This article originally appeared in The Hub.
By Richard Shimooka, October 2, 2025
Over the past several weeks, Russian aerial assets have undertaken several incursions over the territory of several NATO allies, including three fighters violating Estonian airspace. There have also been a number of suspected incidents that have disrupted airports in Denmark and Poland, which are all but certain to be the work of Moscow as well.
The incursions have sparked a furious round of analysis and debate on the intent of the Russian Federation as well as what the appropriate response should be. Denmark has found the incidents serious enough to call up hundreds of reservists, and NATO has promised a “robust response.” President Donald Trump even endorsed the idea of NATO allies shooting down any Russian fighter jets that enter their airspace, while Russia countered that any aggression against Moscow will be met in turn with its own “decisive response.”
Three and a half years on since the invasion of Ukraine, the West should be roundly familiar with Putin’s playbook. This includes clandestine sabotage operations in Europe, like the bombing of arms production and storage facilities and a deliberate campaign to cut undersea cables, not to mention its much longer-term effort to undermine political stability in Europe and the West.
Because while these particular incursions are an escalation over its recent behaviour, they should be seen as another iteration of the same strategy that Russia has pursued for essentially the past two decades. This is not a comprehensive and overt campaign to attack Ukraine’s Western allies’ ability to produce munitions for the war; rather, it is an insidious effort to undermine the country’s international support. By sowing divisions, raising fears, and suborning spoilers within these states’ political systems, Russia hopes to eventually choke off the pipeline of military and economic support that sustains Ukraine’s war effort.
This illustrates the asymmetry of Putin’s war strategy, vis-à-vis that of the West. Many of the proposed political responses, including setting aggressive red lines or establishing no-fly zones over Ukrainian or Belarusian territory, will be tested by the Kremlin, and any equivocation or internal dissension amongst NATO will be exploited for the greatest political effect as Russia attempts to sow further doubt among the Western allies. Each of these repeated incursions represents a taunt; each uncertain or weak response is a propaganda victory for Putin, while each aggressive reaction simply plays into his hands as he seeks to escalate conflict.
That being said, NATO is right to be unequivocal about its intention to defend its sovereign airspace and respond immediately to incursions. This is a bedrock assumption upon which the alliance is based, and failing to uphold it is a non-negotiable.
There are good historical parallels that policymakers can rely on to sharpen their focus on this situation, such as the Turkish Air Force downing a Russian Su-24 fighter jet that violated its airspace in 2015. In that case, Ankara gave ample and clear warnings to Russia concerning aircraft passing over Turkish territory while conducting missions to bomb its allies in Syria. These went unheeded for over a month until the interception occurred, killing a pilot. While at the time there were fears this could lead to an escalation, they did not come to pass, and Russia all but ceased its behaviour.
As this episode has laid bare, European NATO allies will need to improve their nations’ air defences. In the short term, this will certainly require more units to be deployed into the affected countries, as well as a significant increase in the operational readiness of all units tasked to this mission. In the longer term, they will need to introduce more effective air defence systems, such as counter-UAV radars, missiles, guns, or directed energy technologies. It should be noted that this is an area where the alliance has been very effective in the past. Generating and organizing a coherent military response among allied nations is a core competency and pillar of strength for NATO.
But NATO’s response should not end there. It is a pretty basic principle of war that combatants should try to exploit their adversary’s weaknesses. The war is not going altogether too well for the Russian autocrat, with the Ukrainian campaign against refineries having dramatic effects, with American efforts to shut down foreign oil exports continuing, and with the daily grinding attrition being suffered by Russia’s army continuing apace as they fight for little gain in Ukraine.
Alliance members’ response should be to support the activities that hurt the Russians the most. This means that, given the apparent effectiveness of Ukrainian strikes against Russian infrastructure deep inside its borders, the West could aid this by 1) assisting in the production of long-range Ukrainian missiles that are able to reach these targets, or 2) the direct transfer of a limited number of long-range munitions, like Tomahawk, Storm Shadow, or Taurus. The U.S. government has already been considering such a request.
While many may see this as a provocative step to take, that criticism ignores that Ukraine has already been hitting these targets. Providing these missiles would be an adequate reaction to Russia’s escalation of the conflict with its aerial probes over the past month. Similarly, a more concerted effort to curtail oil exports, along the lines demanded by Donald Trump of his European allies, would have similar effects.
In the end, if NATO allies want to deliver a firm message to Putin, they need to speak the language the Russian leader understands. That requires policies that meet strength with strength—ones that have real consequences for his regime, not ones that basically enable his own objectives.
Destroying all hostile drones or aircraft that enter NATO airspace, being more aggressive in curtailing Russia’s economic lifeline in the form of oil exports, and assisting in the production of—or directly providing Ukraine with—long-range munitions that could strike into the heart of Russia would send an appropriate message.
