The Alliance's response to the raid of dozens of drones was sluggish. Experts predict: the Kremlin has received the green light for further escalation
On the night of September 10, dozens of Russian strike drones crossed the airspace of Poland, a NATO member state. This incident was not just another echo of the war in Ukraine, but the most serious challenge to the Alliance’s collective security to date. While Brussels and Washington were choosing cautious words about the provocation and a possible mistake, Kyiv was anxiously watching the reaction that could determine the future of European security. The fourth day has passed: from the Ukrainian perspective, the Western response looks insufficient, which opens up new opportunities for aggression for the Kremlin.
The reaction that didn't happen: a diagnosis of military and political indecision
The main conclusion that emerges after two days of observing the Western reaction is that it was essentially nonexistent – at least not in the form it should have been in response to an act of aggression against a NATO member. Experts are unanimous: instead of a demonstration of strength and determination, the world saw confusion, slowness, and an attempt to downplay the scale of the threat.
First of all, the dissonance arises due to the very classification of the incident. Military expert Mykhailo Samus emphasizes a fundamental error in definitions: We have a situation where military aggression took place against a NATO member. If we proceed from international law, what is military aggression? This is an attack using military air, sea or ground forces. So, strike or reconnaissance drones are also military aircraft of a particular state. Therefore, Poland and NATO should classify this as military aggression, and not as a provocation or incident.
It is this refusal to call things by their rightful names, according to Samusya, that has launched a chain of inadequate actions, starting with Poland itself. The expert draws parallels with the Ukrainian experience of 2014, when the reluctance to recognize obvious aggression led to catastrophic consequences. Poland's reaction was inadequate. In the event of such a military attack, an Alliance member state should have reacted accordingly. This is a transition to a threatening period: perhaps it is too early to introduce martial law, but it would be necessary to activate the mechanisms of mobilization preparation, to transfer the country to military organizational formats. After all, this is actually an act of aggression, which can be a prelude to broader actions, especially considering the fact that the Zapad-2025 exercises have started... I understand that every peaceful country first seeks explanations, tries to avoid escalation. We ourselves have experienced this. Remember Crimea and Donbas in 2014: then they also asked - why didn't anyone sound the alarm?"The incomprehensible Girkin-Strelkov detachments, the little green men... They waited, didn't want to open fire, hoped it would pass. Although if they had acted tough then, there might not have been a war," he notes.
This indecision of the attacked country became a convenient excuse for the entire Alliance. Mykhailo Samus explains the logic of collective security: NATO reacted inadequately as well. But there is an important point here: if the country itself — the object of aggression — does not recognize the attack as aggression, then why should the Allies recognize it as aggression? The essence of joint or collective defense is based on the fact that the NATO member country that has been attacked must itself address the others and, first of all, officially call things by their proper names: Dear Allies, we have been subjected to military aggression. We classify it as such… Please activate Article 5.
Instead, as the expert notes, the world saw only a formal request for consultations under Article 4, which, it seems, had neither demonstrative nor real effect. The lack of a strong public signal from NATO was the second failure. NATO should have come together, shown its fist to Russia and made it clear: We are consulting, we are consulting, we are preparing specific measures, the equipment is already starting to leave the parks. We are serious about this. What we are observing looks caricatured, - summarizes Samus.
The problems appeared not only in the political, but also in the purely military plane. Political scientist Vladimir Fesenko notes that although the military mechanisms worked, their effectiveness raised huge questions. As it turned out, NATO is not ready for such group attacks by military drones. And we are talking only about the invasion of two dozen drones, not hundreds of strike drones that regularly attack Ukraine. When a relatively inexpensive Russian drone is shot down by a missile costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, this is not entirely adequate (and it seems that most drones were not shot down at all). By the way, we went through this problem three years ago. And NATO is still not ready for this. NATO's air defense system to combat group attacks by drones turned out to be unprepared, - analyzes Fesenko.
This opinion is shared by political scientist Ihor Reiterovich, pointing out the absurdity of the situation: Stories with missiles costing almost 3 million dollars, which are used to shoot down drones costing several tens of thousands, are very revealing... Compared to previous times, when they said that it was probably a UFO, this time they shot down, raised the F-35, and showed that these are cool machines, especially against cardboard drones. But it could have been better in the context of the reaction.
A separate factor of weakness was the position of the United States. Instead of a tough statement from the leader of the Alliance, the world heard strange comments from President Trump. As Vladimir Fesenko notes, there is no clear and tangible reaction from the United States to this incident at all. Israeli military expert Yigall Levin adds that such detachment of Washington, although understandable geographically, is destructive for NATO unity: And the United States? They simply shrugged it off, Trump said that this could actually be a mistake.
Thus, the first two days demonstrated a comprehensive failure: the rejection of the correct legal qualification, political indecision at the national and allied levels, military and technical unpreparedness for modern threats, and the actual lack of leadership on the part of the United States.
Consequences of silence: test passed, conclusions drawn
The September 10 attack was not an accident or a mistake. All experts interviewed agree that it was a deliberate, carefully planned test – a test of NATO’s resolve and unity. And the results of this test, unfortunately, turned out to be extremely disappointing for the West, but quite satisfactory for the Kremlin.
A serviceman of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Kyrylo Sazonov gives a concise and harsh assessment: It seems to me that after the arrival of drones in Poland, we can already sum up. This was not an attack. And it was not a provocation, as cowardly politicians say. It was a test. A check of the reaction of NATO and the USA. The check was organized by Russia, probably on behalf of Beijing. And what did the check show? The worst result was predicted.
The main beneficiary of this situation was Putin. Political scientist Igor Reiterovich believes that the Russian dictator can write this round into his asset. The main conclusion is this: Putin tested NATO countries and Europe for lice, so to speak. And they did not pass this test, because the reaction was clearly not the one everyone had hoped for. It was a reaction that actually pleased Putin very much... He saw that Europe was confused, reacting sluggishly, not quite understanding what to do, he explains. Moreover, the Kremlin received additional bonuses in the form of destabilizing the internal situation in Poland through information and psychological operations. As Vladimir Fesenko notes, Russia stated that Ukraine was to blame for this incident... Hundreds, if not thousands of Russian bots were promoting this topic in the Polish information space. There were"useful idiots" in Poland itself... who began to spread Russian narratives.
The most dangerous conclusion made in Moscow and Beijing is voiced by Kyrylo Sazonov : In fact, Russia and China understood after this test: Europe can be attacked. A country that is in NATO can be attacked. Nothing terrible will happen. At most, they will shout loudly: What is happening?
This opens a Pandora's box for further escalation. Yigall Levin predicts an inevitable increase in the stakes from Russia: Russia, seeing such a reaction, that is, no reaction, will climb and escalate further, and soon we will see not 20, but 100 drones. His opinion is shared by Igor Reiterovich: Putin will continue to try. He will shake, peck at the Alliance. The only thing is that it will probably not be Poland, but some other EU country that borders Ukraine. I would even laugh if some drone flew in and crashed in Hungary. That can be done easily. Or in Slovakia - what's the problem?
The lack of a strong response to the attack on Poland, a large and militarily powerful country, calls into question the very essence of Article 5 for smaller members of the Alliance. Levin asks a rhetorical question: And here's what you need to understand: if the Poles were so easily written off — with their army, population, and place in NATO — then what will happen to the Baltic states? Do you think Putin doesn't draw conclusions?
Against the backdrop of this helplessness, NATO's military unpreparedness for the realities of a modern war, which Ukraine has been waging for years, looks especially blatant. Mykhailo Samus models a hypothetical but quite realistic scenario: Let's simulate: 800 shaheeds, 30 X-101 missiles, 10 Calibers, 10 ballistic missiles and two more Daggers fly simultaneously to Poland. What will happen? Nothing. Complete collapse. After all, the collapse occurred after 19 Gerbers. And if it is such a massive attack, which I am talking about, the Poles will simply watch as Warsaw, Krakow or other cities are destroyed.
According to him, during the war years, Poland, despite the purchase of modern equipment such as the F-35, did not take basic steps to build an echeloned air defense, in particular, did not create mobile fire groups according to the Ukrainian model. Nothing has been done even in simple things... Organize territorial defense in communities, determine that each TR should have, for example, three fire groups that are on duty around the clock. This is not difficult... But nothing has been done. This is the most important thing, - states the expert.
What should have been an adequate response? Experts suggest specific steps that would demonstrate strength. Ihor Reiterovich believes that NATO should act immediately: First, declare that they are already holding consultations with Ukraine and agreeing on the creation of a drone zone along the entire perimeter of the border 100 km deep into Ukraine... Secondly, declare that the next time, if at least one drone flies into Polish territory, NATO missiles will land at the launch sites of these drones. And this will not be an act of aggression, but an act of retaliation.
This idea is also supported by Vladimir Fesenko, calling on NATO to take proactive action: NATO troops should not turn a blind eye to Russia's violation of NATO airspace, but should immediately shoot down Russian drones and missiles, including on the territory of Ukraine, in regions bordering NATO countries. And finally, Russia should be sternly warned that it is unacceptable to attack Ukrainian territories bordering NATO countries. NATO should demonstrate strength and determination to the Russian Federation.
Conclusion
The incident with Russian drones over Poland was a moment of truth that ruthlessly exposed a deep crisis within NATO – a crisis of political will, strategic vision and military adaptation. An analysis of the response from the Ukrainian perspective leaves no room for optimism. Instead of firmly drawing a red line, the Alliance allowed it to be crossed with impunity, hiding behind vague formulations about the incident and provocation.
The main conclusion, which is unanimously voiced by experts: Russia has successfully passed the test. It has seen that an attack on a NATO country does not lead to an immediate and devastating response. This is not just a tactical victory for the Kremlin, it is a strategic miscalculation by the West, which will inevitably lead to further aggression. As Kirillo Sazonov noted, what usually happens after unpunished aggression? Usually there is a continuation…
For Ukraine, this means that relying on the resolve of allies at a critical moment is a dangerous illusion. For Europe, it is a wake-up call, indicating that the umbrella of collective security may be leaky. Perhaps the best way to describe this situation is the final remark of Mykhailo Samusya, which sounds both as a reproach and as a recipe for salvation: If we were members of the Alliance now, the situation would look completely different. We would have taken the lead, NATO would already be on our toes. Everyone would be armed from Lisbon to Tallinn. We would have explained how to act, and no one in Brussels would have slept for the second day. The only question is whether Brussels will wake up before it is too late. After all, impunity, multiplied by indecision, creates a dangerous precedent. Ukraine's experience shows that appeasing an aggressor never works. It only whets his appetites: the drone incident over Poland could be just a prelude to a much larger war in Europe.
Late in the day on September 12, NATO appeared to be responding to Russian provocations. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte told a briefing that NATO would launch a mission called Eastern Sentinel to bolster the Alliance's eastern flank. It would involve forces from Denmark, France, Britain, Germany, and other allies.
No further details are available. Does this fact affect the above estimates? It seems that it does not...
