In the fragile war scenario of Eastern Europe, where every misstep can lead to a conflict even more terrifying than the current one, what happened on the border between Poland and Ukraine implies a potential threat due to the possible intervention of NATO, the Western military alliance .

Cautiously, all involved avoid mentioning the famous Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, the cornerstone of the 30-state alliance that was founded when the world was still shaking from the horrors left by the Second World War. It was the counterweight to the Soviet Union, whose power vanished with the fall of the Wall.

Article 5 stipulates that an attack on one of the members represents an attack on all countries that make up the alliance. Unlike Ukraine, Poland is a member of NATO.

The United States is the most powerful in this judicial circle and, therefore, Poland would be under its protection. Washington would have no choice but to intervene directly. Thus, the war would take on a global dimension. What would China, an ally of Moscow, do? Or North Korea, a burgeoning nuclear power?

This threatening reality frightens everyone. That is why moderation in proposals and prudence. Poland has asked Moscow for “explanations”. The Pentagon has offered to help “investigate” the matter. NATO has declared itself on “alert” and said it is “monitoring” the case. Moscow, meanwhile, denies a direct attack and even clarifies that it has not even bombed the border area.

Despite the fact that everyone is playing their chips in this conflict, no one wants to tempt fate and unleash the fire from which there is no return.

In a low voice, there is talk of activating NATO’s Article 4, which implies the initiation of formal consultations among its members if one of them feels threatened. The function is to determine if there is a real threat and how to deal with it. But it does not imply, in practice, the military reaction of the alliance. A substantial difference with the dreaded article 5.

The episode is still confused and there are various versions of what happened. Among the softest there are two. The first indicates that a missile fired at Ukraine deviated from its original path due to shortcomings. The second is that this shell was hit by another one from the Ukrainian air defense and ended up in Polish territory.

But there is also another hypothesis, even more sinister. Given the military defeats and the adverse scenario it is facing, President Vladimir Putin’s military high command is resorting to risky tactics to escalate the conflict, generate confusion and lead NATO to expand on Russian soil. This would ultimately allow him to blame the alliance for the “apocalypse” that would be unleashed.

There is no doubt that the Kremlin is at a crossroads and needs an excuse to get a more dignified way out of a conflict that has taken on an unexpected dimension for Moscow. The original idea that Russian troops could conquer Ukraine in a couple of weeks and the people would defeat them broke with the first failure in taking Kiev. Then others came, including Kherson, and now the chance of a defeat is more substantial.

The barrage of missiles fired on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure on Tuesday – where the two killed on the Polish border allegedly came from – came on the same day that the G20 countries criticized Russia. A manifestation of rebellion and, at the same time, weakness of the Kremlin. Almost an act of frustration.

Putin finds himself in a complex dilemma: retreat further or head towards chaos. A dangerous area, where “accidents” can be fatal. The scenario is fragile, but caution remains.