The Associated Press reports that two Russian missiles have struck within the borders of Poland, a member state of NATO. I have no idea if this is true, and I assume that a lot of antiwar activists and pundits are going to tell us that it isn’t. And that’s why I am going to say once again what I said before Russia invaded: do not stake the case against war on whether or not this happened, because if we are wrong it will discredit us, and even if we are right we are sending the wrong message.

Let’s assume the absolute worst: that Russia deliberately attacked Poland, and that this is a sign that they intend to expand this into a broader war against other NATO states. Obviously this makes it even more urgent that we bring this war to an end as quickly as possible. It does not, however, seem to change at all the basic argument against US intervention that has been in place since the beginning:

1. Current levels of military aid are only going to protract the conflict indefinitely or escalate it, but are unlikely to win it.

2. Increasing military aid to levels that would guarantee victory would escalate retaliation to absolutely unacceptable levels.

Neither of these are acceptable outcomes, which leaves only one rational move: for the US to withdraw and sue for peace. In the worst case scenario this would probably place millions of southeastern Ukrainians who did not elect the Kremlin under its governance, and it could even convince Putin that he could invade other countries in the future. But even partial annexation and the risk of future conflict are preferable to scenario one, which ends in a ruined country (and the risk of future conflict), as well as scenario two, which is the future conflict. Or rather, the present conflict, which the hawks told us fighting would avoid.

Now consider the alternative: arguing against war by denying the missile strikes actually happened. Where does that position get us?

• If it turns out that we are wrong, it will embarrass us and make us look like we don’t know what we are talking about. This is a great way to ensure that a real antiwar movement in the US never gets off the ground.

• If we are right, the lesson we will teach the public is “it is okay to escalate a regional conflict into a world war, with nuclear stakes, over two missile strikes in Poland; that’s just not what happened this time.” Not only is this a terrible narrative to co-sign in principle, but it would also seem to implicitly justify continued conflict in Ukraine, since Russia’s attack on Ukraine was real.

If this sounds a lot like I said before the war even started, there’s a reason: I don’t think the antiwar left has learned from its skepticism that Russia would invade. In this case, no one actually has any real information about what happened beyond what the AP has given us, and no amount of savvy or insight into Russian strategic thought can dismiss the possibility of an accident or of the good old fashioned irrationality that every government is capable of. We can go out on a limb, deny this, and risk making the same mistake again — or we can use this as an opportunity to win back some credibility and build an antiwar movement that’s based in reality.