple one. There’s a clear recognition of the complexities, and some people argue that shooting down Russian aircraft could provide Russia with propaganda opportunities. Escorting them out is offered as an alternative, which is seen as a cautious approach with the goal of avoiding wider conflict. This is viewed as the right approach, because it prevents the possibility of escalating into a greater war.
The historical perspective is also relevant here. NATO was formed in a different context, to counter the threat of the Soviet Union. This means that the alliance does not give a damn about Eastern European/Slavs countries, which influences their decision-making. The concern that Europe has too much to lose is a valid point. The risks of all-out war are immense, and there’s no denying that Russia, even with its current struggles, has the capacity for destruction.
The argument against inaction is that by appearing weak, the West is encouraging further aggression. The claim is that the Russian campaign of sabotage, assassinations, and provocations is the proof of this. Ignoring these violations would lead to a third World War.
One important point is about Turkey’s actions regarding its neighbors. NATO is not to be used to create buffer zones in other states.