📩 NATO should be bolder on Russia

DEAR READER, 

Last week, Central and Eastern Europe was hit by devastating floods, resulting in casualties in Poland, Romania and Austria. This marks the second consecutive year of severe flooding in the region – just last year, Slovenia was struck by torrential rains. These recurring disasters are alarming; not only do they impact our climate security, but they also remind us of the growing effects of climate change on our lives. If you wish to help out those affected, you can head over to the fundraiser organized by Polska Akcja Humanitarna by following this link.

However, there is another, greater, security threat in the region which relates to Russia’s war in Ukraine: with increased bombings of Ukrainian cities, Russian drones are posing a real danger to NATO countries. Since the beginning of the war there have been numerous instances of Russian drones violating the airspace of Romania and Latvia, with a drone crashing just recently in the latter. There have been missile crossings into Polish territory, with jets being scrambled.

Where should NATO draw the line in responding to these provocations? In 2015, Turkey, a NATO member, shot down a Russian jet violating its airspace – was this an overreach, or a necessary act of self-defense? How decisive should NATO be in addressing the missile threat from Russia? We asked Wojciech Michnik, a contributing editor here at New Eastern Europe, who shares his insight on defending NATO territory from these violations.

In other news, we have just published our latest issue, titled: “Will democracy survive?” As democracy activist Samuel Chu has said, democracy is about more than just casting votes – it requires the drive to create change and the agency to influence it. With 2024 being a decisive year for democracy, we asked our authors to explore whether it can withstand current challenges. Learn more below.

Lastly, we will be attending the Warsaw Security Forum next week, a key event featuring top security experts and policy makers from the region, so in next week’s brief we will provide you with some reflections on the current state of security in Poland and its neighbouring region. Stay tuned!

Enjoy reading this week’s “brief”!

It is often said that the Article 5 of the Washington Treaty is a cornerstone of NATO as it commits its members to defend one another in the event of an attack. What is often omitted in the public discourse, is the question of self-help and preparedness of each NATO member state. This was clearly identified in Article 3 of the Treaty which stated that in order to more effectively achieve the objectives of the Treaty, “the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack”. The recent discussion sparked by Poland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs seems to have brought this issue back.

In an interview for the Financial Times on September 3rd, Poland’s FM Radosław Sikorski emphasized that defending national airspace remains a top priority, even in the face of NATO’s objections. He highlighted the necessity of intercepting and neutralizing any airborne threats approaching Poland, even before they enter Polish airspace: “Membership in NATO does not trump each country’s responsibility for the protection of its own airspace – it’s our own constitutional duty,” Sikorski said alluding to NATO’s official policy of “not participating in this [Russian-Ukrainian] conflict … and not being directly involved” in destroying Russian aircraft.

This issue was brought to a public discussion shortly after another Russian attack on Lviv, in western Ukraine, roughly 70 km from the Polish border. Sikorski reminded that Poland holds a unique position within the EU and NATO as the only country bordering both Russia and Ukraine, underling that the Polish position is clear: “the safety of our citizens must not be compromised by Russian weaponry. Yet, we are facing the incursion of Russian missiles and drones into our airspace.” Earlier this month Russian drones violated Romania airspace, while another crashed in Latvia causing concern in these NATO frontline states.

These incidents are far from isolated. For years, Russia has repeatedly violated the airspace and territorial integrity of NATO members. Sweden, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania and Turkey are just a few examples of this. Whether these incursions were deliberate attempts to test NATO reaction time or the result of Russia's arrogance is ultimately irrelevant. In what was perhaps the most decisive response to such actions, Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet in 2015. After repeated warnings over Russian airplanes violating Turkish airspace, Turkey shot down the jet 17 seconds after it flew over Turkish territory. This might have suggested that Turkish authorities were waiting for a Russian plane to come close enough to Turkish airspace with the aim of delivering a rather strong message, that such a behaviour would not be tolerated. And even though that action is different from shooting down Russian missiles and drones over Ukrainian territory, the current intended message to Russia is similar: there are limits to the aggressive behaviour.

Arguably since Russia's 2014 attack on Ukraine, NATO and its member states have tried to convey the message (to Russia) that every inch of NATO territory will be defended against attacks from any potential adversary. This message, although largely consistent, has not always been well articulated. Especially after the 2022 full-scale invasion, the need for a more robust deterrence emerged. Russia with its own strategic signalling and provocations put pressure on NATO, especially its frontline members. Thus, Poland’s recent stance should not only be understood but also welcomed within NATO. Apparently, the Polish approach is gaining support from powerful members of the Alliance, as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently said that Poland has a right to shoot down Russian missiles over Ukraine before they enter its airspace.

Finally, there is a fine line between provocations, risk taking and strategic signalling to ensure that deterrence works. So far NATO has been quite cautious not to provoke Russia. Some would argue that the Alliance was even too soft on sending messages about protecting its territory and its members. After all, the Alliance is only as secure as its most vulnerable members. In the context of Russia's aggressive policies, the frontline states are the most prone to hybrid or conventional attacks.