The Lawfare Podcast: What’s Behind Russian Incursions Into NATO

Date: September 23, 2025
Host: Anastasia Lopatyna
Guests: Minna Alander (Chatham House Europe Program) & Mykhailo Soldatenko (Harvard Law School)

Episode Overview

This episode explores Russia’s recent airspace incursions into Poland, Estonia, and other NATO states, the historical context of Russian gray zone aggression, and NATO's legal and practical responses. The conversation covers the September 9 mass drone incursion into Poland—prompting NATO's first use of force on its own territory—and the broader dynamics of hybrid warfare, threshold definitions for NATO’s Article 5, and the changing nature of U.S. engagement under President Trump.

Key Discussion Points

1. Russia’s Drone Incursion into Poland: The Incident and NATO Response

• Incident Summary: On September 9, over 20 Russian drones entered Polish airspace during a broader attack on Ukraine.
  • Most drones were decoys or ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), not armed munitions.
  • Some drones came directly from Belarus, raising suspicions of intentional provocation.
    (06:46–09:41)
• Initial Response:
  • NATO and Polish air forces, including Dutch F35s (recently rotated into Poland), rapidly engaged and shot down several drones (estimated 3–4).
  • Patriots and other air defense capabilities were on alert but not needed.
  • Some drones were left unengaged due to low threat and cost-effectiveness.
    (03:37–08:35)
  • Quote:
    “This was the first time...NATO scrambled both Polish and Dutch jets...and they responded together to shoot down the drones that were considered an immediate threat to Polish citizen security.” — Minna Alander (03:37)
  • Reason for Selectivity:
    “Air defense by design has to be a little bit selective… you don't engage them, you just let them crash in a field or something like that.” — Anastasia Lopatyna (06:46)

2. Intentionality and Russian Messaging

• Was the Incursion Intentional?
  • Multiple factors suggest it was:
    • Unusually large number of drones.
    • Some drones launched directly from Belarus.
    • Russian official statements contained ambiguous denials. (09:41–12:04)
• Plausible Deniability and Disagreement:
  • Some NATO analysts argue decoy drones could accidentally cross borders when used en masse, muddying intent.
  • Belarus publicly claimed to help intercept, furthering ambiguity.
• Legal Nuance:
  • Russian statements deny “intent to target Poland,” but don’t rule out a deliberate airspace violation.
  • “You can be a bit more explicit when you're denying this… it doesn't mean you didn't mean to cross the airspace.” — Mykhailo Soldatenko (12:04)

3. NATO’s Thresholds: Aggression, Use of Force, and Article 5

• Aggression vs. Armed Attack:
  • “Armed attack” (NATO Article 5) requires a higher threshold: scale, effect, casualties, clear hostile intent.
  • Most incursions remain below this, enabling Russia’s “gray zone” strategy.
  • “Article 4” invoked for consultations—far easier to trigger and broader in scope. (14:55–20:12)
  • Quote:
    “Article 5…is the gravest form of the use of force, not a mere frontier incident. There should be a sufficient scale and effect…” — Mykhailo Soldatenko (14:55)
• Gray Zone and Hybrid Warfare:
  • Russia exploits the deliberate ambiguity of thresholds to pressure NATO without triggering war.
  • Western reluctance to declare ‘war’ or escalate allows ongoing hybrid tactics.
  • Quote:
    “There's a reason why the Cold War was called the Cold War, because it was a war but without active breathing in Europe.” — Minna Alander (21:05)

4. Operation “Eastern Sentry” and NATO’s Regional Reinforcement

• Immediate European Solidarity:
  • Prompt reinforcement of Poland via NATO allies (French, German, Dutch, Danish air units).
  • Operation “Eastern Sentry” modeled after Baltic Sentry, improving monitoring and deterrence. (28:23–32:11)
  • Quote:
    “...on the 10th of September, we immediately had...very strong statements...Then, on 12 September, ‘Eastern Sentry’ is made official and, by 15 September, new French jets are deployed.” — Minna Alander (28:41)

5. Divergence in U.S. and European Responses

• Timid U.S. Leadership Under Trump:
  • Trump administration slow and reluctant to engage, in stark contrast to European decisiveness.
  • Trump hesitated even to take the Polish president’s call for over 12 hours; expressed skepticism about intentionality. (35:28–38:56)
  • Quote: “It took something like 12 hours or longer to even get Donald Trump convinced that he should take the phone call…” — Minna Alander (35:44)
• Implications:
  • Signals erosion of U.S. leadership in NATO, raising anxieties in Europe about American reliability.

6. Russian Airspace Violations in the Baltics—Normalization and Risks

• Routine Incursions:
  • Over 300 documented NATO scrambles in the Baltics in 2023 alone.
  • Regular violations via jets, now drones. (39:58–41:44)
  • Quote:
    “The NATO Baltic air policing stated in 2023 that there were more than 300 incidents where NATO Baltic air policing had to scramble to intercept Russian jets.” — Minna Alander (41:24)
• Signaling and Intimidation:
  • Russia often violates airspace to signal displeasure at policy changes (e.g., Finland signing a U.S. defense MOU).
  • Incidents range from simulated nuclear strike exercises to missile-carrying overflights for intimidation.

7. Escalation Dilemmas: Proportionality and Rules of Engagement

• Risk Calculations:
  • Shooting down a Russian jet is a much higher escalation than downing drones.
  • Importance of warning, intercept, and civilian air traffic safety.
  • Example: Turkey–Russia 2015 confrontation—unique dynamics not applicable to the Baltics. (45:41–51:38)
  • Quote:
    “The problem...is that another side may say, oh, that's an armed attack on our country. Because striking a jet, that likely reaches the threshold of an armed attack.” — Mykhailo Soldatenko (50:24)
• Frustration from Ukraine:
  • Ukrainian public perceives NATO’s response as weak, eroding faith in NATO’s “every inch” doctrine.

8. Russian Signaling, Information Warfare, and Policy Objectives

• Coercive Signaling:
  • Russia uses such incidents to test NATO responses, signal resolve against deeper NATO involvement in Ukraine, and divide allies.
  • Ties incidents to ongoing negotiation contexts, e.g., European desires for presence in Ukraine post-war. (56:26–59:37)
  • Quote:
    “...they might say, look, when we are saying that any aircraft in Ukrainian airspace would be a legitimate target, we are not joking. And that's, we are escalating here in your airspace to show that.” — Mykhailo Soldatenko (56:59)
• Information Dimension:
  • Russian and allied information campaigns augment physical incursions with narratives to heighten division and foster confusion, especially between Ukraine and Poland.
  • “I do think there is some virtue in just not letting Russia achieve its goals in the information domain and keeping calm and carrying on.” — Minna Alander (63:24)
• Memes and Discontent in Ukraine:
  • Widespread humor and criticism in Ukraine about perceived Polish/NATO weakness:
    • “...when drones are coming into Polish airspace, Poland is sleeping like a sleeping beauty. When Ukrainian trucks with grain go into Poland, Poland is awake...” — Mykhailo Soldatenko (60:09)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On NATO’s Selective Response to Drones:
  “It was for, for once, a pretty good reaction. It was pretty proportional as well, given that most of these drones turned out to be either ISR or decoy drones… So this was as far as the sort of NATO readiness that was in place goes.”
  — Minna Alander (03:37)

• On Gray Zone Warfare & Escalation:
  “The idea...if you consider every use of force as an armed attack...it’s supposed to be stronger deterrence of such hybrid actions.”
  — Mykhailo Soldatenko (17:39)

• On Information Operations & Division:
  “This can cause division. Right. And on the Polish side...there were informational campaigns that those Ukrainians, they want to involve us into this war and to escalate us into it and drag and the world. So there are so many consequences that can follow from this...”
  — Mykhailo Soldatenko (60:09)

Important Timestamps

• NATO shoots down Russian drones in Poland for first time: 03:37–07:14
• Debate on intent and plausible deniability: 09:41–14:55
• Legal definitions: ‘Aggression’ vs. ‘Armed Attack’: 14:55–20:12
• Hybrid Warfare and ‘Peacetime Warfare’ concept: 21:05–25:27
• Description and rationale of Operation “Eastern Sentry”: 28:23–32:11
• Divergence in U.S./Trump response: 35:28–38:56
• Baltic airspace violation numbers and intimidation tactics: 39:58–41:44
• Escalation dilemmas and Turkish precedent: 45:41–51:38
• Ukrainian frustration and memeification: 55:21–60:09
• Russian coercive signaling and threats: 56:26–59:37
• Information warfare and calls for strategic calm: 60:53–65:56

Conclusion

The episode offers a nuanced exploration of the realities underlying Russian “gray zone” aggression against NATO, the limitations and challenges posed by alliance rules, and the shifting role of U.S. leadership. Russia’s actions are seen as deliberate efforts to test, signal, and divide, while NATO allies walk a delicate line between proportional response and escalation risk, all amid complex information warfare campaigns.