Russian incursions into NATO allies’ airspace are causing rare public disagreements between treaty allies. Is this the disarray that Moscow wants, or a sign of healthy debate? Officials we spoke to suggested that the answer is both.
On the eve of a Wednesday meeting of alliance defense ministers in Brussels, Secretary-General Mark Rutte argued to his colleagues that shooting down Russian crewed aircraft over NATO territory would show weakness, not strength. Across the Atlantic a day later, Danish Army chief Maj. Gen. Peter Harling Boysen had a more aggressive message for allies: “Shoot down Russian drones, period.” To be sure, alliance policy may differ for manned and unmanned incursions—but members are still arguing about the policy.
The disagreement is even sharper behind closed doors, according to two officials from alliance-member governments. They pointed to a recent Article Four consultation in Tallinn and a NATO ministers’ meeting in Riga, where some nations said incursions should receive stronger responses and others wanted to build up defenses before taking steps that could lead to war.
Last month, Russia sent some two dozen unarmed drones into Polish airspace; Poland shot down up to four of them. Days later, when Russian fighter jets flew across the Estonian border, Tallinn elected to do no more than escort them back out—drawing criticism from some allies.
Czech President Petr Pavel, for example, said members must show more willingness to shoot down not just drones, but also planes. Asked about Pavel’s comments a bit later, Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur visibly bristled.
No standard NATO policy covers such incursions, which are being handled case by case by nations in different circumstances, said one senior official from an ally.
“Some nations may be more proactive in their willingness to shoot at Russian assets,” that official said.
One senior NATO military official told Defense One in Riga that questions about various countries’ rules of engagement were “mostly being smoothed out.”
Another area of disagreement is the pace and scope of counter-drone defenses. The entire European Union has signaled their support for the “drone wall” concept much-discussed in recent weeks. But there is some divergence of opinion on whether EU members should prioritize money for new drone defenses over conventional capabilities like tanks. German leaders have concerns that an attempt to build an impenetrable sense-and-shoot network might be an expensive failure.
However, some military officials and the senior NATO government official said recent developments are shifting German thinking.
The recent incursions likely reflect a Russian campaign to sow discontinuity among allies, Boysen and others said Wednesday.
They’re just gonna drive a break in between us. I think that’s one thing they’re trying to do,” the Dutch general said Wednesday at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference in Washington, D.C.. “ I think they’re trying to put headlines on our inability to act and their ability to act very, very quickly on the presidential order.”
Norway’s Lt. Gen. Pasi Välimäki agreed.
“What Russia is trying to do is to undermine the aligned cohesion, and also to undermine the support to Ukraine,” Välimäki said at AUSA.
Maj. Gen. Lars Lervik of Finland went a step further, describing Russia’s escalating incursions as war below the threshold of armed conflict.
“Basically, [Russia] is boiling the frog, moving the position incrementally over time,” Lervik said at AUSA.
Disagreements also exist on just how quickly to send military aid to Ukraine. Eastern European nations such as Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland, which have long been more aggressive on NATO funding and deployment, are seizing the momentum from more risk-averse countries, such as Germany, European government and military officials say.
European pledges of aid to Ukraine had fallen earlier this year. Pledges made at Wednesday’s summit reverse that trend:
*Germany: €2 billion for Patriot interceptors, radar systems, ammunition, and precision-guided artillery rockets, as well as $500 million in financial aid.*Denmark: $171 million for training and repairs.*Lithuania: $30 million to buy U.S. weapons for Ukraine.*Estonia: $12 million and drones “worth millions.”
That presented something of a win for the White House, or at least those White House players who have favored continued support for Ukraine. On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in Brussels, “Our expectation today is that more countries donate even more, that they purchase even more, to provide for Ukraine, to bring that conflict to a peaceful conclusion.”
The United States is presenting its own challenge to NATO unity. The Pentagon’s upcoming national defense strategy will reportedly turn the focus of the U.S. military toward the Western Hemisphere. The senior European government official said many U.S. officials and power brokers around President Trump “refuse to see this strong link between the security of Europe, that attacks on democratically aligned nations could affect other countries where the United States has interests.”
So European members are girding for a potential withdrawal of more U.S. troops from the continent—even though Trump recently promised Poland, specifically, he’d shield it from any cuts.
The sheer unpredictability of U.S. support is deepening European urgency to cohere on policy. At AUSA, Boysen was asked about Trump’s threats to seize Greenland. The Danish general called them a “wake-up call” that had helped to spur defense spending.
European officials are cautiously optimistic that Trump is learning to see Russia as a threat, the senior European government official said.
“We’ll see in a couple of weeks, I guess.”
Read the full article here