Russia Tests NATO With Poland Drone Breach
from Europe Program and National Security and Defense Program
from Europe Program and National Security and Defense Program

Russia Tests NATO With Poland Drone Breach

Police and army inspect damage to a house destroyed by debris from a shot down Russian drone in the village of Wyryki-Wola, eastern Poland, September 10, 2025.
Police and army inspect damage to a house destroyed by debris from a shot down Russian drone in the village of Wyryki-Wola, eastern Poland, September 10, 2025. Wojtek Radwanski/AFP/Getty Images

Russia’s drone incursion into Poland marks a potential dangerous escalation in the Ukraine war that could challenge NATO’s unity and defenses.

September 10, 2025 4:56 pm (EST)

Police and army inspect damage to a house destroyed by debris from a shot down Russian drone in the village of Wyryki-Wola, eastern Poland, September 10, 2025.
Police and army inspect damage to a house destroyed by debris from a shot down Russian drone in the village of Wyryki-Wola, eastern Poland, September 10, 2025. Wojtek Radwanski/AFP/Getty Images
Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

Liana Fix is a senior fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Erin Dumbacher is CFR's Stanton nuclear security senior fellow. 

More From Our Experts

More than a dozen Russian drones entered Polish territory overnight, with several intercepted and shot down by NATO forces. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said that the alliance scrambled Polish F-16 and Dutch F-35 fighter jets in response. It also relied on German Patriot air defense systems and Italian surveillance aircraft. 

More on:

Russia

Poland

NATO

The War in Ukraine

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called the incident “a large-scale provocation” and some Western officials viewed it as a potential escalation of the war in Ukraine. Tusk invoked NATO Article 4, leading to a consultation with the alliance. He told Poland’s parliament that it was “the closest we have been to open conflict since World War Two,” though he added that there was “no reason to believe we’re on the brink of war.”

The Kremlin accused the European Union (EU) and NATO of regularly making unfounded allegations against Russia, but did not deny Russian involvement in the attack. Russia’s ally Belarus indicated that its air defenses also shot down Russian drones that had entered its airspace. Major General Pavel Muraveiko, chief of the general staff of the Armed Forces of Belarus, suggested the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, had “lost their track as a result of the impact of the parties’ electronic warfare assets.”

This is the first time NATO is known to have fired shots in response to Russia’s war in Ukraine. To better understand the situation, Russia’s use of drones, and how NATO could respond, CFR turned to Senior Fellows Liana Fix and Erin Dumbacher. 

More From Our Experts

This is not the first time Russian drones have entered NATO airspace. What is different about this incident and what could be the fallout? 

The amount of drones, as well as the deep incursion into Polish territory, make this a much more serious and likely deliberate provocation from the Russian side. It comes just days before the Russian-Belarusian joint strategic military exercise Zapad, which has already raised concerns in Poland due to the potential for escalatory actions at the Polish-Belarusian border. 

More on:

Russia

Poland

NATO

The War in Ukraine

The incident also comes at a delicate time in Ukraine negotiations. Moscow views the Alaska summit as a victory, while at the same time the United States appears reluctant to increase pressure on Russia to negotiate directly with Ukraine and drop some of its maximalist demands. All of this gives reason to believe that this encroachment is part of a Russian strategy to test the NATO alliance and especially the U.S. commitment to Article 5. 

If this were considered a test of NATO’s defenses, how did it hold up? 

The collaboration of NATO members—from Dutch, German, Italian, and Polish assets, at least—was a strong showing. That’s what common defense means in practice. 

Tusk said they did not shoot down all of the UAVs, perhaps prioritizing those that were not decoys and had weapons payloads. That could be a good sign and a thoughtful use of air defense resources. But countering small, unmanned vehicles is a difficult mission for all NATO militaries, including the United States, and scrambling fighter jets is a costly approach to countering low-cost drones. The Ukrainians have relevant experience that NATO should continue to learn from.

However, if NATO were faced with the amount of drones that Ukraine destroyed that same night—according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, more than 380 of various types—it would be in a much more difficult position.

The Russian defense ministry has claimed its drones do not have the range to enter Polish territory. Belarus has suggested the drones were lost. Do either of these claims pass muster?

According to NATO’s Rutte, the alliance is still assessing the situation to see whether this was a deliberate or incidental incursion. The number of drones, flight paths, and photo evidence of Shahed drones, which were designed in Iran and used by Russia, in Polish farm fields suggest that there is good reason to be skeptical of Belarus and Russia’s claims. 

In any case, Russia bears the responsibility for its war against Ukraine and therefore for any incursion into NATO territory. The recklessness of the drone incursion coincides with a dramatic increase in Russian attacks on Ukraine, including targets that were previously off-limits as well as European targets in Kyiv. It could suggest that Moscow feels it has little to fear from the United States and Europe after the Alaska summit. 

Meanwhile, Russia has sent strong signals to European capitals to give up any planning for European troops in Ukraine, suggesting in recent weeks that this would be a red line. The drone incident, if confirmed as deliberate, would fit this pattern. 

What are the lessons that NATO should learn from this incident and are there any diplomatic or military actions they could consider in the aftermath? 

NATO allies should invest in expanded sensor networks on the Polish and Baltic borders before making sure they have the capabilities on hand to stop any Russian encroachment of their airspace. This means deploying a variety of air defense strategies.

NATO needs systems at the border with a low cost-per-shot, especially given that it probably cost the Russians about $35,000 to produce each drone. It does not make sense for NATO to respond with missiles that could cost $1 million or more per shot or fighter jets that could cost $50,000 per flight hour. This means doubling down on research, development, and fielding of passive and active ways to defeat drones like jamming or directed energy. The U.S. military—including the Army and the Defense Innovation Unit—are already working hard to develop some of these capabilities. Building and deploying them at scale is the next step.

Ukrainians have been battling drones on the front lines for years and the United States and other NATO militaries need to, at minimum, continue to learn from and build upon the solutions Ukrainians have already found.

In addition, if it is proven that this was a deliberate Russian incursion, NATO leaders have to respond diplomatically and militarily in a way that deters Russia from a similar incursion. Consultations under Article 4 are an important first step. A strong U.S. condemnation is particularly important, as Russian President Vladimir Putin is watching to see if the U.S. commitment to NATO’s defense still stands. 

NATO leaders could consider a wide variety of military responses. They could pursue responses with little escalatory potential, such as increasing air patrolling and strengthening air defense on the Eastern flank. There is also the option of a more robust response, such as supporting a Ukrainian attack on Russian drone production sites. Diplomatically, a joint response can include the ratcheting up of sanctions on Moscow that are already being discussed in Washington and Brussels.

How could this affect the increase in European military spending and the growing discussion of non-nuclear states acquiring nuclear weapons? 

The number of drones that crossed into Polish territory suggest the Russians were probing, trying to watch and see how NATO reacts. This might mean deterrence for NATO’s eastern border is not as robust as it once was. Europeans launched the Sky Shield Initiative to improve its air defense systems at the beginning of the war. This incident will increase the sense of urgency in European capitals to invest additional military spending in air defense capabilities for the Eastern flank. 

Ultimately, NATO might rely more on its nuclear weapons for deterrence if its non-nuclear capabilities are lacking. While it is unlikely to lead to a sudden Polish move to acquire nuclear weapons, it increases the threat perception and feeling of vulnerability among the Polish public. Let’s hope focused work to defend the NATO border with advanced, non-nuclear technologies can expand.

This work represents the views and opinions solely of the authors. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

United States

CFR President Michael Froman analyzes the Trump administrations new National Security Strategy.

Venezuela

The opposition and the Maduro regime will face a new variable at the negotiating table: the United States and its heavy military presence off Venezuela’s coast. As a direct party, the Trump administration now has an opportunity to learn the lessons of the past to bring a potential conflict to a close. 

Taiwan

Assumptions about how a potential conflict between the United States and China over Taiwan would unfold should urgently be revisited. Such a war, far from being insulated, would likely draw in additional powers, expand geographically, and escalate vertically.