Responsible Statecraft: “How a lightly-sourced AP story almost set off World War III”

This morning, Biden disputed Ukraine’s line, saying it was “unlikely” that the missiles came from Russia. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also declared that there is no indication this was the result of a deliberate attack but added that Russia holds ultimate responsibility for the attack given Moscow’s invasion and continued attacks on Ukrainian cities.

The trajectory of events starting from the initial report about the missiles hitting inside Poland highlights the difference between U.S. and Ukrainian interests when it comes to direct NATO involvement in the conflict, according to Beebe.

There is a clear divergence of interests on that score, and the Biden team was appropriately cautious about gathering the facts about what happened and not rushing to judgment about potential retaliation, he said.

In the end, the voices calling for calm won out over their more hawkish counterparts. But the incident serves as a stark reminder that misinformation spreads fast in moments of crisis, which can result in dangerous escalation. This makes it all the more important that major outlets like AP News get the story right the first time, as journalist Ken Klippenstein argued on Twitter.

Connor Echols

Speaking of the dangers of escalation, this incident last month exemplifies how poorly vetted news reports can quickly spiral out of control and inflame the spirits, particularly of those who were itching for the tiniest excuse for military actions. I find the framing that the story almost set off World War III alarmist and exaggerated though; I would certainly hope that military commanders have better sources at their disposal than newspaper headlines and Twitter rumors.

US President Joe Biden speaks about the situation in Poland following a meeting with G7 and European leaders on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Nusa Dua on the Indonesian resort island of Bali on November 16, 2022. Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

The vehement Ukrainian reaction, whose officials kept insisting these were Russian missiles even while most NATO members accepted it was a misfire of Ukraine’s own air defenses, felt a bit odd. There’s a Romanian proverb which says roughly that people deny the hardest when they feel most guilty. At the very least Ukrainian authorities were aware from the start that the missiles were launched by Ukraine, but decided to seize the moment and try to squeeze out some NATO reaction against Russia, and later they didn’t know when to stop and concede the truth. A good reminder that in a war propaganda is a powerful tool, so even as we are aligned with Ukraine we shouldn’t take everything they say at face value.

A concrete example was a recent report that the U.S. secretly modified the advanced Himars rocket launchers it gave Ukraine so they can’t be used to fire long-range missiles into Russia – evidently the US chain of command doesn’t trust the Ukrainians to keep their earlier promise not to fire into Russian territory. The Ukrainian army found ways to strike back nonetheless, using drones to attack two Russian airbases far from the frontlines, one of which houses nuclear weapons. It doesn’t feel very well-thought to provoke Putin with raids on Russian nuclear sites. Beyond that, if Ukraine continues with forward strikes, the Russian population, mostly apathic until this point, may start supporting the war more actively, which would only prolong the hostilities.

Personally, I think the greatest potential for escalation and destabilization comes from the emerging cooperation between Russia and Iran – the enemy of my enemy is my friend, after all. And as the Biden administration keeps putting economic pressure on China and insisting that allies join the sanctions, Chinese leadership may decide to enter this makeshift pact at some point, either publicly or covertly…