Medvedev says if NATO members shoot down Russian drones, it will mean war (data map)

Financial Associated Press, September 15, according to CCTV News, Medvedev, Vice Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, posted on social media on the 15th local time that if the Ukrainian authorities and NATO countries establish a "no-fly zone" in Ukraine, NATO member states Shooting down a Russian drone would mean a war between NATO and Russia.

Extended reading

Drone flies into Poland, Russia starts testing the bottom line, NATO plays a "word game"

On the evening of September 10, Russia launched a new airstrike against Ukraine, but the operation showed a few different circumstances.

During the attack on Ukrainian targets, more than 20 Russian military drones suddenly turned from Ukrainian airspace and flew into Poland. In response, the Polish military opened fire to intercept and temporarily closed its airspace.

The number of drones infiltrated was small, but Poland¡¯s reaction was fierce. On the evening and in the morning of the following day, Poland recorded several incidents of unknown object invasion of airspace. For this, Poland launched an air force fighter aircraft and asked NATO allies for support. But only a few Russian drones were shot down, a Russian ¡°Gebera¡± drone even entered Poland for more than 300 kilometers, and eventually crashed in a field in central Poland¡¯s Rhodes province. Signs indicate that the drone was likely to crash because fuel was exhausted.

What happened at all?

On the evening of September 9, the Polish government discovered that Ukraine had been attacked by large-scale drones and missiles, and some of the drones diverted to Poland. At 22:06 that night, the Polish army entered a state of full alert. At about 23:30, Poland detected the invasion of UFOs in its airspace for the first time. The last record occurred at 6:30 a.m. the next day. Polish officials reported a total of 19 drone entry incidents.

After Poland shot down the drone, the wreckage damaged a residential building (Photo/Polish media)

Following the incident, Polish President Navracski convened an emergency meeting of the Polish Operation Command overnight and preliminarily reached a number of conclusions, qualifying the incident as a "dramatic provocative incident".Polish Prime Minister Tusk called on Congress to "be united" and stressed that he is unanimous in the matter despite differences in stance with the president.

To this end, Tusk said: ¡°While it is not possible to assert that we are at the moment in a state of war, there is no doubt that the provocation goes beyond the limits of the past, and from the perspective of Poland, the level of danger has risen significantly,¡± insisting that the West should jointly confront the ¡°Oriental threat¡± and stress that it is tired of staying on paper coalition cooperation.

Meanwhile, Polish politicians have been calling for increased drone production in the country.Member of Parliament Slavomir Menzin and others expressed dissatisfaction with Poland¡¯s signing of a multi-year production contract of only 10,000 drones, calling for Poland¡¯s drone production to be equal to Russia¡¯s million-scale.

In a national speech, Poland¡¯s President Navalny said: ¡°This meeting will bring together political parties, heads of parliament and senior national leaders, and we will not only review what has happened, but also discuss measures to prevent similar events in the future. Thro the event, I have continued to communicate with Allied leaders and NATO Secretary-General Luther. This is an unprecedented moment in the history of the North Atlantic Treaty and in modern Poland. This drone attack is truly unique, and we must fully understand all the possible consequences.¡±

NATO's "word game"

Western public opinion claims that the drone attack on the evening of September 10 was Russia's first military operation against NATO countries, but in fact, this is not the first time that Russian drones have entered the airspace of NATO countries.

Since the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, Poland has been a target of surveillance by Russian military drones. These Russian drones will not only fly over Polish airspace, but some will even explode within Poland.

The first Russian drone to cross the NATO border was in March 2022. A Soviet-era ¡°Rainbow¡± (Tu-141 Strizh) drone crossed Hungary and Croatia¡¯s airspace without being intercepted and eventually crashed into a residential district in the Croatian capital Zagreb. Fortunately, the incident did not cause any casualties, but about 40 vehicles were damaged.

It is difficult to accurately estimate how many Russian ¡°Shahed¡± drones have crashed into or crossed Poland since the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine. However, the known cross-border events were mostly concentrated between 2023 and 2024. At the time, Russian troops were frequently attacking Ukrainian ports on the Danube coast and close to the Romanian border. This is why countries such as Romania, Poland and Moldova have long since notified NATO about Russian drones crossing the border.

Whenever such an incident occurs, NATO officials always emphasize that it is "unintentional" in interviews with the media, claiming that the drone "passively deviated from the route" and therefore cannot be counted as Russia's "armed attack" against Poland, Romania and other countries.

There is sufficient evidence that Russian attacks on Ukrainian ports along the Danube River in the past have been intentionally carried out by the Russian side through Romanian airspace, as Romania¡¯s air defense capabilities are extremely limited.

Prior to this, the drone "misplaced" into Polish airspace may also be an accident. NATO can be interpreted as having lost direction due to a drone navigation failure or electronic interference. But now, the situation is completely different. Even according to the official Polish, the incident also included 19 Russian drones crossing the border of Poland. This is not a coincidence at all, but a deliberate move by Russia. Since a significant part of the drone has been shot down by the Ukrainian Air Force on the way, the number of drones targeting Poland may actually be more.

Another difference is that the Polish military made a tough response to the incident this time. In the past, when western Ukraine was attacked by Russia, although the Polish Air Force often sent fighter planes to monitor, it often only hovered in the air and did not take actual actions. It was even common for the Polish Air Force to miss Russian flying units crossing the border.

This time, since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Polish fighter jets not only took off for the first time, but also directly received firing instructions from the Polish military and successfully shot down several drones. During and after the war, Poland once closed its airspace, and the operations of four major airports, including Warsaw, were also seriously affected.

After Russian drones actually entered the airspace of NATO countries, NATO claimed that Russia's actions were "not direct attacks" and said that there was no clear evidence that Russia had taken "targeted military actions" against Poland. Before NATO's statement, the Polish government had issued an official statement through the General Staff of the Army, explicitly calling the matter an "act of aggression". This word is not used casually, but is purposefully characterized. It is Poland's official definition of Russia's behavior as "aggression". Poland's move is a clear request for NATO to activate the collective defense mechanism.

But NATO believes that Russia¡¯s actions are insufficient to trigger collective defense mechanisms. NATO¡¯s explanation is that NATO ¡°does not lack¡± a political will to confront Russia, but the drone attacks in Poland have not yet reached the legal threshold that triggered NATO¡¯s collective defense clauses.

Under Article 5, all member states are obliged to take action, including the use of force, in the event of an ¡°armed attack¡± on any of their allies.This provision has two prerequisites: first, that the attacked country must formally request assistance, and second, that all member states acknowledge that an act constituting an ¡°armed attack¡± has actually occurred.

Here NATO plays a word game: the use of force between nations does not constitute an ¡°armed attack¡±. International law stipulates that only the ¡°worst form of use of force¡± is considered as an armed attack, and emphasizes the need to distinguish such acts from ¡°less serious forms of force.¡± That is, not all military acts against NATO countries can be defined as ¡°armed attacks¡± in the legal sense.

For example, NATO member Turkey was attacked by the terrorist group Islamic State in 2015 and 2020, but at the time Turkey failed to convince NATO to launch a collective defense mechanism, but only held security consultations between its members.

So, what conditions does Russia's behavior need to meet to constitute an "armed attack" on NATO? An "armed attack" as defined by NATO is "an intentional and systematic strike against a specific high-value target in Poland, explicitly approved by the Russian leadership."

NATO official meaning is that the Russian drones or missiles "accidentally" crossed the border several times in the past, although it constitutes an "offensive" to the airspace of countries such as Poland, Romania, but does not belong to a "armed attack" in the legal and literal sense. so, even if the Russian drones "intentionally" targeted Poland here, NATO can also use Russian drones to disperse across Poland (not systematically attacking a target), without causing specific military or civilian facilities loss, drones without loaded explosives, to argue that it is not an "armed attack".

Furthermore, even if a drone strikes a specific target within Poland, NATO still has reason to say that it is not an ¡°armed attack¡± if there is no firm evidence that such an act was intentional.For example, even if a government building in Poland was actually attacked by a number of drones, NATO can fully continue to strike away on the grounds that ¡°the strike was a technical mistake and does not represent Russia¡¯s declaration of war on Poland.¡±

Under NATO¡¯s vocabulary system, anything can be deconstructed as ¡°accidental¡±, while NATO¡¯s ¡°collective defense¡± needs to meet a number of prerequisites, which appear to be expected and inaccessible. In the event that NATO clearly defines Russian drone cross-border behavior as ¡°accidental¡±, and in the legal and literal sense, and obviously does not intend to recover the face for Poland, Poland should consider how to conduct autonomous diplomatic negotiations with Russia, and it is unrealistic to expect NATO¡¯s diplomatic and military protection, but this is the aftermath.

On September 3, Trump met with Polish President Navalny (Photo / Foreign Media)

What are Russia's intentions?

It is not difficult to see the tricks of NATO trying to escape responsibility, but the intention of Russia to initiate this incident is a bit difficult to grasp, we can only guess from Russia's actions.

It can be basically assured that Russia initiated the incident was planned, and mind-conscious, not impulsive decision. Russia's goal is not to conflict directly with NATO, but a probe, want to "test" the vulnerabilities in the NATO defense system and whether its set "red lines" are effective, and the extent of the test is strictly controlled within the scope of accurate calculations, precisely because this batch of drones entering Poland did not cause any casualties, and the "Gerb" drone that flew into Poland may even carry no explosives.

And Russia had anticipated that NATO had no courage to identify it as an ¡°armed attack¡± and thus launch a collective defense mechanism.

This is essentially Russia's deliberate move to raise risks and test the bottom line in its confrontation with the West. So, why did Russia choose to act at this time? What is Russia's ultimate goal? Is this to put pressure on Trump? Russia's recent good results on the diplomatic front. Does this give Russia the courage to test? At present, these questions can only stay at the hypothetical level, and there is no definite answer yet. But from Russia's point of view, the drone attack is indeed conducive to the realization of some strategic goals.

The intention of Russia to launch this incident is to divide the Western camp, undermine mutual trust between NATO member states. Russia to NATO member states, the close ally of the United States, Poland, launched a clearly planned attack, while NATO could not make a substantial counterattack, "NATO inability" narrative will be crowned, thereby increasing NATO member state distrust of NATO hub, leading to internal split.

Second, the attack also exposed vulnerabilities in the NATO air defense system. Even with the support of the Dutch Air Force and the Italian Air Force, the results of the Polish Air Force intercepting the Russian drone are still not very ideal. Of course, this can be explained as the drone does not have a strict strategic target for defense, the flight trajectory is relatively dispersed, can also be explained as the Polish military lack of real-world experience. However, this interpretation is more like a "exit", they can not only refute the argument of NATO's lack of capabilities, but may reinforce this claim.

After this incident, not only Poland, but also the entire NATO may face the dilemma of "brain death" again. If NATO continues to evade a tough response and act as an ostrich, it will be a strategic failure for NATO and a "major victory" for Russia. Because NATO's "appeasement" will show Russia that the gradual escalation strategy is effective, Russia will be more bold to open its hands and feet to attack on the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield, and even try to use some weapons and offensive methods that it has previously been wary of using.

Summary

This incident still needs to be viewed in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Today's conflict between Russia and Ukraine is developing in the direction of a "large-scale drone war", so the first thing Russia tests is NATO's sensitivity to drone attacks. After testing NATO's bottom line, even if a direct war does not break out, Russia can begin to use drones to consume NATO's resources with ease. Therefore, the more NATO tries to make up for "this is not an attack", the less able it will be to maintain the narrative of "protecting allies". In order to "defend allies", from a rational point of view, NATO seems to have to and should make a tough response.

If NATO takes tough measures after the incident, it still has a chance to show its strength and scare Russia¡¯s ¡°adventures¡±. Otherwise, Russia will definitely conduct a larger probe again. Because Russia¡¯s goal is to weaken NATO¡¯s narrative of ¡°strong military facts and capable of protecting allies¡± and to test how much NATO has to protect its ¡°allied countries¡± (including Ukraine). But at the moment it looks like NATO is determined to be the ultimate bird. So NATO¡¯s ¡°collective defense¡± promise may only continue in the game of words.

Poland is the first price to be put on the table for NATO's "complementary defense". For Ukraine, which is full of expectations for NATO's support, this "collective defense" that does not even have a tough response is even more ineffective. After all, even the security of member states can only rely on perfunctory words. What substantial protection can Ukraine, which is not yet a member of NATO, expect?

Author/Observers Network Column