Russian President Vladimir Putin’s objective in the recent drone incursion into Poland may have gone far beyond the civilian house struck in the eastern town of Wyryki or the temporary closure of airspace around Warsaw’s busiest airport. Instead, the broader target appears to have been NATO’s credibility and unity, with a symbolic strike seemingly aimed at undermining U.S. President Donald Trump’s influence and testing the alliance’s resilience.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk reported 19 separate airspace violations, a number far too high to dismiss as mere navigational glitches caused by GPS spoofing or signal jamming. The drones involved—Shahed-type models—are typically pre-programmed with coordinates before launch, making it unlikely that they drifted unintentionally into Polish territory. If Russia had truly wanted to avoid escalation, it could have programmed these drones to steer clear of Poland’s borders, something it has generally managed to do over the past three years since its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Moscow, however, has denied deliberately targeting Poland, with Russia’s defense ministry insisting on Wednesday that no Polish sites were struck and calling for dialogue over the incident. Yet the scale of the breach undermines such explanations, especially when viewed against a backdrop of repeated “gray zone” tactics employed by Russia in recent years—actions that blur the lines of aggression while providing the Kremlin plausible deniability. These tactics often involve pushing the limits of confrontation, only to later claim the events were accidents or the fault of others.
The aftermath on Wednesday morning highlighted the seriousness of the episode: Poland was forced to close its airspace, NATO jets were scrambled in an emergency response, and debris damaged civilian property. For Russia, the intent may have been twofold: to destabilize one of NATO’s most hawkish members in Eastern Europe and, at the same time, to gauge how far it can push without provoking a direct military clash with the alliance. In effect, the incident was less about the immediate destruction caused by the drones and more about probing NATO’s thresholds—sowing doubt, creating disorder, and sending a calculated message about Moscow’s willingness to test the boundaries of confrontation.
The pressing question Putin has now thrust upon the alliance is: how will NATO respond?
The situation has brought NATO to a defining crossroads, forcing the alliance to confront questions it has never had to answer in its history. For decades, Europe has anchored its security on the certainty of the U.S. defense umbrella—a guarantee that Washington would come to the aid of any member state under attack. Yet that foundation has been weakened in recent years, particularly under Donald Trump, who has repeatedly cast doubt on America’s unconditional commitment to its allies.
On one hand, Trump’s pressure has achieved a long-standing U.S. objective: an increase in European defense spending and a stronger push for member states to share more of the military burden. But on the other hand, his skepticism toward automatic U.S. involvement in NATO operations has chipped away at the alliance’s most fundamental principle—that an attack on one member is an attack on all, and that such an act would trigger an unequivocal American military response.
This ambiguity has opened up a dangerous vulnerability, one that Moscow seems eager to exploit. By sending more than a dozen drones into Polish airspace, Vladimir Putin not only tested NATO’s defenses but also probed the cracks in its political unity. The “conditional” nature of U.S. support—whether real or perceived—creates a gray area of uncertainty, and it was precisely through that uncertainty that Russia chose to maneuver. The message was clear: if NATO’s ironclad promises now appear negotiable, even slightly, then Russia sees room to escalate without immediate fear of a unified American retaliation. In essence, the drones were not just weapons—they were a political test. They challenged NATO to reaffirm its credibility at a time when its most powerful member’s commitment has been cast into doubt, making this episode not only a military provocation but also a direct assault on the psychological bedrock of transatlantic security.
Delicate balance
The challenge facing European NATO members is as much political as it is military: they must calibrate a response that inflicts enough pain on Vladimir Putin to deter him from making drone incursions into Poland a recurring event, yet not act with such force that it provokes Moscow into even greater escalation. Striking this balance is essential because the Kremlin thrives on perpetuating its false narrative that its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine was, in fact, a defensive struggle against NATO as a whole.
An even greater complication lies in Washington’s role, particularly under Donald Trump. For European allies, the pressing question is how to persuade Trump to endorse a strong, unified retaliation—one that signals NATO’s credibility—without jeopardizing the “good relationship” he continues to seek with Putin, despite mounting frustration among U.S. officials. The contrast with the Biden era is striking. When a Russian missile was initially suspected of killing two civilians in Poland in November 2022, President Joe Biden—while overseas in Indonesia—immediately convened an emergency G7 meeting to coordinate a collective response. Even when it was later determined the strike was caused by a Ukrainian missile, Biden’s swift action underscored Washington’s instinct to defend the alliance.
Trump’s behavior stands in stark contrast. Thus far, he has failed to offer the kind of unequivocal security guarantees that have defined NATO for decades. His response to Russia’s drone incursions into Polish airspace was limited to a short Truth Social post—“What’s going on with Russia violating Poland’s airspace with drones?” Here we go!”—a statement that read less like a declaration of resolve and more like a commentary on chaos. Though Trump spoke vaguely about imposing new sanctions on Moscow and claimed he would soon meet with Putin and host European leaders in Washington, none of these commitments have materialized. What his allies may celebrate as “disruption” or “flexibility,” the Kremlin interprets as weakness and indecision.
Meanwhile, Russia has pressed ahead with escalating attacks. In the span of just a few days, its drones and missiles struck a Ukrainian government building in Kyiv, killed 25 people in a single attack on a postal van distributing pensions in Donetsk, and launched the largest drone incursion into NATO airspace in history—an episode so serious that NATO jets were scrambled and directly engaged Russian drones, also a first. Trump’s own envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, described the weekend strikes on Kyiv as an “escalation.” Whether he or Trump will apply the same description to this unprecedented breach of NATO’s airspace remains to be seen.
Yet for all of Moscow’s aggression, Russia is not the same power it was in early 2022. Its battlefield losses have been staggering, with tens of thousands of troops lost, leaving its military weaker than before. However, two key factors are giving Putin the confidence to push harder. First, the recent Tianjin summit showcased growing solidarity with China’s Xi Jinping and India’s Narendra Modi. Those images of camaraderie, coupled with economic ties, provide Moscow a sense of geopolitical backing that bolsters Putin’s resolve. Second, the war itself has transformed in Putin’s eyes. What began as an ill-conceived blitz to topple Ukraine quickly has become, for him, an existential struggle—not just for control of territory, but for the survival of his worldview, his regime, and perhaps even his own grip on power.
This dual reality—Russia’s declining military strength but Putin’s deepening political and personal commitment—poses a profound test for NATO. The West has historically swung between overestimating Russia’s capabilities and underestimating Putin’s determination. The challenge now is whether NATO and its allies can muster the endurance, cohesion, and strategic clarity to match Putin’s willingness to escalate. The answer will determine not only the trajectory of the war in Ukraine but also the credibility of the transatlantic alliance itself in the face of one of the gravest challenges in its history.