The dramatic call by Prime Minister Bennett and Foreign Minister Lapid for Israeli citizens to leave Ukraine has not yet led to an increased influx.
The explicit warnings heard from Washington, which set possible deadlines for the Russian invasion and rapid occupation of Kiev, did not reconcile with the reassuring tone of Ukrainian President Zalansky and other senior government officials.
Even now, when talking about an imminent lull, they do not complement themselves as to the dangers posed by the neighbor, who has already proven several times that she has no problem launching her army across the border, but are sure the horrors of a major Russian invasion are unrealistic, at least at this point.
Seemingly, there is an irrational role reversal here.
The opinion is that the threatened country, around which the forces of a potential enemy are concentrated, was supposed to raise an alarm and ring the alarm bells with full force, while its great friend across the ocean was expected to moderate and calm, not to mention minimize the danger.
This is the case, for example, with regard to the Iranian nuclear program: Israel and other countries threatened by the Iranians are sure that the threat is tangible and immediate and demand drastic measures against it, while the far-flung US tends to underestimate it and postpone action.
The Ukrainian case deviates from the usual pattern of reactions.
The differences between the American and Ukrainian positions are even more puzzling, assuming that the two countries share intelligence reports with respect to Russia.
How, then, do they reach opposite conclusions?
Why did the Biden administration declare that the Russians would attack, while those who are expected to be in the role of victim refused to get excited?
A possible explanation for the paradox is that the Russian threat is one big bluff, and that many factors have something to gain from the bluff.
The profit of the Kremlin is clear and visible.
A few months ago Russia was in diplomatic isolation.
After conquering the Crimean peninsula and igniting the fire of revolt by pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, it was expelled from the elite club of industrialized nations and suffered a decline in its international standing.
Western countries imposed economic sanctions on it, which harmed its national economy and were felt in the pockets of its citizens.
Since the Russians began waving an implicit, and sometimes explicit, threat of war, diplomatic isolation has disappeared.
All Western leaders are courting Putin, talking to him and acknowledging that the key to stability in Europe, and perhaps in the whole world, is in his hands.
His demands from the West in the military and economic spheres, which were casually rejected only a short time ago, suddenly gain a sympathetic ear.
All this raises the possibility that Moscow has adopted the goat method: inflate the threat only to reap handsome achievements in exchange for its removal in due course.
The US administration may also benefit from creating the impression that the Russian threat is real.
Against the background of his other problems, President Biden will not refuse to register in the pages of history and in the minds of voters as a peacemaker.
And how do you make peace?
Convince everyone that war is imminent, then explain that you prevented it.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us