Public sentiment around NATO's response to Russia's airspace violations is divided, with a significant number expressing skepticism about NATO's motives and effectiveness. Many view claims of violations as potential provocations, urging for de-escalation and dialogue over military engagement. There is a noticeable desire for stronger action against Russian aggression, but a cautious call for measured responses to avoid conflict predominates. The dialogue reflects frustration, fear of escalation, and recognition of the nuanced geopolitical situation.

NATO

Russia

European Union

Poland did not invoke Article 5, they invoked Article 4 which is an emergency meeting to discuss options, and plans to respond to the violation of their airspace.  And if I'm not mistaken, they did shoot down the Russian drones that entered.

inorite234

They stayed right at the edge of Estonias airspace the whole time. It was an obvious provocation and not an attack. So the decision not to take them dpwn is understandable. All the drones that did go deeper into Polish airspace were taken down.

robber_goosy

First thing is to get them to leave. They left.

RevFernie

https://youtu.be/DVzCgNs_BrI?si=5_h5T-FZGGKDyfKQ

Watch an actual political scientist discuss.

Basically the incursions are Putins way of framing the war as an existential crisis of Russia vs Nato. 

If nato shoots down a Russian plane, then he markets that as nato aggression and drums up domestic support for the war in Ukraine.

MayContainRawNuts

Russian foreign policy has always been to push the boundaries of neoliberal institutions such as NATO and the UN. 


Provoking escalation has always been part of Russian strategy. Academics consider them as a "neo-imperialist" state, which takes direct action and allows the international community to debate the response. 


The conventional wisdom is for the UN and NATO to slap sanctions and use indirect economic leverage, but Russian infrastructure and resources are so inward facing that it doesn't affect them much anyways. 


Russia is too linked to the world economy that any action against them, whether political, economic, or military, would hurt the provoked nation more than Russia in all likelihood. 


Anyone trying to retaliate against Russia is damned if they do, and they're damned if they don't in terms of public perception. They're seen as pushovers internationally, just as you observe.

Cute-Wonder934

We did shoot one down here in turkey several years ago.  

It didn't go well. We lost more than 30 soldiers after retalitory strike from russia.

Otherwise-Strain8148

[deleted]

From what I read in other posts, after Turkey shot down that Russian jet, Erdogan apologised to Putin, imprisoned the pilots that shot it down, and struck an economic deal with Russia.

Basic-Sign-7144

Turkey, a NATO member, did.

Russia has yet to violate their airspace since.

TheTaoThatIsSpoken

The turkey argument is straight up bullshit, turkey apologized and paid reperations

Skyvo_

It is very easy for you to call them cowards from the safety of the keyboard

Why are you so eager to kill?

Violation of airspace is an issue, particularly as Russia has done it as it is a clear threat to its neighbours. But, the response should be proportional. They havent endangered anyone (yet), they didn't cross by a great distance

And dont underestimate the poor quality of Russian training and equipment. Russia could be up to something but it could just be genuine stupidity by the Russian pilots

You dont kill someone for a navigation error. You dont kill someone who hasnt posed a threat. There are other responses. Wars are very easy to start but very difficult to end

The EU is on standby if it is anything more but thankfully they are not as trigger happy as you seem to be

Wilsonj1966

Shooting down a few drones is one thing taking out a fighter or two lifts it into a whole different area where things could go very bad very quickly especially if a local commander decides to go 100% RAMBO.

Maximum-Shallot-2447

Would be interesting, how many comments about shooting down the russian intruders are coming from secure distance (esp.Murica)???

Nedjammern

So there is a very good rule for almost all conflict, be it kids being bullied, a legal case or even war - you should never do what your opponent is trying to make you do. 

Trying to provoke a reaction is very common tactic in all conflict, again from kids at school to war. 

Much like a bully trying to get a bully to swing at them so try can tell teacher you're the bully, sometimes you just need to sit there. They're not actually doing anything or hurting you, they are just trying to provoke a reaction. You win if you don't react. You lose if you do. 

So you need to not react.

Kaiisim

It's risky. Russia will adamantly deny they violated the airspace. They might take it as an opportunity to escalate if that's what they wish to do and it makes it easier to sell to their public.

Ultimately, we can't let them continue to escalate without an appropriate response. But I don't think shooting down their aircraft is needed yet.

Plane-Awareness-5518

The short answer and the only answer you actually need: because that would technically mean we go to war with Russia. No-one wants that.

The longer answer: Sometimes, it is actually best not to do something like that and continue to react like you have always done and simply, not show your hand.

Russia is currently trying a lot to try and force us to react and show our hand so they gain new knowledge about us. By not reacting, we don't provide them with this new knowledge and force them to waste resources on us instead of Ukraine. We can actually turn this around. If Russia suddenly stops trying to probe NATO airspace, then it'd seem an awful lot like they don't have the resources to do so anymore. So then we'd need to bring in the last aid packages to Ukraine and kill russias invasion of Ukraine.

Edit: OP, Poland activated article 4. Not article 5. Very VERY big difference.

SimonArgead

It was Article 4 that Poland and Estonia have triggered, not Article 5.

Spirited_Praline637

It's possible Russia wants them to do so. It's possible they are trying to provoke hostile action to use as propaganda.

Patsfan618

Turkey apologized. Despite Turkey being in NATO, Erdogan is friends with Putin. They both agreed it was all a mistake and kissed and made up. The Turks even bought Russian S-400 air defense systems, of all things, worth $2.5bn, a couple of years after the incident.

DefInnit

It's a much tougher decision to down a manned aircraft than a drone.

Dando_Calrisian

"Turkey shot down a Russian aircraft in 2015 one minute after it violated it's airspace"

And Erdogan flew to Russia to beg for forgivness. Russia also bombed turkish forces.

Routine-Visual-1818

This shoot down needs to be done. Putin only understands power. Shoot them down!

wyatt265

Because they don't want the next NATO jet that enters Russian airspace to get immediately shot down?

FPSCanarussia

Avoid open conflict by not killing a pitty handfull of russian pilots. Then, in silence, assist Ukraine in the killing of thousands upon thousands of russian soldiers...

Russia shows how powerfull they are in the spotlight. Europe severely attrits Russian power in the shadows. So everyone gets what they want.

ExpressCap1302

Just speculation, but it's entirely possible Russia is TRYING to get one of their jets shot down by NATO to use as political justification to ramp up militarization and conscription at home.  

All those additional resources would then be aimed squarely at Ukraine.

CMG30

I agree with a scaled response. However, I would also recommend visualizing Russia's response to a shootdown, and place your defense assets in strategic locations before you start.

series-hybrid

Because Nato does the same thing. What is this, the age of naivete?

Lopsided_Chip171

Simply because western democracies are unable to act decisively and the whole policy is just to delay problems until the next administration will inherit them or they will be too huge to ignore.

So as long as you can sweep it under the rug, you will not be blamed for consequences of your actions, and inaction is not as politically visible as action.

This whole war (and COVID) exposes complete inability of majority western democracies to handle a long term crisis.

Alikont

Because russias whole thing is:

Provoke enemy, get hit.

Lie to their people and tell them they attacked the motherland.

Counter attack.

It’s like hamas does all the time.

Gingersoulbox

You don’t shoot every intruder that walks on your lawn, do you? If they walk up to your front door, understandable if you might feel uneasy. Even more so if they waltz into your backyard. 

If they break through your front door with a gun it’s a different story

They are levels of responses and the consequences of each for everyone involved mean big things. NATO does not want more war so the idea is avoiding it until they can’t

His_Name_Is_Twitler

So in 2015 after the Turkey shooting, there was a response in which a lot of Turk rebels on the other side of the border in syria were killed, and this continued to happen for some time after. 

But now is not 2015. Russia no longer has any hope for restoring relations for the west and doesnt care to do so. If NATO fires at a Russian plane, Russia can fire back. There is already war in Russia, there can be war in Poland and Estonia, too. Its not as if the US has any appetite for war with Russia and that is who the actual spine of NATO is

Novo-Russia

concerns of ww3 are still a very valid concern even if turkey managed to skirt by  and shot down one plane 10 years ago. russia does this because they know eu countries won't, and they didn't nuke turkey because that'd be insane. though speaking of that was a very sticky political situation for the aftermath between turkey, nato, the us, russia, so they hardly did that without consequences

SocYS4

Believe it or not, NATO are reluctant to cause a loss of human life. Drones get shot down without undue consideration, people require a bit of work.

NATO is a complex and slow machine, no member state wants to be responsible for starting a war on their turf that Russia may be trying to provoke. Especially over childish provocation. If the incursion continued, they would have been shot down, Russia was testing their response.

Believe it or not, Russia, although renowned for being very aggressive on their airspace, would still go through several minutes of procedure before taking action. 

People here really do think that international relations is like arguing over your neighbours fence, don't they?

actualinsomnia531

No one's wanting to start another war with Russia because we now don't know how much China is willing to provide military aid to Putin.

CompleteSherbert885

turkey did, no one except Spain backed us up.

InevitableView2975

For the drones there might be a mater of they don't have weaponry to shoot something so small down, or whatever they would use is expensive, so do they want to incur that cost?  Spending 500k to shoot down a 100k drone seems overboard. I'm sure governments are working on cheaper ways to take out cheap drones.

The cost thing could also a thing for planes.  To put it in perspective would you sue your neighbor and spend 50k because their dog walked on your lawn, violating your space?  Is it really worth it?

Next they might be worried that they can't actually shoot them down.  Trying and failing would be an embarrassment and nobody wants that.

Finally Russia might be trying to provoke and give themselves a reason to retaliate.  Maybe they are banking on NATO doing nothing because of the political climate in the U.S. and because Russia has nukes.  If Russia is trying to provoke so they can respond aggressively it would be a dangerous game, but then I think Putin's position is a tad shaky.  He's always portrayed himself as a strong man who will Make Russia Great Again, and the war in Ukraine is bringing that into question.

pixel293

Everyone also forgets than when Turkey shoot Russian aircraft, most of NATO was like "yea, you could. Good luck." without showing any real support. (Which ofc was partly because public often saw Turkey as being on the wrong side in that conflict in general.)


So much that Erdogan later called the people who shot it down "gullenist conspiracy". 

BeduinZPouste

&gt; this was deliberate

Yes

&gt; and continues to escalate

Not really, they’ve done the same for years now. It was just more drones in Poland than usual

&gt; Poland invoked article 5

No they didn’t, they invoked article 4 which is specifically to have a meeting

&gt; Turkey isn’t a nuclear wasteland

Ok but as a politician, would you want to risk that? One time years ago that happened and there weren’t many consequences. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be anything now

Public-Eagle6992

They can’t rely on the USA for backup anymore if there’s an escalation. Could lead to a big war in Europe.

splitter82

Because shoot first and ask questions later is not a thing unless a state of war had been declared.

Grobbekee

If you’re a bouncer at the entrance of a disco, and a drunk, skinny, obviously mentally ill person tries to force their way into the door, you don’t kill them. You smile and gently push them outside again before you go on with your day.

Hankol

ImaginationTop4876

Because NATO countries aren't too keen on starting the third world war

White-Tornado

Because it happen a lot, we do the same in Russia China and North Korea, we just don't speak about it. Talking is enough. No need world war 3, it will be bad for business.

dobreranky

Not everyone has Turkish level of hatred for them. Not everyone is capable of assassinating a Russian ambassador in the most public and cinematic way and shooting down their planes.
Even if it works impeccably.

AdEmotional9991

There's also the military aspect of not shooting them down, you'd need to turn on guidance radars etc for missiles which would then give away the locations of where anti aircraft missile sites could be located.

Two jets are not going to do much so giving away you're defensive locations might not be worth it.

KaiserDamz

To have a requirement of shooting down anything Russia edges over the border that's a lot of missile defense sitting along all of your border that doesn't get sent to help Ukraine.

A guy on YouTube keeps insisting that's why Russia is doing this, they can't directly bomb the supply so are trying other methods to divert or delay.

HatOfFlavour

Because that's exactly what Putine wants, a very puiblic excuse to justify his anti Nato war.

0Tezorus0

Think that's a provocation/act of war, no?

Obviously what Russia is doing is also an act of war, but Russia needs just one motive to go nuclear.

dazedan_confused

As per [this guy on YouTube](https://youtu.be/DVzCgNs_BrI?si=T0GNU70DchGcyR0z)

Russians probably want the planes to be shot down so that they can convince Russians that NATO is attacking them instead of just Ukraine. Which would hopefully (for the Kremlin) result in them needing less a cash to get people to sign up for the army.

The NATO response is likely to revolve around sending more stuff to Ukraine instead

Bigbigcheese

In the days of the USSR thier Russian Bears used to nudge UK airspace regularly. British Tornado aircraft use to fly up to meet them, monitor them, and nudge them back into International Airspace.

I have no doubt that we and the Americans were doing the same in Russian Airspace.

It was like a game. Everyone nudging to test how sharp the other guy's reaction times were.

PigHillJimster

It would escalate to full blown war, that wouldnt be ideal

Longjumping-Unit8766

One hypothesis: Putin would want that, so they can more credibly portrait NATO as the aggressors (they can claim their jets were not violating Estonia airspace) and gain a boost in domestic support. 


NATO can easily do this, like Turkey did. But there are second order consequences.

Ok-Palpitation2401

Those intrusions are there to provoke an armed response in order for intruders to detect locations of defense systems, operational procedures, etc.

Responding to that is a highly strategic decision, I would assume.

This doesn't mean the intrusions wouldn't stop if one or two planes were just shot down, but not doing that might as well have some benefits, provide some information to the intruded side...

tsereg

Nothing new happening here. Just the media reporting it now....The russians have been invading/probing NATO airspace for more than 40 years.... every year it happens 250 to 300 times....NATO scrambles into air and push them out. Nothing new going on.
That's why each air force has a QRA 24 hours on duty. Been involved in this since the early 80s.

maddog3170

Gobby12000

Poland did not invoke article 5. Sharpen your reading comprehension skills. We can't make them better for you. You're just going to misread the comment section the same way you misread the news

LackWooden392

Perhaps NATO isn't capable of shooting them down before they exit NATO airspace. Shooting them down  afterwards would be a huge incident. 



Perhaps they are open to the possibility that the intruders are looking to defect and escape Russia 


Perhaps they recognise the incursions as Russia testing their defences / response times. Shooting them down would reveal more information and cost more than not Shooting them

zealoSC

“No! They were in Russian aerospace. Donald, I can spend weeeeeeeeeks providing you with evidence that they were in Russian aerospace, so you couldn’t possibly get involved. Hey, China! Look what these NATO guys are up to, shooting down our planes in clearly our territory. Estonia has gone off the rails! Hey India, you seen this? Iran, like, bro, I totally hear you. Aggressive invasion of airspace eh? Preach bro. 

And so now we need to build up forces near Latvia, Lithuania, Estonian because they are being soooo unfriendly. But trust me bro, it’s just an exercise. Korea can help us. It’s a joint exercise. 

Bediiiiiiides, Donny old boy, this is just a domestic incident. They’re really just Russian territories that have been a bit silly. You’re not that bothered, right? 

Anyway, look how unfair NATO have been, leaving our poor Kaliningrad region totally helpless and threatened on all sides by NATO. Who as you’ve just seen are spoiling for a fight, but only if you’re involved. But you’re clever, you’re smart, they’re weak and shouldn’t have started it all by illegally shooting down our innocent pilots with families and children and puppies. We’re the good guy here. NATO is out of control. This is a domestic incident, and we’ll stop when we’ve got friendly countries up to Kaliningrad. 

Poland will be fiiiiine, so long as they keep their nose out.”


So, shooting down Russian planes would have to leave absolutely no question whose airspace they were in, and the intent, otherwise the smoke, mirrors and denials all come out to muddy the conversation, while Russia justifies “repatriating” the Baltics because it’s an imminent threat.

StevieJax77

Try thinking of politicians in Western countries like ‘efficient’ managers in big multinational corporations. Their main concern when making decisions is their own safety — any conflict could hurt their position, so they’d rather avoid it. If things escalate, it could mess with their re-election plans, so it’s easier and safer to just write notes instead.

AlgaKyrgyzstan

I know a guy who was out in Libya during 2011 when setting up the no fly zone, right at the beginning, Libyan jets were trying to provoke a response in order to allow them to fire on the NATO assets that were out there and significantly escalate the tensions.
Every 8 hours they had to decide if the jets flying at them were threats and should be shot down.
Not shooting them down led to a peaceful conclusion of the no fly zone and the fall of gadafis regime.

Comfortable_Rent_439

This post should be removed. The sub isn't for posting your opinion and statements

Eraserguy

Basically in a nutshell the rest of the world including NATO countries are absolutely shitting themselves.

nzoasisfan

If NATO invokes Article 5, there's no going back. Putin is counting on the alliance breaking apart because some members don't see the provocation causing the invocation of Article 5 as "enough" to be worth a conflict with Russia. It would start with Putin's newest bottom bitch Orban in Hungary, then spread to the rest of the Balkans, which would give Vlad's other jealous boyfriend Don Trumponovich cover to also not get involved.

The reason has to be enough that all of NATO cannot hold out and bicker.

Rockerika

First NATO should care about shooting down turkish fighters  violating greek airspace.

Subject-Building1892

Cause both sides have been toying with each other like this for 80 years now, and this is no time to start lighting up each other.

RL203

Same reason it took US a week to shoot down a balloon, I suppose

mikkopai

Because they're all soft. NATO is a meaningless organization

SlickRick941

Violence is the last option. And, what's more important, when you shoot, you'd better kill. So, do they know they can shoot and kill a plane violating the airspace? Do they know they can absolutely prove it's a violation? Are all of the NATO countries on board? What is proof for each country? If they shot but didn't destroy a plane that lands in a NATO country, would Russia try and save the pilot? How? Can that country defend against a Russian interaction? What is that country willing to use to protect their airspace? When? How? All this and more when coordinating 33 countries and their political military systems.

ProfShea

Because it will have consequences. There is no will within european branch of NATO to go to war or even border conflict without US.

Russians: contrary. Due to culture and being separate from west willingness to fight and die is greater. We see that in current war in ukraine where plenty of people fight to make money and come back as a hero.

Overall Putin undermines whole talk about NATO strenght, decisivness and unity. It is easiest way to get through our own propaganda [99% of media is western].


There will be more provocations like that until we will have discussion whether risking escalation is worth it.

Honest-West9013

Escalating aggression tends to become "you started the war" allegations.

D_Winds

Especially when the Russian keep saying they know from nothing. Then also we, the EU, dont know from nothing when we shoot down a plane. Simple
Deny deny deny

MarkTheFat

I think the reason Estonia didn't shoot down the planes was that Russia would claim to their own people they were shot in international/ it's own airspace and use that to get more recruits for Ukraine

BIGcabbage1

Because it's a distraction.  Russia isn't going to attack.  They have nothing to gain from that.  Even before they devoted all their resources into Ukraine, NATO would wipe the floor with them.  

This is just a play into public perception.  Cause the public to panic and force NATO to pull resources out of bolstering Ukraine to divert to their own borders.  This is a low risk play for Russia, because (from what I understand) they're just sending drones.  Drones are cheap as dirt.  If they get shot down, it's just pennies.  Now, if NATO overreacts, that's millions in resources leaving Ukraine.  Perhaps we can glean that NATO understands this, as they really haven't done anything at all in response.

mouthfire

i think they should. russia would think twice after that is it worth to do it again

Miserable-Place-3507

ShitMcClit

They should! Turkey is in NATO, they did it a few years ago Russia did nothing after.

zmbt

Because as much as they try to start a war, European countries need to prepare beforehand unless there is a literal attack on people

dropthemagic

Because NATO is acting like a bunch of bitches. No one in europe wants to give Russia a chance to attack unless they are 100% sure the US will back them. Trump won't give NATO and Europe a clear I got your back 100%  vibe.

Russia knows this and is intentionally challenging NATO and trying to show the weaker members that NATO won't protect them.

MaineHippo83

The Russians do this airspace invasion quite regularly, especially above the gulf of Finland. Almost every week. This event just happened to make the news. This is the Russians just testing the reaction of each neighbor country. And, foremost, looking for an excuse, a fatal action by the other party. Remember, the event during the 2nd WW, on the Finnish-Russian border, and how the Russian history books would for 50 years state that Finland started that incident at the border.

mr_martin_1

soops22

emptywhendone

Because Trump, Vance, and the Trumpanzees will frame this as "unnecessary violence" from the part of Europe, they will use it as a pretext to push for leaving NATO.   
  
Putin understands this dynamic very well, which is why he will keep provoking NATO in an effort to deepen the rift between the White House and the alliance.

This has been their agenda since their time in power, and you could already sense it from Pete Hegseth’s very first visit to Munich, when they were looking for justifications to walk away from NATO. If that happens, the alliance risks losing all credibility in Russia’s eyes and will no longer be viewed as a real threat. Putin is playing the long game, provoking the West and then casting himself as the victim.

Meanwhile, the rest of NATO is also forced into a long game: three more years of treading carefully around Trump’s friend Putin so as not to hand Trump an excuse for abandoning ship (TACO will TACO).

All that Trump cares about is a juicy oil deal like Exxon Mobil into Russia's Sakhalin-1 oil and gas project and possibly providing American equipment for Russia's LNG projects like Arctic LNG 2.  He sees it as a commercial deal. 

All the rest, like "democracy", the sovereignty of Ukraine and other European states, means nothing to him and is more like a huge expense to the government.  Trump thinks like a "Bircher", as his dad was a member of the John Birch Society and to them foreign alliances, political treaties with foreign nations are a public expense to cut off. Get money off foreigners, but don't spend anything in return and don't get involved in World-anything (UN, WHO, NATO...) An oil deal with Russia is more profitable than a war with them.

EspressoFrog

GustavoistSoldier

Because the cost outweighs any benefits. Why risk a war for some idiots trying to start something?

Separate_Builder_817

Because NATO and Russia managed to make it through the entire Cold War without kicking off WW3 and nobody wants to break that streak now over an airspace violation.

JaapHoop

Good question. In 2015, Turkey did just that. And nothing happened.

Outrageous_Order_197

They are trying to figure out why Russia is doing it.

Alexander_Granite

They totally should.   But they are afraid this will escalate the situation...sometimes you just have to kick a bully in the teeth.

baldieforprez

Very simple. (Particularly in the case of Estonia) 

Russia wants to test not just the political will but the military infrastructure.  Every time you switch mobile  radar and Sam sites on you give the enemy information about your defensive line and capability and location.

LegoNinja11

Russia sure is quick to shoot down planes (military OR civilian) that enter (or not even enter) their airspace though.

Seems fair.

pclamer

2015 is the worst example. For days, it looked like it could spark a NATO–Russia war. Russia sent advanced air defenses into Syria, broke economic ties with Turkey, and relations froze.

Top-Pangolin-5722

It could trigger a war between NATO and Russia and China

WorldlinessNo7154

Zorklunn

NATO jets violate Russian airspace every few weeks, Russia does the same to NATO, it's a game we've been playing since the 1950s. Don't let the media fool you into thinking something new or eventful.

About 4 years ago a Royal Navy Frigate, I think HMS Northumberland, was doing anti-submarine patrols North of Scotland. It had newest generation of SONAR being towed on a cable behind the ship. The submarine they were tracking sailed across behind the Frigate, just below the surface and cut the cable. The brand new next-gen sonar array sunk to the bottom, where they're fairly sure a remotely operated vehicle from the sub picked it up to take back for analysis. If that's not enough to cause a military response, then a couple of jets crossing a line on a map isn't taken as much of a big deal.

Mr_Reaper__

A lot of answers here with a lot of speculation but the actual answer is that NATO countries violate or try to violate Russian airspace all the time. All large countries play this game all the time. If you shoot down a mig you might lose 2 f-35 next you test them. 

This is a defined game where you try to violate and you leave when you are asked to leave. Media choosing to wave the bloody shirt over it is silly and propagandistic

count210

hangender

Even if they would have, it's exactly what Putain wants. He needs escalation to get support for his war.

Doppelkammertoaster

You shoot a rocket, planes escapes across the border, rocket follows and hits it. You just attacked your neighbor…

rabbittrainer

Because they know they cant rely on the U.S. and are scared because of it. They need more time to figure out how a european army would work or should work and see how it actually does work. 

Starting a conflict isn't smart for europe at this time. The higher ups probably know more about russias strength than they would propagandize to the world, or it really is just nukes making them hesitant.

bellmospriggans

NATO has issued warnings following a series of Russian airspace violations affecting multiple member states.

NATO-Russia Airspace Violations

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want