Russia Launches Unprecedented Drone Attack on NATO Member Poland

Watch the Episode

Video originally published on September 10, 2025.

In the early morning hours of Wednesday, September 10, 2025, Poland experienced an unprecedented attack as swarms of Russian kamikaze drones crossed into its airspace from Ukraine. What began as another night of Russian bombardment against western Ukraine transformed into a direct challenge to the NATO alliance when multiple waves of drones—not just one or two strays, but coordinated swarms—penetrated Polish territory. The incident forced the closure of major airports including those serving Warsaw, triggered shelter-in-place orders across several eastern regions, and scrambled Polish and NATO fighter aircraft to intercept the hostile drones. This marks the first time since Russia's invasion of Ukraine that a NATO member state has faced such a brazen and coordinated aerial incursion, representing exactly the kind of provocation Western analysts have anticipated for years: a calculated test of NATO's resolve and willingness to respond to Russian aggression.

Key Takeaways

Multiple waves of Russian kamikaze drones deliberately crossed into Polish airspace on September 10, 2025, in an unprecedented coordinated attack on NATO territory.

Polish and NATO fighter aircraft actively engaged and shot down multiple drones, while major airports across Poland—including those serving Warsaw—were forced to close.

The attack represents a calculated test by Vladimir Putin to gauge NATO's willingness to respond to direct aggression against alliance territory.

Poland's Territorial Defense Force issued mass warnings for potential mobilization on six hours' notice, while the government confirmed constant contact with NATO command.

The incident occurred amid a broader pattern of escalating Russian aggression, with projectile launches exceeding 6,000 in July 2025 and some of the war's largest air assaults occurring in recent weeks.

NATO faces a critical decision point: respond decisively to establish deterrence, or risk emboldening further Russian provocations through inaction.

The Night of the Attack

The overnight hours from Tuesday, September 9, to Wednesday, September 10, initially appeared to follow the now-familiar pattern of Russian aerial assault on Ukraine. Air raid sirens wailed across the country as Russia executed its standard attack sequence: first deploying swarms of Shahed-136 kamikaze drones—autonomous explosive UAVs typically based on Iranian designs but likely manufactured in Russia. These drones fly slowly across Ukrainian territory toward their targets, deliberately drawing out air defense systems and forcing them to expend interceptor missiles. Once Ukrainian air defenses are engaged and potentially depleted, Russian strategic bombers release their actual payloads: long-range cruise missiles traveling at far greater speeds. The timing is calculated so that these faster missiles arrive precisely when Ukrainian air defenses are struggling to replenish their interceptor stocks after dealing with the drone swarms, substantially increasing the probability that the missiles will penetrate to their intended targets.

But at approximately 1:15 AM local time, the situation deviated dramatically from this established pattern. Several Russian drones continued flying westward, bypassing any conceivable targets within Ukraine and eventually crossing the Polish border entirely. War observer accounts and open-source intelligence analysts monitoring the situation on social media immediately recognized the anomaly, unable to reach definitive conclusions but understanding that whatever was unfolding represented profoundly bad news. Social media channels began filling with scattered reports from Poland: audio recordings, video footage, and eyewitness accounts indicating that fighter jets had been scrambled and were operating across the country's eastern regions. One major airport announced its closure, then another, then two more—including two airports serving Warsaw, the capital city located nowhere near the Ukrainian border, indicating the extraordinary depth of territorial penetration these drones achieved.

The Military Response Unfolds

Global flight-tracking services revealed the scope of the military response as multiple aircraft appeared over Polish territory. An air-to-air refueling tanker from the NATO fleet circled repeatedly along the same route, maintaining station to support combat operations. A Polish early-warning and control aircraft conducted loops while progressively moving deeper into Polish territory, behavior consistent with tracking incoming threats as they penetrated further into the country. For several minutes, an F-35 fighter jet—marked as belonging to the US Air Force though possibly Dutch—activated its transponder and broadcast a code indicating lost communication, a significant event suggesting the intensity of operations underway. Fighter jets were reported active in multiple locations across Poland, while additional reports suggested drones might have crossed into Moldova or even Slovakia, though hard confirmation from Moldovan authorities had not been announced at the time.

For approximately two hours, uncertainty reigned regarding whether the incident represented an intentional Russian provocation or a catastrophic accident. While a single group of drones experiencing simultaneous malfunctions and drifting into Polish airspace seemed unlikely, it remained within the realm of possibility that onboard guidance systems could have erroneously directed them across the border. Russian military bloggers, typically highly active during air assault operations, fell conspicuously silent—raising suspicions that perhaps this development hadn't been part of the planned operation, or at minimum, hadn't been communicated to them beforehand. A formation of Russian strategic bombers already airborne to release cruise missiles appeared to reverse course, as if receiving sudden orders to abort their mission. The possibility of drones crossing into Slovakia particularly suggested an unintentional act, given that Slovakia's leadership maintains some of Russia's few remaining relatively cordial relationships within Europe. Major news outlets remained almost completely absent from coverage while the open-source intelligence community buzzed with activity. Perhaps this was all much ado about nothing.

Confirmation of a Coordinated Attack

Then a second wave of drones crossed into Polish airspace, followed by additional groups. The pattern made accidental incursion impossible to maintain as an explanation. Major news outlets finally picked up the story as Polish officials and several American legislators began referencing the presence of hostile objects in Polish airspace. By dawn, Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed the downing of drones that had intruded into Polish airspace and could have posed a threat to the population. Polish defense leaders confirmed that fighter aircraft had actively engaged multiple targets—meaning they had shot them down using onboard weapons. Shelter-in-place orders were issued for several regions in eastern Poland, while the Polish Territorial Defense Force issued mass warnings to its service members in the country's eastern regions, indicating they could be called up for active duty on as little as six hours' notice.

Warsaw indicated it maintained constant contact with NATO command throughout the incident, and announced that air defenses and radar reconnaissance systems would be shifted to their highest possible state of readiness. According to statements from the Polish Armed Forces, soldiers were actively working to locate crash sites of downed drones to secure the wreckage and conduct analysis. As of sunrise on Wednesday, September 10, the drone attacks on Poland appeared to have ceased—at least temporarily. Meanwhile in Ukraine, those Russian strategic bombers that had appeared to turn back apparently changed course again, ultimately unleashing a massive wave of up to forty cruise missiles in the early morning hours. At the time of assessment, the damage from those strikes had yet to be fully evaluated, but the pattern was clear: Russia had conducted a coordinated operation involving both the unprecedented attack on Polish territory and a substantial missile assault on Ukraine.

The Strategic Significance

If Poland and its NATO allies are honest with themselves, only one interpretation of these events is credible: Vladimir Putin has issued a calculated test to the NATO alliance to determine how it will respond to a brazen, coordinated overflight by numerous explosive kamikaze drones over the territory of a NATO member state. This type of incident is entirely unprecedented for Poland or any other NATO member nation since the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Never before have Polish airports been forced to shut down due to Russian military action. Never before have NATO fighter aircraft been scrambled to intercept hostile drones over Polish territory. Never before have Polish civilians been ordered to shelter in place, entire regions at a time, because of imminent danger from Russian kamikaze drones penetrating their airspace.

Yet this is precisely the kind of attack that Western military analysts and intelligence communities have anticipated from Russia for years. The consensus assessment has long held that eventually, Russia would execute some action designed to send tensions with NATO skyrocketing, specifically to observe whether alliance leaders would demonstrate resolve and stand up to Russian aggression, or whether they would capitulate as they have done repeatedly in previous confrontations. If NATO leadership fails to respond with strength, Putin can reasonably conclude that there will be no collective NATO response to the next, even more brazen act of Russian aggression, or the one after that, or the one after that. Each successful probe without meaningful consequences establishes a new baseline for acceptable Russian behavior and invites further escalation. This is the fundamental nature of deterrence: it must be demonstrated through action, not merely asserted through rhetoric.

NATO's Response Options

Regarding what actions the NATO alliance could take in the wake of what appears to have been a deliberately planned attack, several options exist along a spectrum of escalation. It remains unlikely that Poland will invoke NATO's Article 5 provision of collective defense—the clause stating that an attack on one member is an attack on all—and request that the entire alliance join it in armed conflict with Russia. This restraint is understandable given that no Polish citizens appear to have died as a direct result of the drone incursion, and Russia retains some veneer of plausible deniability, however thin that veneer may be. However, a vast range of actions exists between invoking Article 5 and doing nothing at all.

Poland can invoke Article 4 of the NATO treaty, which permits a member state to request consultations with alliance members regarding threats to its territorial integrity, political independence, or security. Beyond mere discussions, Poland and its NATO allies can take concrete action. Such action could involve transforming Polish airspace into a heavily patrolled zone with constant NATO air patrols, creating a defensive umbrella that would make any future Russian incursion far more costly. It could involve deploying additional ground troops to protect Polish territory and the nearby Baltic states, positioning NATO assets much closer to potential flashpoints. NATO member nations could also choose to respond either through formal alliance channels or through smaller coalitions of the willing, potentially taking direct action in the war in Ukraine itself.

A relatively restrained form of such involvement would be assisting in shooting down incoming Russian drones the next time Russia attacks western Ukraine near NATO airspace, effectively extending air defense coverage without directly striking Russian forces. A less restrained approach would involve launching strikes against Russian targets in occupied Ukrainian territory—perhaps in the Donbas region, Crimea, or other areas under Russian control—carefully calibrated so the strikes wouldn't be interpreted as direct attacks on Russian sovereign territory. Technically, retaliation could include strikes on Russian sovereign territory itself, but realistically, such a response would be nearly impossible for this NATO alliance to authorize in response to this particular incident, given the political constraints and escalation risks involved.

The Imperative for Swift Action

Whatever course NATO chooses, it must act quickly—and more critically, it must act at all. Russian probing actions of this nature are not new phenomena; Russia constantly tests the limits of its adversaries through various means. These tests include skirting international sanctions through creative financial arrangements, engaging in assassinations and sabotage operations across Western nations, conducting small-scale military actions to gauge reactions before larger planned escalations, and operating through mercenaries and unmarked, unidentified troops to maintain deniability. As malevolent as these actions may be, they also constitute a sophisticated form of data collection: Russia provides a stimulus, measures the reaction it produces, and uses the resulting observations to inform decisions about future courses of action.

The response of Poland and its NATO allies will determine everything about where this conflict progresses next, and whether the data Putin receives from this probing attack against NATO territory tells him to exercise restraint or encourages him to push forward with additional provocations. This is not abstract theorizing—it is the documented pattern of Russian behavior over decades. When responses are weak or absent, Russian actions escalate. When responses are swift and impose costs, Russian behavior moderates. The current moment represents a clear test case, and the international community is watching to see which pattern will repeat.

Make no mistake: while this attack almost certainly aims to gauge NATO's collective response, it is ultimately an operation performed for an audience of one. NATO's Article 5 commitments still fundamentally rest on the United States, despite Europe's recent efforts to develop more autonomous defense capabilities. Right now, the very trajectory of history will bend around Donald Trump's choice in this moment. The timing is not coincidental, and the pattern of Russian behavior since Trump's election tells a stark story.

The Pattern of Escalating Russian Aggression

Despite any rhetoric about peace negotiations or diplomatic solutions, Vladimir Putin and his military establishment have made their actual intentions abundantly clear through their actions. The data is unambiguous: from January 2023 until October 2024, before Trump was elected to his second term, there was not a single month where Russia launched over two thousand missiles and drones combined. In November 2024, when Trump won the election, and again in January 2025 when he was inaugurated, Russia crossed that two-thousand-projectile threshold repeatedly. In February, March, and May of 2025, the monthly totals exceeded four thousand projectiles. In June, over five thousand. In July, over six thousand projectiles were launched against Ukrainian targets.

Between August—following Trump's summit in Alaska—and September thus far, Russia has conducted some of the largest air assaults of the entire war, including the single largest attack with well over eight hundred projectiles launched in one night on Sunday, September 7, just three days before the attack on Poland. Despite the rhetoric from various quarters suggesting that Trump's presidency would lead to de-escalation, the numbers tell the opposite story. By every measurable metric, Vladimir Putin does not perceive Trump as a reason to scale down military operations; the evidence demonstrates precisely the opposite pattern. Putin has interpreted Trump's approach as an opportunity to escalate, to press advantages, and to test boundaries with reduced risk of meaningful consequences.

Now Putin has provided Trump and NATO with the ultimate test: the clear, unambiguous provocation of the NATO alliance that analysts and military planners have anticipated for years. America's decision in this moment may prove historically pivotal—and the behavior of Trump and his allies toward Russia up to this point does not suggest that America will take a firm stand. The failure to impose consequences after Putin's ceasefire charade, the absence of response after Russian strikes against the British Council and European Union offices in Kyiv just last week—these precedents do not inspire confidence that this latest provocation will meet with the decisive response it demands.

Europe's Moment of Decision

To the extent that any voice in the analytical community carries weight, it would be a dereliction of responsibility not to speak clearly on a day that will become a pivot point in history, regardless of which direction events turn from here. This is the moment when all of Europe's discussion about finding its spine and developing strategic autonomy must translate into concrete action. The timing of this attack was not accidental: France's government has just collapsed into political crisis, social unrest in Britain is climbing, global trust in American leadership among its allies is dropping precipitously, and international attention is divided by yesterday's Israeli strike against the sovereign nation of Qatar. These are not coincidental circumstances—they represent precisely the conditions Russia has been waiting for to launch this probe.

It is time for European NATO members to operate on the assumption that American support is not coming, particularly after the United States failed to impose consequences on Putin for his ceasefire charade and failed to respond when Russia struck British and European Union offices in Kyiv just last week. Russia will predictably claim this drone incursion was an accident. Russian officials will deny intentionality, minimize the significance, and redirect blame toward Ukrainian air defenses or technical malfunctions. But the nations of NATO, particularly the European members, must respond to this attack on the premise that it was entirely intentional, because all available evidence points to deliberate action.

Those same NATO nations have been in agreement for years on a fundamental assessment: Russia was always going to attempt something like this, and when it did, NATO would need to be prepared to respond decisively. That anticipated day has now arrived. Europe is nowhere near as ready as its leaders would prefer—defense industrial capacity remains insufficient, ammunition stockpiles are inadequate, and political unity is fragile. But European leaders would have to be catastrophically naive to believe that Russia would politely wait until Europe had grown strong, had resolved its political divisions, and had fully rebuilt its military capabilities before launching this kind of test. Russia specifically chose this moment of European weakness and American unreliability precisely because it offers the best opportunity for the probe to succeed without triggering meaningful consequences.

Europe must act now, decisively, under these imperfect conditions, with the tools currently at its disposal. The alternative to acting now under disadvantageous circumstances is not acting later under better circumstances—it is facing an even more dangerous situation after Russia has concluded that NATO will not defend its own territory. Fail to respond meaningfully to this attack, and the war for the future of Europe will become inevitable. The only question will be whether that war is fought after Russia has been allowed to further consolidate its position, rebuild its forces, and identify additional weaknesses to exploit, or whether it is deterred now through the demonstration of credible resolve. History will judge this moment, and the leaders who failed to act when action was still possible will bear responsibility for whatever follows.

Related Coverage

FAQ

What exactly happened on September 10, 2025, in Poland?

In the early morning hours, multiple waves of Russian kamikaze drones crossed from Ukrainian airspace into Polish territory during a broader Russian aerial assault on Ukraine. The incursion forced the closure of major Polish airports including those serving Warsaw, triggered shelter-in-place orders across several eastern regions, and prompted Polish and NATO fighter aircraft to scramble and shoot down the hostile drones.

Was the drone incursion into Poland accidental or intentional?

While initial uncertainty existed for about two hours, the arrival of a second and then additional waves of drones crossing into Polish airspace made an accidental explanation untenable. The coordinated, repeated nature of the incursions, combined with the broader pattern of escalating Russian aggression, points to a deliberate and calculated provocation.

What are Shahed-136 kamikaze drones?

Shahed-136 drones are autonomous explosive UAVs typically based on an Iranian design but likely manufactured in Russia. They fly slowly across territory toward their targets, serving a dual purpose: striking targets directly and drawing out air defense systems to expend interceptor missiles, thereby creating openings for faster cruise missiles that follow.

How did Poland and NATO respond militarily to the drone incursion?

Polish and NATO fighter aircraft were scrambled and actively engaged and shot down multiple drones. A NATO air-to-air refueling tanker maintained station to support combat operations, a Polish early-warning aircraft tracked incoming threats, and an F-35 fighter jet was observed operating over Polish territory. Poland also shifted air defenses and radar reconnaissance to their highest state of readiness.

Will Poland invoke NATO's Article 5?

It is considered unlikely that Poland will invoke Article 5, the collective defense clause, given that no Polish citizens appear to have died and Russia retains some veneer of plausible deniability. However, Poland can invoke Article 4 to request consultations with alliance members, and a wide range of concrete actions short of Article 5 are available to NATO.

What response options does NATO have short of invoking Article 5?

Options include invoking Article 4 for alliance consultations, establishing constant NATO air patrols over Polish airspace, deploying additional ground troops to Poland and the Baltic states, assisting in shooting down Russian drones attacking western Ukraine near NATO airspace, or launching strikes against Russian targets in occupied Ukrainian territory such as the Donbas or Crimea.

How has Russian aggression escalated since Trump's election?

Before Trump's election in October 2024, Russia never launched over 2,000 missiles and drones in a single month. After his election in November 2024 and inauguration in January 2025, Russia repeatedly crossed that threshold. Monthly totals rose to over 4,000 in February, March, and May 2025, over 5,000 in June, and over 6,000 in July, with some of the war's largest air assaults occurring in August and September 2025.

Why is the timing of this attack considered significant?

The attack coincided with multiple points of Western vulnerability: France's government had just collapsed, social unrest in Britain was climbing, global trust in American leadership among allies was dropping, and international attention was divided by an Israeli strike against Qatar. These conditions are seen as deliberately chosen by Russia to maximize the chances of a weak NATO response.

Sources

About the Author

Jackson Reed

Jackson Reed creates and presents analysis focused on military doctrine, strategic competition, and conflict dynamics.

About the Team →