Almost a week ago, 19 Russian drones<\/strong> breached the airspace of Poland, a NATO member country. This event was quickly followed by another unsettling report from Romania, which also experienced an intrusion of an unmanned aerial device. These maneuvers not only highlight escalating tensions between Moscow and the West<\/strong> but raise critical questions: Are these actions mere provocations, or do they signal genuine threats? To shed light on these developments, we consulted General J\u00e9r\u00f4me Pellistrandi<\/strong>, editor-in-chief of the National Defense Review.<\/p>\n What do we know about the Russian drones intercepted in Poland and Romania?<\/p>\n<p>These are military drones, specifically intermediate-sized drones of the \u00a0Chahed type\u00a0. Notably, they were launched without explosive payloads. In Romania, it is believed the drone was used for intelligence gathering, flying over the important \u00a0Danube Delta\u00a0 which is critical to \u00a0Ukrainian ports\u00a0 facilitating grain exports. In Poland, the sheer number of intercepted drones suggests a systematic approach by Russia, designed to undermine NATO's credibility despite Moscow's denials.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"txt-question\">What objectives do these incursions serve?<\/p>\n\n<p>The primary goal is \u00a0intelligence acquisition\u00a0, but they also allow Russia to evaluate NATO's defensive responses while cloaking their actions as miscalculations or accidental detours influenced by \u00a0Ukrainian defense systems\u00a0. This not only tests NATO\u2019s detection and reaction capabilities but also sends a clear message to Eastern European nations: \"We can strike you whenever we choose.\" Essentially, the focus shifts to testing the political resolve of NATO rather than just the military aspect.<\/p>\n\n<div class=\"center-align\" rel=\"js-article-inline-img\" data-protec-aida=\"image\">\n <figure class=\"std-img\" data-src=\"https:\/\/images.midilibre.fr\/api\/v1\/images\/view\/68c8206599239ffeac00f367\/original\/image.png?v=3\">\n <img class=\"std-img__img responsive-img\" src=\"https:\/\/images.midilibre.fr\/api\/v1\/images\/view\/68c8206599239ffeac00f367\/full\/image.png?v=3\" alt=\"General J\u00e9r\u00f4me Pellistrandi in Normandy on June 13, 2025.\"\/>\n <figcaption class=\"article-full__media-infos\">\n <span class=\"article-full__media-legend\">General J\u00e9r\u00f4me Pellistrandi in Normandy on June 13, 2025.<\/span>\n <span class=\"article-full__media-author\">Maxppp<\/span>\n <\/figcaption>\n <\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n<p class=\"txt-question\">Could a Russian drone incursion in NATO airspace be considered an \"armed attack\" under Article 5?<\/p>\n\n<p>This raises a significant point of contention. Moscow exploits the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes an armed attack, effectively testing NATO's resolve to defend its members. Although some drones have been intercepted, others have flown unharmed. The official stance is that a drone must be shot down within NATO airspace to warrant a \u00a0self-defense\u00a0 response. However, should one of these drones be downed while above Russian territory, Moscow would likely claim an attack, further complicating the situation. This ambiguity is a tactic deliberately maintained by Moscow to keep NATO on its toes.<\/p>\n\n<div class=\"center-align\" rel=\"js-article-inline-img\" data-protec-aida=\"image\">\n <figure class=\"std-img\" data-src=\"https:\/\/images.midilibre.fr\/api\/v1\/images\/view\/68c827e069bdc8d6d60e6d67\/original\/image.jpg?v=1\">\n <img class=\"std-img__img responsive-img\" src=\"https:\/\/images.midilibre.fr\/api\/v1\/images\/view\/68c827e069bdc8d6d60e6d67\/full\/image.jpg?v=1\" alt=\"Polish soldiers recovering a Russian drone on September 10 in Poland.\"\/>\n <figcaption class=\"article-full__media-infos\">\n <span class=\"article-full__media-legend\">Polish soldiers recovering a Russian drone on September 10 in Poland.<\/span>\n <span class=\"article-full__media-author\">PAP - Wojtek Jargilo<\/span>\n <\/figcaption>\n <\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n<p class=\"txt-question\">Are these incursions indicative of a hybrid war extending beyond Ukraine, or are they political signals aimed at NATO?<\/p>\n\n<p>The reality of hybrid warfare is not new; it has already permeated various facets, from disrupting electoral processes in different countries to \u00a0disinformation\u00a0 campaigns and sabotage of installations across Europe. The ongoing manipulation of social media and information flows is a testament to this war's nature. However, the recent military means employed against NATO members signify an alarming escalation. We seem to be entering another phase, where military acts are now included in the hybrid warfare toolkit.<\/p>\n\n<h2 class=\"txt-int\">The Real Problem: Lack of Response from Washington<\/h2>\n\n<p class=\"txt-question\">Should we view these maneuvers as mere provocations or genuine threats?<\/p>\n\n<p>These actions embody both provocations and threats. The provocations test NATO's capabilities, while the underlying intent is to instill fear among Europeans. Although European nations have demonstrated swift and effective responses, the \u00a0real issue\u00a0 remains the apparent lack of decisive action from \u00a0Washington\u00a0. By showcasing maneuvers with a nuclear dimension during exercises like \u00a0Zapad-2025\u00a0, Moscow aims to exploit fear and division, undermining European \u00a0cohesion\u00a0.<\/p>\n\n<div class=\"center-align\" rel=\"js-article-inline-img\" data-protec-aida=\"image\">\n <figure class=\"std-img\" data-src=\"https:\/\/images.midilibre.fr\/api\/v1\/images\/view\/68c827f3e520abba44011f40\/original\/image.jpg?v=1\">\n <img class=\"std-img__img responsive-img\" src=\"https:\/\/images.midilibre.fr\/api\/v1\/images\/view\/68c827f3e520abba44011f40\/full\/image.jpg?v=1\" alt=\"The army in intervention after the 19 violations of Polish airspace.\"\/>\n <figcaption class=\"article-full__media-infos\">\n <span class=\"article-full__media-legend\">The army in intervention after the 19 violations of Polish airspace.<\/span>\n <span class=\"article-full__media-author\">EPA\/PAP - Wojtek Jargilo<\/span>\n <\/figcaption>\n <\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n<p class=\"txt-question\">Is Article 5 of NATO more a deterrent tool than a guarantee of automatic security today?<\/p>\n\n<p>Since NATO's inception, Article 5 has only been invoked once, following the September 11 attacks. Currently, the definition of armed aggression is tested until its limits\u2014as drones lacking \u00a0explosive\u00a0 payloads and ambiguity surrounding their operational intent complicate matters. However, should a similar provocation result in civilian casualties, it could trigger Article 5, which emphasizes \u00a0solidarity\u00a0 among members rather than immediate military action. We stand on a precarious threshold where NATO, particularly without strong U.S. backing, may feel isolated in the face of ongoing Russian threats.<\/p><\/code><\/pre>\n