Russia’s recent incursions into NATO airspace – three MiG-31 fighters briefly over Estonia, swarms of unarmed drones in Poland and Romania – are no accident of navigation. From nuclear saber-rattling to fighter jets skirting NATO airspace, Russia has revived fears of a direct clash between great powers. Yet for all the loose talk of “World War III,” these provocations are likely not designed to spark an apocalyptic conflict. Rather, Moscow’s strategy appears aimed at weakening NATO from within and ultimately dismantling it– creating chaos, sowing discord, and exploiting cracks in the transatlantic alliance – precisely because Russia knows it cannot afford and/or win a full-scale war with the West.
Europe’s Unified Alarm vs. U.S. Ambivalence
These events have provoked formal NATO consultations and global outrage. Most of the European capitals have reacted in unison with stern warnings. Estonia’s President and EU officials declared the MiG-31 breach “extremely dangerous”. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen vowed that “Europe stands with Estonia – and we will respond to every provocation with determination”, promising stepped-up sanctions and Eastern flank defenses as threats grow. Poland and Romania both summoned Russian diplomats in protest. Ukraine’s Zelenskiy likewise denounced the airspace violations as “an obvious expansion of the war by Russia” and called for more sanctions and bolstered collective defense. NATO’s Baltic members have formally invoked Article 4, which mandates consultation whenever an ally’s security is threatened. President Andrzej Duda of Poland and Prime Minister Tusk have repeatedly emphasized NATO solidarity, while Swedish and German foreign ministers have publicly offered “full solidarity” with their threatened neighbours.
By contrast, U.S. President Donald Trump’s response has been muted and evasive. Washington’s allies have watched Trump respond to these Russian provocations with mixed signals and muted urgency – feeding fears that Moscow’s pressure campaign could indeed drive a wedge into the alliance. When Russian drones breached Poland’s airspace on Sept. 9–10, the U.S. notably did not participate in the live-firing response, which was led by Polish and other European NATO forces. President Trump’s initial public reaction was silence. Only hours later did he weigh in with a cryptic social media post on Truth Social: “What’s with Russia violating Poland’s airspace with drones? Here we go!”. The vague comment – “Here we go!” – was widely criticized as shrugging at a serious incursion.
A week later, after the brazen airspace violation in Estonia, Trump again offered a delayed, lukewarm response. “I don’t love it. I don’t like when that happens,” he told reporters, adding only that it “could be big trouble” and that he’d “let you know later” what the U.S. would do. Such equivocation falls far short of the clear deterrent signal allies want from Washington. It has not gone unnoticed in Moscow. According to Reuters, “Trump did not address the latest incursion for several hours” and his eventual comment was perfunctory – fitting what officials see as “an emerging pattern” of U.S. reluctance. In private, U.S. defense officials have reportedly told European partners that Europe needs to be less dependent on the U.S. going forward, as the Trump administration shifts focus to domestic priorities. In late August, Pentagon briefers even warned that some U.S. military aid to the Baltic states would be cut, and that under Trump the U.S. is “militarily overstretched” and refocusing on homeland defense. East-European diplomats fretted that such signals “could embolden [Russian President] Vladimir Putin”, effectively inviting him to test NATO’s resolve. The spate of incursions in September – coming on the heels of those U.S. messages – have only reinforced those worries.
Trump’s ambivalence toward NATO is hardly new – during his campaign he suggested the U.S. might not defend allies who don’t “pay up” for American protection. In fact, on the campaign trail in early 2024, Trump boasted about telling a foreign leader who asked about U.S. help against Russia: “You didn’t pay… No, I would not protect you…you’ve got to pay your bills”. Such remarks sent shockwaves through Europe.
On multiple occasions, Trump called into question NATO’s core principle of mutual defense. In a 2018 interview, for example, he mused about why American soldiers should defend Montenegro, a tiny new NATO member, insinuating its “very aggressive people” could spark a conflict that drags the U.S. into World War III. “They may get aggressive, and congratulations, you’re in World War Three,” he quipped, casting doubt on whether he would risk U.S. lives for an ally’s sake. Such remarks sent chills through NATO’s newer members on Russia’s periphery. A former U.S. ambassador to NATO, Nicholas Burns, warned that Trump was “sow[ing] further doubt whether the US under his leadership would defend our allies”, calling it “another gift to Putin.” Senior U.S. lawmakers from Trump’s own party agreed: Senator John McCain said that by questioning America’s Article 5 obligations, the president was “playing right into Putin’s hands”.
Unsurprisingly, European leaders grew alarmed. Trust in America’s security guarantee eroded to the point that French President Emmanuel Macron declared NATO was undergoing “brain death” in 2019 due to a lack of U.S. leadership and reliability. Macron argued that Europe “can no longer rely on the US to defend its allies,” voicing a fear that had spread across the continent. Even Germany, typically cautious, pondered what a post-American security order might look like. Although other NATO members rejected Macron’s dire wording, the fact a leading European ally would voice such doubts highlights the extent of transatlantic rift at the time.
The Kremlin had long portrayed NATO as a divided, hollow shell, and the U.S. president’s own words seemed to validate that narrative. Indeed, Trump’s former National Security Advisor John Bolton later observed that Trump “threatened the existence of NATO,” openly speculating that if Trump had won a second term, the U.S. would “almost certainly withdraw from NATO”. Such a scenario would be Moscow’s strategic dream come true – effectively dismantling the alliance without firing a shot. Even during Trump’s administration, NATO allies already had a taste of this uncertainty.
As a result, both of Trump’s terms saw a rise in European calls for “strategic autonomy” – essentially, an EU defense capability that is less dependent on Washington – precisely because NATO’s future seemed uncertain..
The Calculus of Weak Moscow: Provocations to Divide and Dismantle
One critical factor driving Russia’s indirect approach is its military weakness relative to NATO. The ongoing war in Ukraine has starkly exposed the limitations of Vladimir Putin’s war machine. Far from the juggernaut many feared, the Russian military has underperformed, suffering heavy losses in men and materiel for minimal gains. Russia has largely failed to achieve its primary objectives in Ukraine and has paid high costs for its aggression. By 2025, Moscow was reportedly approaching a gruesome milestone of nearly one million total casualties in Ukraine – a clear sign of overextension and attrition. In other words, Putin’s forces have struggled even against a mid-sized neighbor; a direct showdown with NATO’s combined might would be suicidal.
Given this reality, the Kremlin is keen to avoid an open war with NATO. Russia’s nuclear arsenal provides deterrence to some extent, but aside from that trump card, its conventional power has been badly diminished. This makes a deliberate escalation toward World War III highly unlikely. Instead, Putin’s regime pursues its goals through hybrid tactics and calibrated provocations that stop short of triggering NATO’s mutual defense clause. These incursions fit a classic Kremlin playbook of asymmetric disruption intended to intimidate and split NATO from within, rather than honest preludes to a shooting war with the West. Russian doctrine has long emphasized “active measures” and hybrid operations to erode adversaries’ will. Within this doctrine, along with airspace jumps, Moscow has unleashed cyberattacks, disinformation, and election meddling aimed at polarizing Western societies. These methods also reflect a cold realism: Direct war with NATO remains a red line it won’t intentionally cross, given the alliance’s overwhelming strength.
From the Kremlin’s perspective, this strategy carries minimal military risk. Each incident stops short of causing casualties or engaging NATO forces in combat, thus carefully avoiding the tripwire of Article 5 collective defense. Russian pilots and drone operators appear under orders to retreat once NATO interceptors arrive, as seen in all the recent cases, The gambit instead is that NATO’s own dynamics will do the damage: maybe an ally responds too slowly or not at all, planting seeds of doubt in the Baltics; maybe another responds too aggressively, leading more timid members to blame the frontline state for “provoking” Moscow. It’s a classic divide-and-conquer play, executed in split-second incursions. As long as NATO remains united and measured, the tactic fails – but if it elicits division or hesitation, Putin scores a win without firing a missile.
In the wake of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, NATO has, in fact, rediscovered much of its original purpose. The war jolted the alliance awake; it prompted Finland and Sweden to seek membership and spurred the largest European rearmament drive since the Cold War. NATO’s European members are indeed spending more on defense and starting to address long-neglected capabilities. But money alone will not deter Putin’s hybrid war on the West. NATO countries must also demonstrate the political will and unity to actually use those resources in collective defense. Deterrence is as much about psychology and resolve as it is about tanks and missiles.
By: GEOPLIST – Istanbul Center for Geopolitics
