Russian fighter jets over Estonia: how to react?
Russian fighter jets reportedly violated Estonian airspace last Friday. According to the Estonian Foreign Ministry, the incursion by the three MIG-31 aircraft lasted twelve minutes. Tallinn has requested consultations under Article 4 of the Nato treaty. Russia has denied any violation of Estonia's airspace. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk explained that his country would not hesitate to shoot down intruding fighter jets.
Time for clear and consistent action
For Polityka, shooting down Russian aircraft is a real option:
“The airspace violations are obviously deliberate. Why are they doing this? ... People are scared, and that's exactly what the Russians want. Shooting down their drones is therefore necessary. But what about manned aircraft? They don't pose a direct threat. But if we let the Russians get away with this they'll become increasingly bold. ... Not immediately, of course. All airspace violations must be made public, so that at some point it can be publicly announced that from now on we will shoot them down.”
Quick, proportionate responses are needed
Shooting down aircraft should only be a last resort, writes Handelsblatt:
“When the violation of airspace is absolutely clear and there is imminent danger - for instance, if the Nato aircraft intercepting the intruders are themselves under threat. The best way to respond to Moscow's provocations is to show the ability to react quickly. Because that is exactly what Russia is testing on an almost daily basis now. The faster Russian reconnaissance or combat aircraft are escorted by Nato aircraft, the sooner Putin is likely to lose his appetite for further provocations. Nato would therefore be well advised to move its interceptors closer to Nato's eastern flank, as is already being done with Operation Eastern Sentry. And to urgently expand its air defence against drones.”
Russia has no resources for escalation
Both sides are currently achieving their goals, says security expert Ilmar Raag in Õhtuleht:
“Russia doesn't have the resources to start a new war in addition to Ukraine right now, even if it wanted to. However Russia does have the means to engage in a hybrid war aimed at causing confusion in the West and influencing its policies. ... Nato wants to avoid an accidental escalation. And it has succeeded brilliantly in this. The Russian Federation, on the other hand, wants to spy and intimidate. And in that it has also succeeded.”
Testing Nato's eastern flank
The Russian fighter jets were sent to test the readiness of Nato's air defences, writes Mykhailo Honchar, an expert in security relations, in a Facebook post republished by Glavkom:
“The aim of the operation was to test in detail the response of Nato countries' air defence systems in the Gulf of Finland: which radar systems in Estonia and the neighbouring Baltic countries, Poland, Finland and Sweden would be activated; which aircraft would be launched from which airfields, and how long it would take them to reach their interception targets. This is particularly relevant given that Nato recently launched Operation Eastern Sentry, deploying additional forces and resources to its eastern flank after Russian drones entered Polish airspace.”
Moscow counting on division in the West
Ino Afentouli, executive director of the Institute of International Relations (IDIS), explains Russia's motives in Ta Nea:
“Russia knows that the US has shifted the burden of supporting Ukraine onto European countries. It also knows that there is no consensus within Nato or the EU on providing this support because at least two of its member states, Hungary and Slovakia, are opposed to this. So if the dreaded moment of invoking Article 5 comes, there is a possibility (albeit small) that the unanimity required for its activation will not be attained. That would be a disastrous scenario for Europe, as it would pave the way for the division of Nato - but it would be an ideal scenario for Putin.”
Do as Turkey did
To see how Nato should respond we should look back at history, taz newspaper recommends:
“Almost exactly ten years ago, on 30 September 2015, Russia launched its brutal military intervention in Syria to rescue the Assad dictatorship. On 24 November 2015, a Russian bomber on a mission entered the airspace of Nato member Turkey for 17 seconds - and was shot down. Russia protested vehemently and imposed sanctions, but after a combination of muscle-flexing and civilities it wasn't long before the two autocrats Erdoğan and Putin agreed to divide their spheres of influence in Syria. And to this day Russia takes Turkey more seriously than it does any other Western country.”
The majority wants maximum caution
The discussion about Russian drones repeatedly violating Romanian airspace is getting too heated, commentator Costi Rogozanu warns in Libertatea:
“Who is paying all the commentators who turn up on the media and declare that we are weaklings compared to the Polish heroes who shot down the drones? ... Who are these people who won't stop dreaming that we can defeat the Russians? ... There is a clear 'we' here - a majority of the population who want maximum caution and wisdom to prevail in all these disputes in the region. And a 'they' who are filling our television programmes and want to drive us towards war at all costs.”
Putin needs this war
Putin needs military confrontation with the West to maintain his grip on power in Russia, editor-in-chief Kirill Martynov explains in Novaya Gazeta Europe:
“The military transformation of Russian society has gone dangerously far, both in terms of increased war spending and the expectations of the core group of war backers who receive money and social status in exchange for their willingness to commit war crimes. The reason for expanding the aggression to third countries may not only be Putin's confidence that he will win, but also his fear of Russia returning to peaceful living. Dictators who start a war rarely take into account that it could destroy their regime. But to maintain their power they must continue their aggression.”