Poland has publicly contradicted U.S. President Donald Trump after he suggested that a recent incursion by Russian drones into Polish airspace “may have been a mistake.”
Speaking to reporters on 12 September, Mr Trump added he was “not happy with anything related to this situation”, but did not characterise the breach as deliberate. Warsaw’s response was immediate: Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski wrote on X, “No, it was not a mistake,” while Prime Minister Donald Tusk said the overflight was intentional.
We would also wish that the drone attack on Poland was a mistake. But it wasn’t. And we know it.
— Donald Tusk (@donaldtusk) September 12, 2025
The incident occurred mid-week and involved roughly twenty drones—reports vary between 19 and 21—some of which were brought down by allied aircraft. It marked a notable escalation: according to Reuters, it was the first known instance during Russia’s war on Ukraine in which a NATO member took direct military action. Russia has denied wrongdoing, claiming its drones were targeting Ukraine and entered Poland unintentionally; Polish authorities say debris analysis is under way.
NATO called the breach “dangerous and unacceptable” and moved to reinforce air defences along its eastern flank. Secretary-General Mark Rutte and Allied commander Gen Alexus Grynkewich announced a new mission—codenamed Eastern Sentry—to bolster surveillance and interception capacity. Poland also invoked Article 4, triggering consultations among allies on perceived threats to security.
Mr Trump’s comment—“Maybe it was a mistake”—has drawn criticism across Central and Eastern Europe, where officials have framed the incident as a deliberate stress-test of NATO’s response. While the White House has joined a 44-nation statement condemning the airspace violation as contrary to international law, the President himself has not announced additional U.S. measures. European capitals, meanwhile, have expanded air-policing rotations and pressed for tighter sanctions coordination.
Mr Sikorski amplified Poland’s position in media appearances, including on Fox News, saying it was “hard to believe” the overflight could be accidental and arguing that Moscow must be deprived of the resources to continue the war. In separate remarks circulated by regional outlets summarising that interview, he criticised recent U.S. choices on Russia policy, saying “we were supposed to have sanctions, but instead we got Alaska,” a reference to a high-profile U.S.–Russia encounter in Alaska made earlier in the week. (Fox News broadcast his appearance; the “Alaska” line has been reported and attributed to that interview by Ukrainian and regional media.)
Beyond Poland, allied reaction has been swift. Germany has extended air-policing support, and NATO planners are reassessing civil aviation risk near the eastern frontier. An emergency meeting of the UN Security Council convened at Warsaw’s request focused on the legal implications of repeated drone and missile overflights linked to Russia’s wider campaign against Ukraine. Slovenia’s UN ambassador, among others, rejected suggestions the incursion was accidental.
The precise intent behind the drone flight remains under assessment by NATO. However, the timing—coinciding with a broader Russian strike package of hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles against Ukraine—has reinforced allied concerns that Moscow is probing NATO’s rules of engagement and air-defence seams. Polish officials contend that the pattern is consistent with deliberate attempts to intimidate and to complicate Western support for Ukrainian air defence.
For Warsaw, the episode has revived long-standing debates about response thresholds and alliance signalling. By invoking Article 4 rather than proposing collective defence under Article 5, Poland has opted for consultation and reinforcement over immediate escalation, while insisting the breach will not pass without consequence. Eastern Sentry, if sustained, will increase early warning, interception readiness and allied interoperability along NATO’s eastern borders—a posture designed to reduce the scope for miscalculation and to demonstrate that allied airspace is not permissive to overflight.
What happens next will turn on both technical findings and political choices. If debris analysis corroborates Poland’s account of a coordinated, intentional incursion, pressure will grow for additional EU-U.S. measures targeting Russia’s military-industrial base and its drone supply lines. If NATO’s assessment remains non-committal on intent, the alliance is likely to prioritise practical steps—denser radar coverage, faster alerting, and clearer engagement protocols—over declaratory policy. Either way, the combination of Poland’s public pushback and NATO’s rapid reinforcement signals a shared objective: to deter further violations while managing escalation risks on the alliance’s frontier.
