The dramatic call by Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid for Israeli citizens to leave Ukraine hasn't inspired a mass exodus thus far. The atmosphere in Ukraine, while still tense, hasn't matched the sense of urgency spurred on by headlines in the West.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
The explicit warnings from Washington, which predicted possible starting dates for a Russian invasion and swift conquest of Kyiv, didn't coincide with calming tone from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and other senior government officials. Even now, amid talks of a possible de-escalation, although they aren't fooling themselves about the dangers posed by their neighbor – who has already proven to have no qualms with dispatching a military force to the border – they are confident that the nightmare scenarios of a massive Russian invasion aren't realistic, at least at this stage.
In retrospect, what we're seeing is an illogical role reversal. Common sense dictates that the threatened country, surrounded by potential enemy forces, should be the absolute loudest in sounding the alarm, which its large friend from across the ocean should be the soothing moderator, not to mention downplay the dangers. As is the case, for example, with the Iranian nuclear program: Israel and other countries threatened by Iran are certain the threat is real and immediate and are demanding severe counteractions, while the United States, located far from the heart of the threat, has tended to downplay it and has pushed off acting against it because it believes "there's still time."
The Ukrainian case deviates from the customary pattern of behavior. The difference between the American and Ukrainian positions is even more confounding if you consider that both countries share the same intelligence reports regarding Russia. How, then, are they reaching such opposite conclusions? Why did the Biden administration say the Russians will attack, while the side that should be playing the victim role seems so non-flustered?
One possible explanation for this paradox is that the Russian threat is one big bluff and that many sides have something to benefit from this bluff. The Kremlin's benefit is obvious. Several months ago, Russia was diplomatically isolated. After seizing the Crimean Peninsula and igniting the pro-Russian separatist rebellion in eastern Ukraine, it was kicked out of the elite club of industrialized nations and was demoted in status internationally. Western countries imposed economic sanctions, which hurt Russian markets and hit Russian citizens in their pockets.
Ever since the Russians started rattling their sabers and threatening war, their diplomatic isolation has dissipated. Every Western leader has courted Putin, spoken with him, and acknowledged that the key to stability in Europe, and perhaps the world, is in his hands. His economic and security demands from the West, which a short while ago were summarily dismissed, are suddenly being met with an attentive ear. All these factors make it increasingly likely that Moscow has adopted the method of exaggerating a threat just to reap the wonderful benefits of removing it when the time is right.
The American administration, too, could benefit from creating the impression that the Russian threat is real. Amid the backdrop of its other problems, President Biden won't say no to going down in the history books and in the minds of potential voters as a deliverer of peace. And how is peace delivered? You convince everyone that war is afoot, and then say you prevented it.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
