Polish officials reported that 19 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) entered Polish airspace during a coordinated Russian attack on western Ukraine on 10/9. Most of the UAVs crashed in the eastern province of Lubelskie, but two flew over 300 km from the border.

Polish air defense forces and NATO units shot down at least four of the drones, while the rest appear to have crashed after running out of fuel.

Three days later, the Romanian Ministry of Defense reported that a "Russian UAV" violated Romanian airspace during another Moscow attack on western Ukrainian infrastructure. The Romanian Air Force deployed two F-16 fighter jets in response, later supported by two German Typhoon fighters.

Romanian Defense Minister Ionut Mosteanu said the F-16 pilots "almost shot down" the Russian UAV as it flew low before it changed course toward Ukraine. "All information suggests the drone left Romanian airspace and entered Ukraine," he said.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki believes the drone incursions were an attempt to test NATO's capabilities and response. "Russia wants to test the alliance's mechanisms and responsiveness," he said.

Ulrike Franke, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), agreed, calling it a political and military test from Russia. "It's very positive that the Polish military detected and downed the UAVs," he said.

However, NATO's response is considered far less effective than Ukraine's, which often claims an 80-90% interception rate against Russian UAVs, despite facing much larger numbers. Besides the interception rate, the methods used also differ significantly.

Wreckage believed to be a Gerbera UAV in Poland on 10/9. Photo: Lublin 24

Politico reported that five UAVs flew directly toward a NATO base in Poland on 10/9 before being shot down by Dutch F-35 stealth fighters. A NATO refueling aircraft and an Italian early warning aircraft also supported the F-35s in this engagement.

Dutch officials did not disclose the weapons used. Images and information released by local media suggest the F-35s likely fired AIM-120C-7 medium-range and AIM-9X short-range air-to-air missiles, costing over USD 2 million and around USD 500,000 each, respectively.

Meanwhile, the downed UAVs in Poland appear to be Gerbera decoys, made of cheap materials like wood and plastic foam, costing no more than USD 10,000 to produce.

"This is not a reasonable response. Of course, NATO must do everything to ensure the safety of its citizens, but in terms of overall strategy and tactics, this is not the right approach," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky commented.

Franke also believes NATO's costly response to the drone incursions in Poland is unsustainable. "What are we going to do, deploy F-16s and F-35s every time? That's not a long-term solution. We need strengthened anti-drone systems," she said.

Air defense has long been considered one of NATO's main military vulnerabilities. The European Union (EU) is encouraging member states to allocate a portion of the funds received from SAFE, a loan program worth over USD 170 billion, to invest in air defense weapons. However, most of this money is being used to purchase expensive systems like Patriot.

Ukraine, on the other hand, does not rely on such systems to counter large-scale Russian drone attacks. Kyiv has built and deployed a multi-layered air defense network, including truck-mounted machine guns, jamming equipment, armed helicopters, and most recently, interceptor drones.

Debris from a suspected AIM-120C-7 air-to-air missile that fell in Poland on 10/9. Photo: X/Dawid Kamizela

Ukraine reserves expensive air defense missiles for more powerful ballistic or cruise missiles, often launched by Russia alongside UAVs. President Zelensky believes NATO countries should learn from and adopt this strategy. "Currently, only we and Russia are deploying like this," he said.

The issue was also raised during a meeting between NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and EU ambassadors in Brussels on 11/9, a day after the drone incursions into Poland. This was the first time a NATO Secretary General attended such a meeting.

According to Politico, attendees worried that NATO's response demonstrated the West's unpreparedness for threats like UAVs, as they cannot constantly deploy fighter jets like the F-35 for such tasks. "Mr. Rutte made that conclusion, and no one disagreed," a diplomat said.

Charly Salonius-Pasternak, director of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, argues that NATO should have changed its response to Russian UAVs long ago, rather than "waiting until the water reaches their feet."

"Are there lessons on how to destroy large numbers of cheap UAVs without using missiles worth millions of USD? Of course there are; it's not a new lesson. What have European politicians been doing?" he asked.

He noted that some countries are adjusting their arsenals to build better responses, but it will take time to turn budget allocations into concrete action.

Some major European defense companies are adapting to the drone threat. Swedish company Saab last month unveiled the low-cost Nimbrix missile, designed to neutralize low-flying, small targets like UAVs.

The French defense procurement agency also ordered a prototype laser anti-drone system from a consortium including MBDA, Safran, Thales, and Cilas.

A Patriot missile launcher in Poland in January. Photo: Polish Ministry of Defense

According to Franke, there are two major challenges in countering UAVs. First, the technology is rapidly evolving, creating a constant race between offense and defense.

Second, no single system can counter all threats. This requires a multi-layered defense network, combining electronic warfare and traditional weapons, similar to Ukraine's approach.

Former French Chief of Staff Thierry Burkhard points out that European countries need to shift their traditional procurement mindset, which prioritizes quality over quantity, to keep pace with the new situation.

"For some equipment, it's better to buy in batches of 10, 15, 20, or even 50. It doesn't matter if the manufacturer can't provide maintenance for 20 years, because this equipment will be destroyed on the battlefield or become obsolete after just one year," he said.

Pham Giang (According to Politico, Business Insider)