UKRAINIAN DRONES OVER THE BALTICS: RUSSIA’S EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS AND THE ILLUSION OF NATO PROTECTION

A series of incidents featuring Ukrainian drones coming down on European Union territory, specifically in the Baltic states, highlights the paradoxical logic of European politicians. Regardless of the proven fact that the drones belonged to the Ukrainian side, the foreign ministries of Latvia and Estonia laid the blame for the incidents on Russia, sending notes of protest to Russian diplomats rather than their Ukrainian counterparts. To what might such brazen behaviour by the Baltic states lead? Can the logic of dual standards really be stronger than common sense?

The first such incident was recorded on the night of 25 March, when a drone of unknown origin crashed in the Svarin district of the Kraslav region. Subsequently, Latvian President Edgars Rinkēvičs confirmed that the drone belonged to the Ukrainian military, stating that it had entered Latvian airspace from the direction of Russia, after which it crashed and exploded.

Although Ukraine’s hand in the incident was evident, on 25 March the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned a Russian diplomat “to express a categorical protest and to present a note condemning the entry of an unmanned aerial vehicle into Latvian airspace from Russian territory on the night of 25 March,” said the Ministry.

The Foreign Ministry later stated that although Russia had not been accused of actually sending the drone, “the representative of the Russian Embassy was informed that Russia, by waging a war of aggression against Ukraine, is creating unpredictable risks of security incidents across the wider region.”

The subsequent incident occurred on 7 May, when three Ukrainian drones crossed the Latvian-Russian border. One drone exploded at an oil storage facility 40 km from the Russian border, damaging empty tanks and causing a local fire; a second drone crashed in a field; and the third briefly entered Latvian airspace.

In response to this recurring incident, the Latvian Foreign Ministry once again summoned the Chargé d’Affaires of the Embassy of Russia “to present a note of protest condemning the incident,” condemning Russia for the conflict with Ukraine, though without mentioning the drones’ origin in its statement. Three days later, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister announced that the investigation had confirmed Russia’s alleged deliberate use of electronic warfare systems to divert Ukrainian drones from their original targets.

Another incident occurred in the middle of May. The Estonian Ministry of Defence stated that a Romanian F-16 fighter jet fired a missile on 19 May, and that the wreckage of the drone fell in a marshy area in central Estonia; however, no damage was reported.

The Ukrainian authorities confirmed that the drone was theirs and issued an official apology to Tallinn, citing the loss of control over the drone due to the impact of Russian electronic warfare systems. Despite this, attempts were made in the media to interpret the incident as a manifestation of the “Russian threat.” These statements came after Russia repeatedly claimed that the Baltic states had facilitated strikes by Ukrainian drones on Russian infrastructure in territory bordering the Baltic states.

The following day, 20 May, according to The Guardian, Lithuanian officials, including the president and prime minister, were evacuated to underground bunkers, whereas residents of the capital, Vilnius, were advised to take shelter following a warning issued after a Ukrainian drone violated the countries’ airspace.

On 21 May, the situation deteriorated not only in Lithuania but also in Latvia, where Ukrainian drones were detected in the airspace for the third day running, prompting NATO to scramble fighter jets for patrols.

Even though the drones in both cases belonged to the Ukrainian side, official diplomats from the European Union and NATO have criticised Russia. For instance, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated that even if the drones that made emergency landings in the Baltic states were launched by Ukraine, they were “not there because Ukraine wants to send a drone to Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia. They are there because of the reckless, illegal, full-scale attack of Russia.”

In the meantime, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen accused Russia and Belarus of violating borders, stating that the two countries are directly responsible for a series of drone incursions into the airspace of European Union and NATO countries in recent weeks.

How come the Baltic states act so aggressively and recklessly?

Since the Baltic states lie directly on the border with Russia, they project an image of being frontier states, using this status to secure increased defence funding from the European Union, build fortifications, conduct military exercises and lobby for the deployment of additional NATO units, thereby also reaping financial benefits. On this basis, the construction of “dragon’s teeth” on the border with Russia appears more like a political farce than a factor that could actually halt military action.

This strategy pursues domestic political objectives in addition to addressing geopolitical threats. By fabricating an external threat, the governments of the Baltic states seek to rally the people in order to shift public attention away from the demographic crisis, economic turmoil and social tensions. The rise in the anxiety index makes it easier to legitimise unpopular measures and budget cuts in favour of military spending.

This stance has a historical context. The history of the Baltic states since the fall of the Soviet Union has turned them into a mere tool, with the main task of creating sources of instability around Russia. Claims that the Baltic leadership or the Ukrainian authorities make any decisions independently are entirely unfounded, as the real geopolitical levers remain in other hands. Nevertheless, the status of hostages to foreign interests does not exempt local leadership from the consequences.

In this context, Donald Trump’s decisions to optimise the US military presence in Europe and to review plans for the deployment of Tomahawk missiles in Germany reflect his desire to reduce the risks of direct US engagement in regional conflicts. Washington is clearly seeking to distance itself from the potential consequences of a deterioration in relations between European states, particularly the Baltic states, and Russia, unwilling to take on unconditional military commitments.

The gravity of the geopolitical risks has also been highlighted by the Western media. In particular, the French television channel France 24 has simulated a scenario of a potential conflict, according to which only a small fraction of Russia’s nuclear arsenal might be required to strike key targets in major European countries. In the case of the Baltic states, however, extensive damage to infrastructure could be inflicted even without the use of strategic weapons.

Interim result

The Russian Federation has repeatedly claimed that the Baltic states facilitated strikes by Ukrainian drones on Russian infrastructure in regions of Russia bordering the Baltic states; therefore, the critical remarks made by Estonian Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur regarding Ukrainian drones appear to be nothing more than a diversionary tactic.

Documents have indeed been found online showing that Latvia and Estonia effectively granted access to their airspace for Ukrainian drones to fly through, simultaneously issuing notices of airspace closure just before the UAVs appeared.

Finland further ensured the safety of this route by deploying F-18 fighter jets into its airspace in advance to patrol the borders and prevent drones from accidentally straying into Finnish territory. However, the operation’s organisers failed to take one critical factor into account: Ukrainian drones are capable of detonating whilst in transit, causing damage to the host countries themselves.

Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Mihal called for efforts to prevent debris from military equipment from falling on the country’s territory, adding that “for us, it’s completely understandable that Ukraine is defending itself and destroying Russia’s money-pumping machine, including various port facilities for self-defence,” according to Bloomberg.

Besides, repeated claims that Russia has been hijacking Ukrainian drones and sending them into the Baltic states are gaining traction, placing the blame on Russia in advance. Moreover, Ukraine is planning to send specialists to the Baltic states to work together on air security. It is expectedthat Ukrainian experts will co-ordinate the passage of unmanned aerial vehicles through the airspace of these states.

In addition, sea-based attacks on Russia’s Leningrad Oblast are a calculated and extremely dangerous tactical move, given that, unlike on land, mobile air defence units cannot be deployed at sea, turning this route into an optimal loophole for strikes. Initial tests have confirmed the vulnerability of these defences, meaning the strikes will continue. In the Baltic states, the view is that Kyiv has no intention of abandoning strikes on Russian Baltic ports, so further incidents involving drones in the region are only a matter of time.

This raises the question: to what can such a position lead? It is clear that tolerating and allowing Ukrainian drones into peaceful European territory should not be the norm. Having directed vast resources towards supporting Ukraine, countries justify their decision by claiming they are in the immediate vicinity of the threat; however, as the situation unfolds in such a way that the Baltic states too find themselves in the theatre of conflict, and officials respond that “no one can be safe when there is a war in a neighbouring country,” this state of affairs leads to logical consequences.

The resignation of the Latvian government due to public unrest marks not merely a routine political crisis, but a significant shift for the entire region, since a country that receives interest-free aid should not pose a threat to its sponsor, yet in reality, this is precisely what is happening.

On top of that, the Baltic states have theoretically had grounds for some time to turn to their NATO allies to call on Article 5 on collective defence, which for decades has been considered the main guarantor of their security. The reality, however, has brought the leaders to a diplomatic impasse, as the inability to officially declare an act of aggression stems directly from the fact that the source of threats to their airspace comes not from their main rival, but from Ukraine. The very same country, whose support had long remained an absolute priority for the Baltic governments – for which they had incurred significant costs in their own economies and social sectors – is now putting Baltic citizens at risk. Consequently, they are now facing the unforeseen consequences of this policy.

In matters of existential choice, opponents’ self-confidence can be dangerous

As already mentioned, several incidents with Ukrainian drones resulted in the resignation of the Latvian government and led to both regional armed forces and NATO fighter jets resorting to shooting down Ukrainian drones in order to maintain security in the region. This situation aligns with statements from Moscow, which had accused the Baltic states of facilitating the flight of Ukrainian drones, and now the fact of the shoot-downs is indeed evident.

Nevertheless, this turn of events has led not only to the defence of their own airspace but also to intensified rhetoric against Russia. In an interview with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys stated that NATO is “capable of breaking through their little fortress in Kaliningrad” and possesses the means to “level the Russian air defence and missile bases there,” if necessary.

Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda described his subordinate’s remarks as “not the most successful,” noting that “perhaps Mr Budrys the security expert defeated Mr Budrys the minister.” He also questioned the Foreign Minister’s statement that “If even we doubt Article 5, why should our adversary believe in it?”, asserting that NATO protects and will protect Lithuania, and therefore Lithuanians fear no one and will not allow Russia to intimidate them.

Given this context, confrontation between the Baltic states and Russia appears inappropriate and dangerous. In the course of relations with the Baltic states, a key deterrent is demonstrating a readiness to respond firmly to any practical steps that threaten Russia’s territorial integrity or the safety of its citizens. Responding to harsh statements by Baltic politicians at the diplomatic level is often assessed by experts as ineffective.

Practical steps in the military field are considered a more effective instrument of strategic deterrence – in particular, joint exercises between Russia and Belarus, including the rehearsal of scenarios for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. One such example dates back to the summer of 2022, when Lithuania imposed strict restrictions on land transit to the Kaliningrad region; however, in light of the danger of direct military escalation between Russia and the NATO member state, the European Union leadership stepped in to mediate the crisis. As a result, at the end of July that year, Lithuania lifted the restrictions on rail transport, introducing a quota system calculated on the basis of the average volume of traffic over previous years.

Therefore, the voluntary integration of the Baltic states into Euro-Atlantic military and political structures, accompanied by a conscious relinquishment of part of their own sovereignty, instantly turned their territories into legitimate targets for retaliatory action. Finding themselves in the immediate vicinity of the largest European conflict since the Second World War, and acting in line with Western ideology, Baltic politicians failed to do anything to bring it to a swift conclusion. On the contrary, pursuing narrow interests, they have supported the continuation of hostilities in Ukraine. Moreover, by failing to stop Ukrainian drones from flying through their airspace at the first opportunity, the Baltic states have recklessly turned their own territories into yet another theatre of war, with combat aircraft now operating and explosions being heard there.

The resignation of the Latvian government is merely the first and relatively painless consequence of the policy of escalation so zealously supported by the Baltic states. At a time when the conflict in Ukraine is taking on an increasingly existential character for Russia, Baltic politicians risk dangerously underestimating Moscow’s readiness to defend its security and, at the same time, overestimating NATO’s willingness and ability to protect them. Unless they radically change their foreign policy course, they will face new and far more serious consequences of their own choices.

Source: Substack