As Russian drones test Europe’s skies and Poland’s patience, NATO allies wrestle with when to fire back

No ally has been as outspoken as Poland. Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski told Russia’s UN delegation that Warsaw will not hesitate to shoot down any intruder, deliberate or not.

“If another missile or aircraft enters our space … and gets shot down and the wreckage falls on NATO territory, please don’t come here to whine about it,” Sikorski warned last week.

Poland activated its defences during a major Russian attack on Ukraine over the weekend, showing its readiness to act unilaterally if needed.

NATO’s cautious playbook

Yet the alliance itself is more measured. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said allies must act 'decisively and quickly,' but only after assessing whether a threat truly warrants force.

That decision ultimately lies with NATO’s supreme commander in Europe, U.S. Gen Alexus Grynkewich, who manages more than 30 air bases on alert. His choices hinge on intelligence: Is the aircraft hostile? What weapons does it carry? Could shooting it down risk civilian lives or spark escalation?

Retired French Navy pilot Pierre-Henri Chuet explained why the stakes are so high. “Opening fire is really, really, really, really the last resort,” he told AP, stressing the immense pressure pilots face when split-second calls could trigger international fallout.

The price of miscalculation

History offers sobering lessons. In 2015, NATO ally Turkey nearly stumbled into open war after downing a Russian bomber near Syria. In 1983, the Soviet Union shot down a Korean Airlines passenger jet, killing 269 people and igniting global outrage.

Today, Russia’s ambassador in Paris has already warned that downing a Russian aircraft would 'trigger a war.' That risk of miscalculation looms over every scramble of NATO fighters.

Testing NATO’s resolve

Analysts cited by Associated Press argue that Russia’s drone games are less about firepower than psychology. By sending cheap drones or warplanes into European skies, Moscow forces NATO to spend millions intercepting them, while also probing alliance reaction times and tactics.

“If NATO intercepts, Russia gains intelligence. If NATO ignores them, it risks normalising violations,” said Rafael Loss of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Either way, Putin leaves Europe with bad options.”

Washington’s reticence, Europe’s burden

Another complication: U.S. leadership looks hesitant. Since President Donald Trump’s August summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, serious airspace violations have spiked. Trump has downplayed incidents, suggesting Poland’s drone scare 'could have been a mistake,' and has framed U.S. support as simply supplying weapons “for NATO to do what they want with them.”

So far, Washington has not committed new equipment to the air defence surge, leaving Europeans to shoulder the costs. That absence has not gone unnoticed in Moscow.

A tightrope for NATO

NATO now finds itself walking a tightrope: act too softly and risk emboldening Russia, or act too hard and risk triggering a conflict with a nuclear adversary. The coming weeks, and the decisions taken in Copenhagen, will reveal how the alliance intends to balance deterrence with restraint in one of its most dangerous tests in years.