By Vladimir Kovtun

26/09/2025

Preview:

Over the past weeks, Russia has become increasingly bold in its conduct against NATO. Most notably on 9 September 2025, 19 Russian drones infiltrated Polish airspace. These drones penetrated quite deep into Poland, with fragments found as far as Olesno 402 kilometers from the Polish-Ukrainian border. This incident, along with subsequent incidents in Romania and Estonia has left Europeans wondering if these provocations will become a new normal for Europe. Regardless, it is clear that the Ukraine War presents a clear danger to Europeans, and European countries need to develop autonomous military capabilities to defend their borders.

The provocations and their implications:

It does have to be acknowledged that September 9th’s Russian drone incursion was not the first time Russian drones have entered the airspace of a NATO country, as Russian drones have entered Romanian and Polish airspace on numerous occasions since the Ukraine War began (Роман Сулима, 2023). Yet its significance was that this was the first time that Russian drones entered NATO airspace in such quantity. With the number of drones and the distance they travelled, it seems unlikely that the provocation was accidental. Worse, seeing how Russian airplanes infiltrated Estonian airspace just 10 days later on the 19th of September, it seems as if this was part of a broader strategy of pushing NATO’s limits. These actions appear to be geared toward testing NATO’s willingness to combat future provocations, possibly to assess the feasibility of a more open hybrid-warfare strategy against NATO. Even if the Russian drones were sent off course due to Ukrainian jamming, the fact that Russia seems willing to continue its strategy shows a level of carelessness, indicating NATO’s deterrence is insufficient.

Poland’s Response:

Poland treated the incident as a serious, intentional provocation. Russia did attempt to blame the provocation on Ukraine, but this effort has yet to change Warsaw’s foreign policy. Amidst the incursion into their airspace, the country shut down four airports, including Warsaw International, as a preventative measure. As a longer-term security measure, Poland also shut down its airspace near its border with Ukraine and Belarus until December 9th. Most importantly, Warsaw invoked Article 4 of NATO, the 8th time that Article has been used. For context, Article 4 of NATO allows for NATO members to bring an issue of concern to the North Atlantic Council governing NATO, and call a meeting at which NATO can decide on a joint response to the issue in question. Though Warsaw already broadly supported Ukraine, the provocation has seen an increase in Polish appetite for strong measures. For example, Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister Radoslaw Sikorski has advocated for NATO to shoot down drones over Ukraine, to decrease the chance they will be able to infiltrate NATO airspace.

NATO’s response:

NATO members have offered some level of support to Poland in the wake of the provocation against them. During the attack itself, Dutch fighters assisted the Polish air force in countering Russian drones. NATO as a whole launched Operation Eastern Sentry in the aftermath of the provocation, which is geared towards building operational strength on NATO’s eastern flank and deter further Russian provocations. As part of this operation, several NATO countries have provided military resources to Poland. The Netherlands and Czechia have pledged to send additional air defenses to Poland. France has provided 3 Mirage fighters to help protect Polish airspace , while the UK also provided Typhoon fighters. NATO continued to show a united front when Russia launched another incursion into Estonia, with Italian jets having intercepted the Russian warplanes that entered Estonian airspace.

Despite these measures, the incidents exposed divisions in NATO’s alliance, which may encourage further provocations. Soon after the provocation against Poland, US President Donald Trump seemed to divorce himself from the position of his European allies, claiming that the attack “Could have been a mistake” but that he is “not happy with anything regarding that situation”. This seems quite worrying for European leaders, as it casts into doubt the US’s willingness to support Europe in future incidents. It seemed to follow a trend of the US decreasing its engagement with NATO & the Ukraine War, following Vice President Vance’s Munich speech and the US’s reductions in material support of Ukraine. With Russia’s subsequent encroachments in Romania and Estonia, it seems as if NATO’s response as is did not provide sufficient deterrence to future actions. Estonia may have received yet another Article 4 meeting, which yielded harsher words - but nothing substantial seemed to have been accomplished. And yet, President Trump also claimed on September 23rd that Russia was a “paper tiger” and that Kyiv “could win all of Ukraine back in its original form”. This change came incredibly suddenly, and as it seems the US President is too erratic to truly predict. As such, European countries need to build their own deterrence to keep themselves safe.

Solutions:

There is a clear need for more decisive action to prevent future provocations. Even though measures like increasing troop deployments in the Baltics or shooting down aircraft violating NATO airspace might increase tensions, a Russia emboldened by inaction will be a much greater danger to peace in the mid-term. There is also a precedent that defensive actions will not start a confrontation, as in 2015, Turkiye shot down a Russian Su-24 over its airspace without starting a broader war. Seeing this, Polish Prime Minister Tusk’s decision to allow for flying objects to be shot down over Poland seems to be a step in the right direction. Through Eastern Sentry, NATO should follow Poland’s lead by providing sufficient defense capabilities to its eastern front to deal with these hybrid threats as they emerge.

Additionally, the EU should seize this moment to gain a more active role in negotiations to end the Ukraine War. Ultimately, diplomacy is the only way to end the dangerous situation created by the War, which these provocations show is a direct threat to EU citizens. The EU as a bloc will have much better standing to negotiate with Russia compared to negotiations on a member-state basis, and its generally synchronized position with Ukraine will allow for the Ukrainian perspective to be well represented in a future deal. The EU’s key conditions for any deal should include a ceasefire across the front line, and the end of Russian hybrid warfare activities. This sort of negotiating strategy may be ambitious, but it will allow for European interests to be represented in a way they wouldn’t otherwise be. Though a deal will be difficult to achieve as seen with the US led ceasefire negotiations, the EU holds a key bargaining chip which may improve the likelihood of a deal - 170 billion Euros worth of frozen Russian assets. If sent to Ukraine, these assets will rebalance the war in favor of Ukraine, increasing the chance that Russia’s position will only worsen in the coming months and years. As such, as long as the EU can create a credible threat that these assets could be sent to Ukraine - a deal may very well be achievable.

The events of the last month have shown a dismal truth - Russian provocations against EU & NATO member states are the new status quo. This new status quo serves to endanger the well-being of EU citizens and increase the risk of a broader war. The EU and NATO both have an obligation to prepare for this new reality and work tangibly towards a peace in Ukraine to prevent the worst. Europe is in uncharted territory, and if action is not taken soon it is difficult to predict what may unfold.