Tensions between Russia and NATO have reached a fever pitch in late September 2025, as a series of airspace violations by Russian military aircraft and drones has prompted stern warnings, heated rhetoric, and a flurry of diplomatic activity on both sides of the Atlantic. The latest incidents have not only rattled nerves in Eastern Europe but also reignited debate within the alliance about how forcefully to respond to Moscow’s increasingly provocative actions.
It all began on September 19, when three Russian MiG-31 fighter jets entered Estonian airspace over the Gulf of Finland, remaining for an alarming twelve minutes before being escorted out by Italian NATO fighter jets, according to The Independent. This was not an isolated event. Just days earlier, on September 10, approximately 20 Russian drones had crossed into Polish airspace, with NATO jets shooting down several of the unmanned aircraft. Similar incursions have been reported in Romania, and on September 22, unidentified drones forced the closure of Copenhagen’s main airport, disrupting thousands of passengers and causing dozens of flight cancellations and diversions, as reported by The Moscow Times.
Estonia, feeling the pressure of these repeated violations, invoked Article 4 of NATO’s founding treaty, which mandates consultations among member states if a country feels its territorial integrity or security is under threat. This led to an emergency meeting of the North Atlantic Council on September 23, where the alliance issued a statement squarely blaming Russia for the recent provocations: “Russia bears full responsibility for these actions, which are escalatory, risk miscalculation and endanger lives. They must stop.” The statement went on to warn, “Russia should be in no doubt: NATO and allies will employ, in accordance with international law, all necessary military and non-military tools to defend ourselves and deter all threats from all directions.”
The question on everyone’s mind: Could NATO actually shoot down Russian planes if these incursions continue? The debate, once largely theoretical, has now moved to the center of international discourse. U.S. President Donald Trump, speaking at the United Nations General Assembly in New York during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, was unequivocal. When asked by a reporter whether NATO countries should shoot down Russian jets if they violate alliance airspace, Trump replied, “Yes, I do.” His stance was echoed by Czech President Petr Pavel, who told local media that NATO “must respond appropriately, including possibly shooting down Russian aircraft.” Marko Mihkelson, head of Estonia’s parliamentary foreign affairs committee, even referenced Turkey’s 2015 downing of a Russian Su-24 bomber, pointedly noting, “17 seconds vs. 12 minutes. Next time, we’re doing that — if you know what I mean.”
Yet, as Nicholas Williams, a former NATO and Ministry of Defence official, explained to The Independent, the reality is far more complicated. NATO’s air policing mission, which has been in place since 2004 to protect the skies over Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, is governed by strict rules of engagement focused on monitoring and escorting offending aircraft out of alliance airspace, not shooting them down. Williams stressed, “[NATO] air policing has been going on since 1961, its roots are very deep in the Cold War, [when] you had to be alert to possible violations and hostile activity. But in the Cold War there was a deep instinct and procedures against escalation, because escalation would have meant catastrophe and even nuclear exchanges.”
He added, “So air policing derives its roots from the idea that we had to be alert in NATO to any violations, to monitor and report through superior authorities in terms of whether force was necessary… but its primary function is to monitor and react to violations and escort the offending aircraft out of the territory, it’s not to shoot it down.” Changing these rules would require transforming the mission into a full-fledged operation, a move that Williams warned would be “a really serious escalatory move” likely to divide the alliance and risk direct confrontation with Russia.
On the matter of drones, Williams noted they are, in theory, easier to shoot down than manned jets. During the Polish incident, several drones were destroyed without controversy or escalation, as they were unmanned and likely decoys. But even here, the threat is evolving. NATO officials said on September 24 that it was “too early to say” whether the drone flights over Denmark were linked to recent Russian violations, underscoring the uncertainty and complexity of the situation.
Meanwhile, Russia has flatly denied all accusations. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed the claims as “hysteria,” telling reporters, “We hear such exaggerated hysteria about our military pilots allegedly violating some rules and invading someone’s airspace. These claims are unfounded. Our military aviation complies with all flight rules and regulations, and adheres to them in the strictest manner.” Moscow’s denials have done little to assuage Western concerns, as NATO members continue to accuse Russia of testing the alliance’s boundaries in what many see as a deliberate campaign of intimidation and destabilization.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz, appearing on Fox News, delivered a pointed message to Russian President Vladimir Putin: Trump’s warning was no bluff. “Putin, the Russians, should take the message from the president [seriously]. He's not messing around,” Waltz said. He called Trump’s statement “common sense,” given the repeated airspace violations reported by Romania, Estonia, and Poland. Waltz further emphasized that the president is “going to do whatever it takes, and he's going to shift positions if he needs to, to get this war to end.”
For his part, President Trump has been advocating for an end to the Russia-Ukraine war since his return to office in January 2025, meeting with both Russian and Ukrainian leaders to encourage negotiations. In a Truth Social post during the week of September 22-25, Trump signaled optimism that Ukraine, with European and NATO backing, could regain all its territory—a message that surprised and encouraged President Zelenskyy. “I was very positive about signals from the side that Trump and America will be with us to the end of the war,” Zelenskyy told Fox News’ Bret Baier.
The stakes could hardly be higher. With NATO’s eastern flank on edge and the rules of engagement under scrutiny, the alliance faces a delicate balancing act: how to deter further Russian provocations without triggering a catastrophic escalation. As Williams noted, the instinct to avoid escalation runs deep within NATO, but the pressure to respond more forcefully is mounting with every new incursion.
For now, the world watches as NATO and Russia continue their high-stakes game of brinkmanship, with the skies over Europe serving as a tense and unpredictable battleground. The next move, it seems, could shape the security of the continent for years to come.