Russia Matters: NATO Downs Russian Drones in Poland in First Direct Engagement, Exposing Gaps in Alliance Defenses
I was on vacation last week and am now battling the flu, so I’m gradually trying to get caught up on the news. – Natylie
Russia Matters, 9/12/25
NATO fighter jets have shot down Russian drones over Polish airspace for the first time, after what Warsaw described as an “unprecedented violation” of its territory, which prompted the alliance to hold emergency consultations per the NATO treaty’s Article 4. The intrusion exposed what some Western officials and analysts described as serious gaps in NATO’s eastern air defenses, with alliance jets downing only four of the estimated 19–23 drones.1 Western analysts, such as former SACEUR Ben Hodges, believe the attack was a deliberate rehearsal to test NATO’s systems.2 If Vladimir Putin’s intention was, indeed, to test NATO’s air defenses, the Russian president “would be most pleased with the result,” according to Financial Times. Test or not, the incident brought Europe “the closest we have been to open conflict since World War II,” according to Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk. Donald Trump suggested the incursion “could have been a mistake,” but Tusk dismissed this3 while Polish President Karol Nawrocki called the incident “an unprecedented moment in the history of NATO and Poland.”4 While Russian warplanes have long tested NATO’s responses by flying near or even into the airspace of alliance members, forcing them to scramble jets, the Sept. 10 incident was the first time the U.S.-led bloc has engaged directly with the Russian armed forces since their full-scale invasion of Ukraine, according to WSJ. By contrast, Russia’s Defense Ministry played down the incident, insisting its drones did not intentionally cross into Poland and claiming that electronic jamming caused the breach. If Belarus’s Defense Ministry is truthful in its claim that it “warned” Poland about “unknown aerial vehicles” approaching their borders, then it raises questions about the ability of the leader of NATO’s eastern flank,5 which Poland is, to cope with a hypothetical air war with Russia on its own.6On Sept. 6–7, 2025, Russia launched its largest aerial assault of the war against Ukraine, firing between 805 and 823 projectiles—including over 800 Shahed drones and up to 13 missiles—across the country. Ukrainian air defenses intercepted at least 747 drones and several cruise missiles, marking their highest recorded single-night shootdown. Despite the significant interception rate, strikes caused up to five deaths, destroying residential buildings and, for the first time, damaged Kyiv’s Cabinet of Ministers. A Russian Iskander ballistic missile was confirmed in the Kyiv attack. Russia’s Defense Ministry denied striking civilian targets, despite mounting evidence.In the period of Aug. 12–Sept. 9, Russian forces gained 160 square miles of Ukrainian territory, which marks a 34% decrease from the 241 square miles these forces gained in the period of July 15–Aug. 12, 2025, according to the Sept. 10, 2025, issue of the Russia-Ukraine War Report Card. As of Sept. 9, 2025, Russian forces occupied 44,943 square miles of Ukrainian territory, which constitutes 19% of Ukraine’s territory (an area roughly equivalent to the U.S. state of Ohio), according to the card. Russian forces have also reduced the rate of casualties they suffer while advancing by 31%, according to ISW’s analysis of the Ukrainian General Staff’s estimates. The rate went from 99 casualties per square kilometer gained from January through April 2025 to 68 casualties per kilometer gained from May through August 2025. Russia has also seen its losses of tanks decline recently. Oryx estimates that the past summer saw Russia lose 83 tanks in Ukraine, down from 252–274 tanks in the same periods of 2022–2024.***
Russian drones over Poland no reason to panic and start a war
By Anatol Lieven, Responsible Statecraft, 9/10/25
It seems unlikely that the handful of Russian drones that entered Polish air space did so accidentally.
There have been previous incidents, but they involved individual drones very close to the Ukrainian border. Yesterday there were over a dozen, according to reports, with debris landing in several cities, including hitting one house, after NATO was scrambled to shoot them down.
It is appropriate therefore that under Article 4 of the NATO Treaty, NATO members consulted over this and responded.
This was however not an “attack.” None of the drones hit a significant target, or seem to have been intended to do so. The Russian move was most likely intended as a warning to the European “coalition of the willing” to abandon its hopes of establishing a “reassurance force” in Ukraine, and add weight to President Putin’s statement that such a force would automatically be subject to Russian attack.
It was probably also a warning to the U.S. not to provide air cover or a “backstop” for such a force.
We should remember that during the Cold War, there were a number of far more serious violations of air space by both sides, some of them leading to NATO planes being shot down and American and British airmen killed. These incidents led not to threats of war, but careful attempts to de-escalate tensions and develop ways to avoid such clashes.
There are two ways of looking at this, and they are not mutually exclusive. On the one hand, it was undoubtedly a provocative act by Russia, which has provided the opportunity for more hysterical outbursts by Western hawks about alleged Russian plans to attack NATO, more calls for increased aid to Ukraine, and more allegations that “Russia does not want peace” (it does, but — just like Ukraine — on terms that meet its basic conditions).
On the other hand, the immediate European response is a reminder of the extent of European (though not Polish) military weakness, and that any European force in Ukraine would be utterly dependent on US support and guarantees.
Thus while the British defense secretary John Healey responded by warning of a “new era of threat” and promising to defend Poland, he also revealed that Britain has only 300 troops in Poland; its previous contingent of precisely six Typhoon fighter jets were withdrawn in July, and its Sky Sabre air defense system in Poland was removed last year for maintenance and has not yet returned.
So when Healey told the “E5” group (the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Poland) that he had asked the British armed forces “to look at options to bolster NATO’s air defence over Poland,” those options would seem extremely limited, and would also probably require reducing military supplies to Ukraine.
Amidst wild ravings from Poland and some British commentators (including calls for an “Article 5 response” – i.e. war), former NATO Deputy Commander General Sir Adrian Bradshaw struck a sensible note, which the U.S. and European governments would do well to follow:
“The point of the consultations is to do things which lower the tension and lower the potential for a slide into conflict, which none of us want. And it’s reasonable to assume that even Mr. Putin doesn’t want a conflict between the whole of NATO and Russia, because it would be disastrous for all of us. So we need to bear that in mind, but be seen to act with resolve…[I]f we don’t want to escalate in the military domain, then we must do so in the economic, political and diplomatic domains.”
***
The Reported Russian Drone Incursions Into Poland Might Have Been Due To NATO Jamming
By Andrew Korybko, Substack, 9/11/25
It’s unlikely that Russia would risk rallying the West around a no-fly zone over Ukraine by staging a deliberate provocation against Poland or even just carrying out a recon mission in NATO airspace.
Poland claimed to have shot down several Russian drones on Wednesday morning that reportedly crossed into its airspace during the latest large-scale strikes against Ukraine. This occurred amidst the ongoing Polish, Lithuanian, and NATO drills involving 30,000 Polish troops and just ahead of the upcoming Russian-Belarusian Zapad 2025 drills. Some therefore suspect that this was either a deliberate provocation by Russia or a botched recon mission, but it might have just been due to NATO jamming.
It was recently argued that “There Might Be More To The Von Der Leyen-GPS-Russia Hoax Than Scoring Cheap Infowar Points” after the dramatic claim that Russia supposedly jammed her plane while it attempted to land in Bulgaria was debunked by Sofia itself and Western media. The alternative theory put forth was that this false narrative was meant to justify aggressive signals jamming in Kaliningrad, though this could also be directed towards Belarus given its hosting of the upcoming Zapad 2025 drills.
Such interference might have thus caused Russian drones to veer off course into Poland during the latest large-scale strikes against Ukraine. Aggressive signals jamming could also precede implementation of reported plans for imposing a no-fly zone over at least part of Ukraine in connection with the West’s security guarantees for that country. Although nowhere as foolproof as patrols over Ukrainian airspace and authorizing NATO-based Patriots to protect its skies, it would carry much less of an escalation risk.
Moreover, if NATO expected that its speculative signals jamming – possibly ramped up after the von der Leyen-GPS-Russia hoax, which might have been timed to coincide with the upcoming Zapad 2025 drills – would cause Russian drones to veer off course, then this might be part of a preplanned escalation. The objective could be to rally support for the abovementioned no-fly zone proposal or even begin the gradual process of implementing it on the pretext of “proactive defense” in light of this incident.
Over 3,5 years into the special operation, Russia would have by now presumably gamed out everything that could realistically follow the scenario of several of its drones crossing into Poland, with policymakers thus likely being aware that this could be exploited to advance the no-fly zone plot. The aforesaid insight accordingly reduces the odds that this was a deliberate provocation or a botched recon mission, either of which would have probably been carried out in force to make the cost-benefit tradeoff more worthwhile.
This is a similar logic as what was recently shared in this analysis here arguing that Russia probably didn’t deliberately target the Cabinet of Ministers building in Kiev so as to avoid fueling the no-fly zone plot. While that particular incident might have been randomly caused by drone debris, the latest one could have been planned to a much greater degree if NATO jamming was indeed responsible as conjectured. It remains to be seen, however, whether Poland will participate in any no-fly zone over Ukraine as a result.
Former President Andrzej Duda recently revealed that Zelensky tried to manipulate Poland into war with Russia over November 2022’s Przewodow incident, which he refused to fall for, while his successor Karol Nawrocki pledged ahead of the second round not to deploy troops to Ukraine. This policy continuity, which aligns with Poles getting fed up with Ukrainian refugees and this neighboring conflict, could foil NATO’s plans to manipulate Poland into this even though it might still agree to ramp up signals jamming.
