A Three Body Problem: NATO, Russia and the Politics of Air Incursions
| Issue Brief
In autumn 2025 Russian drone and airspace incursions over NATO territory exposed a dangerous new source of ambiguity in Europe’s security environment. As routine military friction, deliberate signalling, and civilian drone activity increasingly overlap, the risk of miscalculation is growing. This analysis examines how NATO members can manage escalation risks in an era of drone proliferation - by improving attribution, calibrating responses, and distinguishing incidents that matter from those that do not.
Abstract
Incidents and close military encounters between Russian and NATO air forces are nothing new - but the political context has changed in the face of full-scale war in Ukraine. Combined with an increasingly crowded European airspace, this means that ambiguity will remain a structural feature throughout the contact zone. But the frequency with which different phenomena can be mistaken for others makes this environment especially volatile: routine friction for deliberate signalling, signalling for escalation, civilian drone activity for hostile activities by foreign states. In a tense political environment with high levels of media attention, the pressure to act, and with it the risk of premature action based on faulty assessments, is magnified. Effective risk management therefore hinges on reducing these potential misreadings. Policies must help distinguish which incidents matter, why they matter, and what responses are appropriate.
DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17952927
Policy recommendations
Differentiate Incidents More Clearly and Calibrate Responses Proportionally
Policymakers should improve tools and mechanisms to distinguish between routine operational friction, deliberate military signalling, and civilian or commercial drone activity. This will help them ensure responses are appropriate.
Strengthen Coordination between NATO and EU Members
Greater harmonisation of rules of engagement, clearer decision-making chains, and improved information-sharing among allies can ensure more predictable and coherent responses to incursions.
Improve Detection, Attribution, and Assessment Capabilities
Investments in radar, sensor systems, and analytic capacity are essential to distinguish military threats from civilian or non-state drone activity. Better attribution reduces the risk of responding forcefully to misidentified incidents.
Clarify Civil–Military Responsibilities
Governments should establish clear legal and operational frameworks defining when police, military forces, or private actors are responsible for responding to drone incidents, particularly around critical civilian infrastructure such as airports.
Maintain and Use Communication Channels
Even limited military-to-military communication can help clarify intent, deconflict airspace, and prevent routine incidents from spiralling into crises. Crisis moments may offer unexpected opportunities for risk reduction.
Focus on Risk Reduction, Not Just Deterrence
Effective airspace security depends not only on deterring adversaries, but on reducing the dangers of reacting improperly or inadequately. Policies should help decision-makers identify which incidents matter, why they matter, and what level of response is appropriate.
