”Sweden gives its full support to Poland, as a NATO ally and EU member. The Russian violations are unacceptable and constitute a threat to European security. This is the time to stand in full solidarity with Poland.”
— Swedish Defense Minister Pål Jonson

”France condemns with the utmost firmness the unacceptable incursion of Russian drones into Polish airspace last night, as part of a new attack by Russia in its war of aggression against Ukraine.”
— French Ministry of Foreign Affairs official statement

Alliance Solidarity Meets Strategic Ambiguity

Poland’s invocation of NATO Article 4 following the reported September 10, 2025 incursion of 19 Russian drones into its airspace seems to have been met with unanimous expressions of solidarity from alliance members, though the incident has exposed underlying tensions about NATO’s readiness to confront evolving threats. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed there had been a ”formal request to activate Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty” decided jointly with President Karol Nawrocki.

According to Poland’s Armed Forces Operational Command: ”an unprecedented violation of Polish airspace by drone-type objects took place. This is an act of aggression that posed a real threat to the safety of our citizens.” A number of sources report that the response marked the first time NATO forces engaged potential threats in allied airspace since the Ukraine conflict began, with Polish F-16s, Dutch F-35s, Italian AWACS, and Belgian tankers intercepting and downing multiple Russian drones.

Strategic Objectives Behind Russian Incursions

Intelligence Gathering and Defense Testing
Multiple defense analysts believe the incursion served several strategic objectives beyond mere provocation. According to reports circulated by Kyiv Independent at least five drones specifically targeted Rzeszów Airport, a critical logistics hub through which over 80 percent of Western military hardware flows to Ukraine. The airport serves as both a main stopover point for foreign leadership visiting Kyiv and a strategic chokepoint for NATO weapons deliveries.

Two analysts quoted by BBC Verify (Justin Bronk of RUSI and Justin Crump of Sibylline) noted that ”the scale of the incursion suggests it was almost certainly a deliberate act on Russia’s part.”

Weapons Depot Reconnaissance?
The timing coincided with reports of blocked U.S. weapons shipments worth billions of dollars stranded in Polish warehouses, including Patriot PAC-3 missiles, Stinger systems, and thousands of artillery shells. Russian intelligence l y sought to map these storage facilities and test response capabilities around critical infrastructure.ikel

Psychological Operations and Alliance Stress-Testing?
Polish President Karol Nawrocki explicitly characterized the incident as ”merely an attempt to assess our capabilities and responses” and evaluate ”operational mechanisms within NATO.” Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski declared that both Poland and NATO believe the breach was deliberate: ”The evaluation from Polish and NATO air forces is that these drones did not stray off course; they were targeted intentionally.”

Expected Measures and Countermeasures

NATO Defensive Enhancements
According to Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz’s parliamentary testimony, the Netherlands would contribute air defense systems, artillery, and 300 troops, while the Czech Republic would send helicopters and 100 soldiers. He mentioned that French and British forces could provide aircraft to secure NATO’s eastern borders.

France’s official foreign ministry statement expressed ”full solidarity conforming to the spirit of the Nancy Treaty signed last May,” whileaccording to the BBC  Germany announced plans to permanently station a brigade in Lithuania and expand air policing operations over Poland.

Border Security Escalation
Poland is deploying 40,000 soldiers to its eastern border, quadrupling the previous deployment in response to the Belarus-hosted Zapad-2025 military exercises involving 13,000 Russian and Belarusian personnel near the Polish border.

Russian Countermeasures
Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued an official statement dismissing European accusations: ”The Defence Ministry has unequivocally reaffirmed that the strike did not include any targets in the territory of the Republic of Poland.” However, Russian state television’s mocking portrayal of NATO’s response as reported by Newsweek indicates Moscow views the operation as successful intelligence gathering.

Historical Precedents: Article 4 vs. Article 5

Article 4 has been invoked eight times since NATO’s founding (see Wikipedia):

  • Turkey (5 times): Iraq War concerns (2003), Syrian jet downing (2012), Syrian shelling (2012), ISIS terrorism (2015), Syrian airstrikes on Turkish troops (2020)
  • Poland: Russian aggression following Crimea annexation (2014)
  • Eight Eastern members: Russia’s full-scale Ukraine invasion (2022)
  • Poland: Current drone incursion (2025)

By contrast, Article 5—NATO’s collective defense clause—has been invoked only once: following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Key Differences
According to Article 4, alliance members ”consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened.” Article 4 consultations may lead to joint decisions but don’t automatically mandate military action, whereas Article 5 commits members to assist the attacked party ”including the use of armed force.”

Degradation Risks to NATO Deterrence

The measured response to Poland’s Article 4 invocation could arguably raise concerns about deterrence credibility. Devil’s advocate perspective: Russia successfully tested NATO’s response mechanisms without triggering Article 5, gathering valuable intelligence about alliance reaction times and capabilities while exposing critical vulnerabilities in NATO’s cost-effectiveness equation.

Trump’s ambiguous social media response—”What’s with Russia violating Poland’s airspace with drones? Here we go!”—combined with his past questioning of NATO commitments may embolden Putin to probe further.

Counterargument: NATO’s swift operational response—intercepting drones within hours and activating multiple defense systems—demonstrated capability if not full resolve. Prime Minister Tusk noted this marked ”the first time in history that Russian drones had been shot down on NATO territory, which changes the political situation.”

Treaty Obligations: Parsing the Fine Print

Article 4 Obligations
The treaty text simply states parties will ”consult together” when threatened—a deliberately vague formulation allowing flexible responses. Poland cannot compel specific actions; it can only request discussions. NATO decisions require consensus, meaning any member can effectively veto proposed responses.

Article 5 Obligations
Even Article 5’s language is carefully hedged as analysed in a note from the European Parliament: members will assist by taking ”such action as it deems necessary.” This phrasing, insisted upon by the U.S. Senate in 1949, preserves sovereign decision-making about response levels.

Ongoing Consultations and Institutional Responses

NATO’s North Atlantic Council convened immediately, with Secretary General Mark Rutte ordering a ”full assessment of the incident.” NATO is preparing both political and military responses, including defensive deployments and potential policy changes regarding drone threats.

The UN Security Council scheduled an emergency session at Poland’s request, though Russia’s veto power limits potential outcomes. According to Polish Foreign Ministry announcements: ”Following Poland’s request, a UN Security Council emergency meeting will be convened regarding the violation of Polish airspace by Russia.”

Multi-Institutional Complexity

The overlapping responses highlight institutional tensions. The UK government issued an official statement in the OSCE: ”Any violation of NATO airspace is not only a breach of international law but also a dangerous provocation, and a serious escalation that risks wider conflict.”

The EU’s High Representative Kaja Kallas stated: ”Last night in Poland we saw the most serious European airspace violation by Russia since the war began, and indications suggest it was intentional, not accidental.”

The Lublin Triangle (Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania) issued a joint statement characterizing ”the recent Russian drone incursion into Poland as a deliberate and coordinated strike, marking an unprecedented provocation and escalation of tension.”

Strategic Implications

Poland’s Article 4 invocation represents a calculated risk—elevating the incident internationally while stopping short of Article 5’s escalatory potential. For Russia, the operation achieved tactical success—testing NATO responses, gathering intelligence on critical infrastructure, and demonstrating reach—without triggering collective defense.

Polish experts noted in Kyiv Independent that Warsaw had ”slept through” three years of drone warfare development, lacking the cheap, efficient counter-drone systems Ukraine had developed. The proliferation of relatively cheap drone technology fundamentally challenges NATO’s conventional superiority paradigm.

Conclusion

Poland’s Article 4 invocation has generated strong rhetorical support. While the alliance passed the immediate operational test —successfully intercepting Russian drones—the strategic implications are under discussion.

The key question isn’t whether NATO will honor its commitments, but whether adversaries believe it will. Every sub-Article 5 provocation that generates divided responses obviously erodes that crucial perception. European nations are accelerating independent defense capabilities through frameworks like the Weimar Triangle and EU defense initiatives.

Ultimately, NATO arguably must develop new doctrines for persistent, low-level provocations that exploit traditional thresholds. The alliance’s Cold War framework, built around massive conventional attack scenarios, struggles with drone swarms and hybrid tactics.

Lars-Erik Lundin

[this article has used AI-tools to generate verifiable sources. Questions,  arguments and conclusions are those of the author]

Published by Consilio International