Drones Over Europe: Russia's Airspace Violations Test NATO’s Resolve
A soldier carrying an Orlan-10, a Russian-made drone. Source: The Moscow Times.
Over the past few weeks, drones have increasingly started to violate the airspace of European states. News about violations of NATO members’ airspace has come from all over Europe: military drones entered Lithuanian airspace in July; dozens of drones flew into Polish airspace in September; a few days later, a drone breached Romanian territory, and fighter jets violated Estonian airspace. What ties all of these incidents together is the attacker: Russia. Amid the Ukraine War – the biggest military conflict on the European continent since World War II - these blatant violations of frontline NATO states follow a deliberate pattern designed to test Alliance unity and response mechanisms.
Escalating Violations Across NATO's Eastern Border
The most serious escalation occurred on September 10, when twenty-one military drones crossed Poland’s airspace, most shot down by the Polish Armed Forces. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk declared that “a line has been crossed and it’s incomparably more dangerous than before.” This has been the first time since NATO’s creation that Allied forces had to engage with an enemy in its airspace. In response, Warsaw officially invoked Article 4 of the NATO Treaty, which allows member countries to consult about security concerns. This move marks a shift in the security environment and signals that the attack is treated as a threat to the Alliance’s collective security architecture.
Yet, Russia’s response was expectedly deceptive. Initially claiming that Russian drones were not actually targeting Poland, later, at the United Nations Security Council meeting, the Russian representative falsely claimed the drones could not have even reached Polish airspace.
Just days after the Polish episode, on September 14, a Russian drone breached the airspace of a second NATO member country, Romania. On September 19, Russian fighter jets penetrated Estonian airspace before being escorted out by Alliance troops. The rapid succession of violations across multiple NATO members demonstrates a deliberate pattern of testing the Alliance’s Eastern defenses. While the presence of Allied forces capable of immediate response demonstrates NATO's readiness, Moscow is clearly assessing whether such tactical reactions translate into strategic deterrence.
Russia’s Ministry of Defense dismissed the Estonian incident, claiming their fighter jets acted “in strict compliance with international airspace regulations and did not violate the borders of other states.”
These high-profile violations are only part of a wider pattern that reveals Moscow’s determination to use the attacks as a test of NATO’s defense capabilities and spread a feeling of vulnerability in European capitals. Earlier in July, two Russian drones, one of which was carrying explosives, crashed in Lithuania. On September 21, Germany scrambled two Eurofighters to track a Russian military aircraft in neutral airspace over the Baltic Sea. Most recently, on September 22, Copenhagen and Oslo Airports shut down due to drone sightings over restricted areas; drones were also reported in Sweden. As investigations are underway, government officials are not ruling out Russian involvement. These hybrid attacks across Scandinavia disrupted civilian air travel and demonstrated Russia’s ability to project insecurity beyond its immediate neighbors. By targeting different countries, Moscow also assesses the response capabilities and vulnerabilities of different Alliance members for future exploitation. Russia is employing more and more elaborate methods that challenge the Alliance’s security in different ways – if the first drone sightings were closer to the war front and were easily detected by the military, drone sightings in the Scandinavian airports are part of the hybrid threat, challenging civilian security.
Moscow’s Familiar Playbook
Denial and obfuscation follow a well-established pattern for Russia. In 2014, during the Crimean invasion, masked military men without insignia appeared to be leading the military operation. While speaking with a Russian accent and carrying Russian weapons, their “unconfirmed” origin allowed Moscow to maintain plausible deniability over its presence in Crimea. The first few days of confusion in the Western capitals gave Russia an initial advantage. Recent drone attacks over Europe employ the same tactic, testing NATO’s resolve while staying just short of triggering a more serious Allied response.
These breaches serve multiple purposes: gathering intelligence on Allied defenses, demonstrating Russian capability to threaten NATO borders, and searching for weaknesses in the states’ defense mechanisms. As Ukrainian officials warn, Russia has been “gauging responses as it goes, blunting any pushback by escalating slowly and maintaining some level of deniability.” According to this analysis, this strategic ambiguity serves Moscow’s interests by forcing the Alliance into a reactive posture – invocation of Article 4, use of Allied troops and weapons, official statements of NATO and State officials – these mechanisms allow Russia to assess the Alliance’s response capabilities. What’s more, the fact that the incidents moved from direct drone intrusions into frontline states such as Poland to hybrid attacks in Denmark and Norway is clear evidence of slow escalation.
Allied Response
As a direct response to the Polish incident, NATO launched a new military activity, “Eastern Sentry,” aimed at stepping up NATO's defense over its eastern border. However, the Alliance's diplomatic messaging has been lacking firmness. Secretary General Mark Rutte described the violations as “Russia’s recklessness,” while NATO spokespeople used the similar wording, “yet another example of reckless Russian behavior.” European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas also condemned the “continued reckless escalation” that “threatens regional security.” However, the repeated use of “recklessness” arguably undermines the gravity of these deliberate provocations, framing them as careless missteps rather than a calculated show of strength designed to sow unease across the European continent. This framing plays directly into Russia's strategy of operating on the edge of deniability, allowing Moscow to dismiss serious violations as accidents while continuing to test NATO’s resolve. Such responses only further embolden Russia to push boundaries of what the Alliance will tolerate without triggering Article 5 – the cornerstone of its credibility.
The U.S. stance in this process remains crucial, yet currently lacking. President Donald Trump commented on the Polish incident that it “could have been a mistake” — precisely the kind of weak signal Moscow exploits. By suggesting these violations could be accidental, this attitude reinforces Russia's preferred narrative of plausible deniability and creates doubts about Allied unity in responding to future escalations.
These escalating provocations reveal Russia's strategy of exploiting perceived Western weakness through carefully calibrated aggression. The frontline states understand what history teaches: appeasement does not work with Russia. NATO’s Eastern Sentry represents a step forward in demonstrating NATO’s commitment to responding to hybrid threats. However, the mission’s effectiveness depends on whether it will be backed by sufficient resources and unified political will. Without stronger diplomatic messaging and strong U.S. participation, the Alliance risks sending mixed signals that Moscow will inevitably exploit. The question facing NATO is no longer whether Russia will continue testing Alliance resolve, but whether the Alliance will demonstrate, through actions as well as rhetoric, that further violations will no longer be cost-free for Moscow.