Russia has launched a new and dangerous campaign of provocation against NATO. Over the past six weeks, it has sent drones over Poland and Romania and flown fighter jets into Estonia. Russia was also very likely behind drone flights that disrupted activity at airports in Denmark, Belgium and Germany. President Vladimir Putin has unconvincingly denied responsibility for all these acts and in fact seems happy for the world to believe Russia is behind them.
His goals are to scare, exhaust and divide Europeans, causing them to question their support for Ukraine and undermine its efforts to repel Russia’s invasion. Ultimately, he also wants to make the United States look weak and fragment the NATO alliance. Responding wisely to him is vital for Washington and Europe. It is not easy. Striking back hard risks escalating conflict, while doing nothing conveys a weakness that invites future aggression.
NATO allies are aware that Russia is testing them and so far have done a good job of responding. They have denounced the incursions, forthrightly blamed Russia for them and met this month in Copenhagen in a show of unity. “We are not at war,” Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany said recently, “but we are no longer at peace either.”
There is more to do. European leaders should make clear that Russian aggression against NATO countries risks a forceful response, including the shooting down of drones — as the West has already done — and potentially of Russian fighter planes that enter NATO airspace.
The United States and its NATO allies should also use the new Russian aggression as a reason to increase their support for Ukraine, sending the message that Mr. Putin’s attempt to weaken Western resolve has backfired. The visit this Friday of President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to the White House is an opportunity for President Trump to commit to new military and economic aid for Kyiv.
All these responses bring risks, including the dangers of escalation. By now, though, the world should know that there are no safe options with Mr. Putin. Ignoring or downplaying his aggressions encourages more of them. If he comes to believe that he can menace Poland, Estonia and other NATO members without consequence, he will become bolder about doing so.
“We must not only react, we must deter,” said Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president. “Because if we hesitate to act, the gray zone will only expand.” She is right. Sometimes, the best way to prevent military escalation is to draw a firm line.
The latest Russian provocations began on Sept. 9 with more than a dozen drones that crossed into Poland after having flown over Belarus and Ukraine. Five days later, a drone crossed into Romania, near two Romanian fighters on patrol. Five days after that, three Russian MiG jets flew into Estonia.
Then came a mysterious intrusion of civilian drones around commercial airports. The week after the Estonian incident, several drones flew near two airports in Denmark in what the country’s defense minister called a “hybrid attack,” and officials briefly closed the airports to avoid the risk of a crash. Drones later disrupted air travel in Belgium and Germany.
NATO responded well to these provocations. The MiGs over Estonia created the thorniest problem because they raised the prospect of a military confrontation between human pilots. But Swedish and Finnish pilots engaged with the MiGs, and the Russian pilots stood down, leaving Estonia escorted by the NATO planes. The response to the drones was even more aggressive. A combination of Polish, Dutch, Italian and German pilots intercepted the drones flying over Poland, shooting down several of them. In Romania, pilots tracked the Russian drone, and it left NATO airspace on its own.
One downside to destroying drones is that it can be expensive. Some of the missiles that NATO used cost $1 million, many times more than a drone. To address this problem, NATO should expand the production of armed drones, develop more effective electronic warfare defenses against them and fund research into other countermeasures. Russian aggression should serve as a reminder that warfare is changing and that defense industries must change with it.
As for future intrusions by piloted Russian jets, some Eastern European countries are arguing for loosening the rules for how and when NATO pilots can confront Russian jets that enter alliance airspace. A mix of caution and firmness is the best course. Nobody wants direct conflict between NATO and Russia, but history shows that the use of force can lead Mr. Putin to pull back. In the mid-2010s, Russian jets sometimes flew over Turkey, and Turkey, a NATO member, told Russia to stop. Only after Turkey downed a jet did Russia retreat.
It is also important to respond in the theater that Mr. Putin cares about most: Ukraine. The incursions appear to have been partly a reaction to recent American equivocation. They came less than a month after an Alaska summit during which Mr. Putin succeeded in getting Mr. Trump to step back from his efforts to pressure Russia into accepting a cease-fire in Ukraine. Europe was rightly disappointed.
Still, if Mr. Putin thought that Alaska provided an opening to further divide the allies, he miscalculated. In response to the incursions, and perhaps thanks to the lack of diplomatic progress, Mr. Trump has expressed growing frustration. He said last month that Mr. Putin “has really let me down.” Mr. Trump also said that NATO planes should shoot down Russian aircraft that enter allied airspace and raised the possibility of new forms of support for Ukraine.
Already, he has authorized more intelligence sharing with Kyiv to heighten the effectiveness of its attacks, including those on Russian oil and gas facilities. Another option involves allowing Ukraine to get Tomahawk missiles. The missiles have a 1,000-mile range, and Ukraine could use them to strike deeper inside Russia.
Mr. Trump’s history of impulsiveness and his long record of coziness with Mr. Putin offer reasons to remain skeptical that this new posture will be a lasting one. On Thursday, the two leaders spent more than two hours on the phone together, and Mr. Trump described the conversation as “very productive.” They plan to follow up by meeting in Budapest soon.
That meeting will be an opportunity to draw a firm line. Russia’s recent aggression toward NATO shows that Russia’s war in Ukraine is about much more than Ukraine. It is about Mr. Putin’s revanchist ambitions in Europe. The only way to contain him is with resolute strength.
Source photograph by Markus Schreiber/Associated Press.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.
The post NATO Must Act to Stop Russia’s Dangerous New Campaign appeared first on New York Times.