On Wednesday morning, we woke up in an anxious information space, with attention focused on the drones shot down overnight in Poland. True, in the past, stray attack drones have been found here and there in countries along Europe's eastern border. Even in Estonia.

But this time it wasn't just one or two drones that had accidentally drifted off course. A couple dozen drones and missiles don't just "wander by mistake." And even if they somehow did, a couple dozen attack drones would be more than enough to render half of Karlova in Tartu or a few adjacent media houses in downtown Tallinn uninhabitable. Depending on the area, that could mean anywhere from a handful to a few dozen casualties. That prospect doesn't inspire a sense of security.

In Poland, F-16 fighter jets took to the skies, along with F-35s from the Royal Netherlands Air Force, Italy's AWACS surveillance planes and NATO-operated aerial refueling aircraft. Simply put, cannons were primed to shoot down "mosquitoes." The cost? Several hundred thousand euros. In fact, even more once you add in the expenses caused by closing airports. A very expensive reaction to "mosquitoes" that supposedly flew in by accident.

Expensive non-war

In the traditional sense, this doesn't quite qualify as war: just a handful of drones with extra fuel ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time, causing potentially millions in damage — not to mention eroding people's sense of security and trust in the very defense structures meant to protect us.

Russia has, without a doubt, managed to inflict harm without it being classified as a military attack. But what was NATO's response?

NATO invoked Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which allows for urgent consultations among member states. Behind this bureaucratic euphemism lies the reality that, while dangerous drones or stray missiles "accidentally" crash into residential neighborhoods, member states may hastily exchange views. Really? That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

'It wasn't on purpose'

By the time the workday wasn't even over on Wednesday, the European Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas had already gone on record saying that the drones' entry into Polish airspace was likely intentional. Various Telegram channels confirmed this, noting the extra fuel tanks attached to the drones' noses, which allowed these supposedly "stray" aircraft to fly as far as possible.

And then came the news, as if from some parallel-universe backroom. Push notifications lit up people's phone screens declaring that NATO did not consider the incursion into Polish territory to be an attack on the alliance and that NATO was still unsure whether the attack had even been intentional. Excuse me?! A stance so 180 degrees opposite to what high-level officials and circulating evidence were indicating hardly inspires trust in the defense alliance. It leaves the impression that NATO either refuses to see — or is simply blind to — the real risks.

As if from yet another parallel universe, a social media post dropped like the cherry on top. Underscoring the confusion among Western leaders, U.S. President Donald Trump posted a question to social media that sounded more like something from a teenage group chat: "What's the deal with Russia violating Poland's airspace with drones?"

So what's the point of invoking Article 4 if the outcome of consultations is leadership paralysis, contradictory messages and a rapidly shrinking sense of security? NATO's stance sounds less like a serious strategic decision and more like a kindergarten ruling: if he didn't bully the other kid on purpose, then it's no big deal. But it is a big deal: drones crossed into Polish territory and caused damage — economic and psychological — which is precisely Russia's aim.

It almost goes without saying what this does to Estonians' sense of security when they hear reports that we have virtually no capacity to detect drones in flight, let alone shoot them down. Sure, a fighter jet could take off from Ämari, but what good would that do if the drone had already "accidentally" crashed into an apartment building? What we can do is close our airspace. Unpleasant and costly, yes, but at least a more realistic step toward actual safety than waving around empty high-level words and articles.

There is plenty to reflect on when it comes to our readiness. Perhaps our top priority shouldn't be stockpiling drones in case of war, but instead negotiating with the Ukrainians on how to acquire the detection systems they use to track drones — what kind, from where, to where. After all, it was the Ukrainians who, in Poland's case, warned: hey, something suspicious is flying over your heads.

It is strange that, right now, Ukraine's capabilities and warnings are doing more to bolster our sense of security than the actions of our own state or of NATO.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!