In recent weeks, some countries of the East front of NATO, including Poland and Romania, have recorded the presence of unauthorized drones, and attributed to Russia, within their airlines. In the meantime, last night the airports of Oslo and Copenhagen remained closed for a few hours due to the presence of unidentified drones in their skies, while the Kremlin denied its involvement.
But what could be the reasons behind these trespassing? According to Aldo Ferrari, professor of the Ca ‘Foscari University of Venice and head of the Inspire Observatory on Russia, Caucasus and Central Asia, there is no clear reason why Russia is deliberately trying to increase tensions with NATO, considering that the war in Ukraine continues, although slowly, in a positive way for Moscow. Also for this reason, we must not fall into excessive alarmisms and give as a attendance that it is Russian invasions.
Professor, for what reasons would Russia be continuing to defeat NATO aerial space?
In the last few days there has been a lot of talk about these episodes, of the Russian will to test NATO’s readiness and to evaluate whether there are flaws in the defense system. In reality, if you go to analyze these episodes, the certainties are not so evident, starting from the accident of the plane of Von der Leyen (which then proved to be not such) up to the drones that disclosed in Poland and Romania. There are many areas of shadow and the trespassing of the airspace have always occurred, it is enough to see where St. Petersburg is located to understand the physical closeness with the Baltic countries. I have the feeling, therefore, that there is an excessive alarmism and little balance even among those who have already decided that these episodes are clear Russian provocations. I would be a little more prudent, also because to analyze the situation I do not see a clear reason why Russia should invade NATO space. The war in Ukraine continues, slowly, but positively for Russia and the last thing Moscow needs is to increase tension with western countries, with the risk that they can really intervene.
In the same way, the idea that Russia can attack NATO is highly unlikely, considering that it has not yet managed to defeat Ukraine, a country three times smaller than its territory. And bIsogna remember that Russia is not the Soviet Union, which was based on an expansive ideology. Why should today’s Russia attack an alliance 10 times bigger than her and engaged by article 5 of mutual defense? I believe that we Europeans should be more cautious, we are abandoning ourselves to an alarmism and a car that prevents us from doing something concrete for the conclusion of the conflict.
Have there been other precedents in history and is it true that these Russian trespassing have increased in recent years?
Yes, already at the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine there was the case of a Russian missile exploded in the Polish territory: there, however, a position of prudence was also adopted by NATO, confirming that the episode was linked to an accident and not to a provocation of Russia. Clearly there have been many disseminations and it is true that they have increased in the last years of conflict: if the military action of a state increases and there are more and more air drones in flight, if the ability of the countries to deviate the trajectory of these drones increases, it is clear that the opportunities for violations of air spaces increase accordingly.
This, however, in my opinion, does not mean that Russia is trying to provoke an escalation or that it is preparing to invade a European country. Frankly, I believe that more than creating false alarmism, NATO and European leaders should worry about creating a European security space that includes both Ukrainian and Russia: we forget, in fact, that by widening NATO to the east and excluding Russia we have in fact thrown the premises for the outbreak of the war in 2022.
Is there anyone who is taking advantage of this renewed tension between NATO and Russia?
Those who can take advantage of this tension are Ukrainians, who can show that they actually need more protection. But this tension is also good for NATO, whose existence, in my opinion, is the real problem that has led to the worsening of the relations of the West with Russia, which since the 90s clearly says that it cannot tolerate the expansion of the Atlantic alliance to the east.
And it is also good for those who produce weapons, given that it justifies the imposing increase in military expenses, thus managing to give a name to an enemy who, perhaps, has never existed, at least not for the European Union.
Speaking of the increase in military spending, how is NATO’s military arsenal characterized?
It must be said that NATO is enormously stronger than Russia, as quantity and quality of armaments. But Russia has been used to combat, has been fighting for three and a half years, has had important precedents (such as Syria and Georgia in 2008) and has its own military capacity.
Nonetheless, NATO should strengthen its arsenal of drones, given the immense importance that they are having in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and, at the same time, should invest more in the anti-aircraft defense. From this point of view we are weak, we do not have the most effective anti-aircraft defense systems. Moreover, we have not invest in the defense sector for decades, having been protected so far from the American umbrella. But this is something that should be done regardless of Russia, without creating fake crises to justify an increase in military expenses.
Poland invoked article 4 of NATO after the trespassing of its airspace: at this point what are the possible future scenarios? Could article 5 be invoked in the event that the tension increases?
From my point of view, I hope that prudence continues to prevail and that the worsening of the last few days is momentary. But what I seem to perceive, in addition to article 4 (which provides for the possibility of bringing together all NATO Member States for consultations, editor’s note) and article 5 (which establishes the principle of mutual defense and intervention in the event of an attack towards another Member State, ed) It is that there is a very scarce lucidity in political analysis by the top of the Atlantic alliance and the European Union, which in the past has already caused a worsening of relations with Russia. The lucidity is missing to concretely analyze what brought us to this situation and also what could determine the future: we are not doing anything concrete to end the conflict.
In short, it would be appropriate that the European authorities tried to reconsider their position, but for the moment there seems to be no glimpse in this regard.
