...
By Tom O'Connor
Deputy Editor, National Security and Foreign Policy
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
As a recent wave of drone incursions marks some of the most serious violations of NATO airspace in the history of the alliance, experts are warning that member states might find themselves unprepared to handle a sustained campaign by a foe like Russia.
Already, some argue, the world’s most powerful military bloc appears to be scrambling to adapt to the new reality of an emerging form of modern warfare in which Moscow has heavily invested.
“NATO and individual NATO countries have been caught with their pants down and are rapidly trying to pull them back up,” Keir Giles, a leading expert on Russian military issues who serves as a senior consulting fellow at the Chatham House think tank, told Newsweek.
Read More on News
...
“Every time something like this happens, we hope that it will be the spur to impress upon individual NATO countries and NATO itself the urgency of putting in place measures to prevent incidents like this from happening again,” he added. “But NATO moves still at the speed of NATO and individual countries do not share a common appreciation of how urgent the threat is.”
The Question 'Everybody Is Asking'
While the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war has further highlighted the relevance of cost-effective unmanned aerial vehicles on the battlefield, the use of such drones on the the front lines and beyond is nothing new. These platforms have long evolved from the initial larger systems debuted by the United States during the “War on Terror” at the dawn of the 21st century and still in use today into smaller, cheaper and more maneuverable assets.
The challenge posed by such tactics to conventional defense systems was previously put on display during the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War of 2020, when Azerbaijan’s use of drones substantially overwhelmed Armenian forces and their allies of the self-declared Artsakh Republic. Years earlier, militant groups such as the Islamic State had begun weaponizing commercially available drones to deadly effect in Iraq and Syria.
...
Now, the threat has crept further west, with Poland reporting a swarm of drones crossing from Belarus and Ukraine into Polish territory last month and directing accusations toward Russia, which has denied responsibility. Reports of drone activity later caused disruption at airports in Denmark and Norway, sparking fears of a long-term campaign that has yet to be officially tied to the Kremlin, despite prevailing suspicions.
Why, after so many years of observing the rise of drone warfare abroad, NATO is struggling to deter, defeat and even identify the perpetrators of such actions is “one of the open questions” the alliance faces today, Giles said.
“That’s what everybody is asking,” he said. “There’s no doubt that drone incursions of this kind are a different air defense challenge to what NATO nations were traditionally set up to counter, but there’s no excuse for being surprised by them.”
Giles added: “What happened in Poland was a tiny fraction of what Poland’s neighbor, Ukraine, faces every night, and Poland has spent billions on reconstituting its armed forces, rearming itself to be relevant for the kind of war that Russia fights. So, it’s doubly surprising that it does not have a drone-relevant air defense system.”
And “in the case of droning airports, it’s been over a decade that this has been a known problem and a known challenge,” Giles said.
...
While investigations continue, Poland was quick to assign blame to Russia, with a local probe finding that the UAVs bore similarities to Russia’s Gerbera model, a cheaper and simplified variant of the Geran, itself a modified, licensed version of Iran’s Shahed loitering munition, or “suicide drone.” The drones that landed in Poland were not believed to be armed but, nonetheless, spurred Warsaw to trigger Article 4 emergency consultations with NATO members. Denmark, too, reportedly considered Article 4 action after the recent incursions that caused the nation to suspend operations at airports—including its largest, Copenhagen—though the origin of the systems involved remains unknown.
Beyond this step, NATO states also pressed forward with Operation Eastern Sentry training exercises, which ran concurrently with the joint Russia-Belarus Zapad-2025 drills that included a number of partner countries.
'An Important Step’
Daniel Byman, a Georgetown University professor serving as director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program, referred to NATO’s quick reaction to the unmanned aerial invasions as a means of demonstrating European powers could act swiftly without direction from the U.S.—where President Donald Trump initially suggested the incursions into Polish airspace may have been a “mistake” on the part of the Russian military.
...
“Russia has used drones for surveillance of NATO countries, especially those supporting the war in Ukraine, like Poland,” Byman told Newsweek. “The drones are also a form of intimidation and a way of probing air defenses. The recent response, which involved European states acting together without the U.S. taking the lead, is an important step, both showing better NATO capabilities (minus the U.S.) and European determination.”
But facing down such a protracted campaign in the long run could prove costly. Byman pointed out that “the drone threat is difficult to fight as it is cheap to put up many drones and expensive to shoot them down.”
James Patton Rogers, executive director of the Brooks Tech Policy Institute at Cornell University and co-founder of the British International Studies Association’s War Studies working group, said the nature of these kinds of operations suit Russia’s distinct brand of hybrid warfare.
“Russia is using drones to harass and test NATO,” he told Newsweek. “Each flight is about probing defenses, mapping our responses and reminding us of our vulnerabilities. They’re cheap, small, deniable and hard to stop; the perfect gray-zone weapon.”
...
Like Giles, Patton Rogers felt NATO was still fighting to keep up on efforts to counter such threats, which were designed to fall short of triggering the alliance’s Article 5 collective defense clause.
“NATO is alert but still playing catch-up. Defenses exist, but they’re fragmented, underfunded and uneven across the alliance,” he said. “Russia benefits by keeping the pressure on and probing our weaknesses, all without crossing that Article 5 line.”
But just because NATO has yet to respond forcefully, that does not mean the drone incursions won’t have far-reaching unintended consequences for Moscow.
Trump has adopted tougher language against the Kremlin since suggesting the drone incursion was a mistake, going so far as to assert that Ukraine could win back all of the territory seized thus far by Russian forces throughout the conflict. His comments mark a substantial shift from his prior talk of Kyiv needing to accept territorial concessions as part of a peace deal.
Now, with new tensions flaring over the recent drone incidents, Patton Rogers said “Russia may have just pushed a little too far, especially in light of President Trump’s renewed support for Ukraine.”
...
‘Symbolic Value’
Sandor Fabian, an academic and former deputy director of Force Readiness Directorate at the NATO Special Operations Headquarters, also noted the significance of steps taken thus far by the alliance.
“I think NATO’s response demonstrates unity and quick action which is designed to send a clear message to Russia that NATO does not tolerate even the lowest level of incursions regardless of the platforms used,” Fabian told Newsweek. At the same time, he noted that, thus far, “NATO’s actions have more symbolic value than actual practical ones.”
And in addition to harassing and testing enemy defenses in a way that “provides the Russians a certain level of plausible deniability,” Fabian said Russia’s objectives in drone warfare included “probing Polish and alliance resolve and unity.”
Beyond this, he argued, Moscow’s aims may simply be to sow panic and discord among rivals. “It is very hard to assess what benefits the Russians seek,” Fabian said. “While many people think about Russian leadership as strategic geniuses, the truth is many times they just like to create chaos and manage results as things unfold.”
He added: “Not all Russian action has well-thought-out and deliberate objectives.”
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines