The National Interest
NATO’s Article 4 Alert: The Path to Disentanglement
October 1, 2025
By: Diana Nasreddine
Russia will likely continue testing NATO’s periphery with drones, cyberattacks, and other gray-zone tactics designed to provoke missteps.
When Poland shot down at least 19 Russian drones that violated its airspace on September 10, it marked not only a serious spillover of the Russia-Ukraine war but also a defining moment for NATO. Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, responded by invoking Article 4, triggering consultations among allies rather than escalating to Article 5 or demanding direct American military intervention. This was the first time a NATO state had directly engaged Russian drones during the war, and it immediately raised the stakes in how the alliance would define its role going forward.
Days later, Romania scrambled fighter jets after a Russian drone breached its airspace during another attack on Ukraine, tracking the drone for nearly 50 minutes before it departed. Romanian lawmakers have already passed legislation allowing their forces to shoot down drones that threaten their territory, reflecting a measured but determined response.
More recently, Estonia also invoked Article 4 after Russian fighter jets violated its airspace in what Tallinn described as an “unprecedentedly brazen” incursion. Taken together, the incidents in Poland, Estonia, and Romania underscore a new reality: NATO’s frontier is being tested more frequently, and yet not every violation should trigger a broader military entanglement for the United States.
For Washington, these developments highlight the importance of acting with restraint while retaining credibility. Article 4 was designed for moments like this—when allies need consultation, coordination, and reassurance, but not automatic escalation into war. The United States should treat Estonia and Poland’s invocation as a reminder that not every border incursion, drone flight, or tactical provocation serves as a pretext for deeper American involvement. Instead, NATO should remain a forum for dialogue and deterrence, while Washington carefully disentangles its security obligations from risks that do not serve core US interests.
President Trump has made his frustrations with Russian President Vladimir Putin clear in recent remarks, acknowledging that his patience “is running out” after repeated provocations and broken assurances. At the same time, Trump has stopped short of calling for escalation, reflecting a recognition that additional US commitments would not necessarily produce meaningful gains.
This mixture of frustration and caution captures the difficult balancing act Washington is pursuing due to its NATO commitments: showing strength where vital interests are threatened, while avoiding the trap of responding to every provocation with military force.
While a negotiated settlement to the Ukraine-Russia War remains elusive, NATO countries continue to provide Kyiv with aid and support. The United States should remain diplomatically engaged and supportive, providing intelligence, surveillance, and logistical backing to allies managing their own airspace violations. However, the way forward will mean acknowledging limits. Washington cannot afford to risk escalation with Russia over every drone incident or border scare. Doing so risks exhausting resources, heightening tensions with a nuclear-armed adversary, and committing America to wars it cannot control or win at an acceptable cost.
Poland and Estonia’s measured responses offer an important lesson. They have demonstrated that sovereign states can effectively defend their territory without risking a NATO-Russia war. NATO consultations under Article 4 should reinforce this model: a process for coordination, reassurance, and signaling resolve, not a springboard to Article 5 commitments. If anything, these episodes should encourage Washington to draw sharper boundaries around its own role—backing allies politically and diplomatically while refusing to be pulled into an open-ended confrontation.
Trump’s public frustrations with Putin underscore another key point: deterrence is not synonymous with escalation. The United States can project strength precisely by refusing to be manipulated into rash action. Reserving American power for situations that truly demand it preserves credibility, while overreacting to every provocation dilutes deterrence and risks escalation spirals.
The stakes are clear. Russia will likely continue testing NATO’s periphery with drones, cyberattacks, and other gray-zone tactics designed to sow confusion and provoke missteps. If Washington responds to every incident with military escalation, it risks igniting a larger war. But if it calibrates its responses, supporting allies where appropriate while firewalling itself from combat obligations, it preserves both deterrence and freedom of action.
Ultimately, disentanglement is the most responsible path for Washington. America can remain engaged with NATO as a forum for dialogue and coordination while reserving its military commitments for situations where core US interests are at stake. That balance—showing strength by conserving strength—will keep Washington from being drawn into wars it does not need to fight, while ensuring that America remains prepared for the challenges that matter most.
About the Author: Diana Nasreddine
Diana Nasreddine, a summa cum laude graduate of Stetson University, researches Russian foreign policy, autocracy promotion, and democratic backsliding in the post-Soviet region.
Related Articles
Ursula von der leyen addresses conference in Brussels.
Diplomacy
Ursula von der Leyen: The Keeper of Transatlantic Flame
Speaker Johnson should invite European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to address Congress in recognition of her commitment to transatlantic solidarity.
Kaush Arha October 3, 2025
UAV drone flying over the mountain.
Land Warfare
How the US and Ukraine Can Redefine Drone Deterrence
The Ukrainian UAV sector’s baptism by fire will make it a strategic asset for NATO defense in the years to come.
Ivan Sascha Sheehan October 2, 2025
Donald Trump at the UN with Ukrainian flag.
Land Warfare
Is Donald Trump’s Ukraine Conversion Sincere?
There are reasons to believe that President Trump’s pro-Ukraine shift is merely rhetorical.
Lawrence J. KorbStephen Cimbala October 1, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment