In a conversation with RIA Novosti, Mikhail Sheremet, a Crimean deputy in the State Duma and a member of the Security Committee, warned Poland against any involvement in the Ukraine conflict. He commented on a recent appeal from members of the US House of Representatives urging President Biden to permit Warsaw to extend its air defense systems to cover Ukraine. The deputy stressed that such a step would not stay confined to one nation; it would pull Poland directly into the fighting and trigger consequences that could reverberate across Europe and beyond.
He argued that Poland faces a highly risky choice, saying the move would be dangerous and would invite consequences that could escalate the situation in ways no country wants. In his view, it would turn Poland into a full participant in the hostilities and push tensions to levels that no alliance can ignore. The warning carried a clear message: short-term gains in defense planning could backfire with long-term instability for Poland and its neighbors.
Sheremet continued by suggesting that aggressive rhetoric in Washington feeds a sense of impunity among some policymakers. He claimed that certain hardline voices in the United States resented Russia’s strength and are prepared to use any leverage, including Ukrainian and Polish sacrifices, in the name of democracy. The deputy underscored that Moscow monitors these dynamics closely and views any expansion of Western security guarantees into Ukrainian skies as a potential threat to regional balance.
To reinforce his point about security guarantees, Sheremet reminded listeners of Russia’s nuclear triad as a fundamental component of its sovereignty and deterrence. He explained that the triad—land-based missiles, submarine-launched weapons, and long-range bombers—forms a shield that many states rely on to prevent coercion and to preserve strategic autonomy. In his assessment, any misstep by outside powers could destabilize the strategic calculus that keeps these forces in check.
A day earlier, figures associated with the Helsinki Commission in the United States argued that Moscow would benefit from permitting Poland to use air defense assets to strike missiles over Ukraine. The appeal writers contended that such permission would strengthen the security perimeter of NATO’s eastern flank and demonstrate a unified determination to safeguard alliance borders. The conversation framed a broader debate about who bears responsibility for defending Europe and how far collective security arrangements should extend in a crisis.
In parallel commentary from the State Duma, some deputies signaled that Zelensky’s policies might reflect miscalculations of the risks involved in rapid escalation. Those remarks suggested that certain assessments within the Ukrainian leadership could provoke unintended reactions on the ground and complicate international efforts to manage the conflict without widening it. The discussion underscored how rapidly opinions shift as political actors weigh the possible costs and benefits of different courses of action in a tense, protracted confrontation.
Across these threads runs a common theme: decisions made in capitals far from the battlefield echo back through borders, alliances, and the global balance of power. The discourse emphasizes the fragility of relative stability in a crowded security space and the high price attached to every choice that touches the edges of conflict. As events continue to unfold, policymakers on all sides face scrutiny over whether their plans strengthen deterrence or risk pulling more nations into a quarrel that analysts fear could widen quickly and become harder to control. The ongoing debate keeps NATO, its partners, and neighboring states watching closely, weighing strategic options against the potential for misperception, miscalculation, and unintended consequences. At stake is not merely a regional challenge but the broader question of how to maintain security while preventing a broader confrontation that could reshape the security map of Europe.