Alliance defense: Provocations and pinpricks: The resentment in NATO grows

Drone survival in NATO countries, airspace injuries with fighter jets, cyber attacks and sabotage on the infrastructure: After a whole series of incidents, the Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen strikes a sharp tone. In the case of drone sighting at Copenhagen Airport, it is the “heaviest attack on Danish critical infrastructure so far”. Meanwhile, NATO reacts to Russian fighter planes in front of Estonia and warns of violence against further airspace injuries under the threat of violence.

What happened in Copenhagen?

The viewing of two to three larger drones at Copenhagen airport ensured that no planes on the airport, which was extremely important for Northern Europe, were allowed to start for hours. Only after a good four hours could the block be lifted and flight operations were resumed.

It is still unclear where the drones came from and who headed them. The Danish police assume that a “capable player” will be behind it, who has the necessary skills, will and tools – perhaps only to test how long a drone can fly around over such a airport.

Both the investigators and the Danish government speak of an “attack” or “attack”. Frederiksen did not want to rule out the fact that Russia could be behind it with reference to recent events in the other NATO countries Poland, Romania and Estonia.

What traces lead to Russia?

While Russian fighter planes are very clear about Estonia and the military drones that have entered Poland relatively safely, there are only indications for many other incidents with drones. A clear assignment – the experts speak of attributability – has repeatedly been impossible – and perhaps also the concept of attackers.

The commander of the Bundeswehr’s operational management command, Lieutenant General Alexander Sollfrank, already described Russian disturbance measures as a growing danger to security in January and warned: “We are no longer in peace.”

How is infrastructure protected?

In all European countries, infrastructure, which is of central importance for the state, economy and society, is easy to sabotage from professionals. There are also largely open limits for goods and people. Experts accuse politics of having overslept the problem for a long time.

According to industry, Germany is not able to effectively protect its own infrastructure from enemy drones. The Federal Association of Aerospace Industry (BDLI) wrote to the federal government in a fire letter to the federal government in July.

The cooperation of the various responsible institutions is inadequate and complex. For weeks, it was not possible to clarify or even prevent illegal drone overfirts at the Manching military airport. “The fact that enemy spy drohns often depend on the police flight systems does not correspond to our self-image as a defensive constitutional state,” said Bdli general manager Marie-Christine von Hahn.

How does NATO protect air space?

If a suspiciously approached aircraft is noticed, alarm rotting rises to an alarm start (“Alpha Scramble”). As a rule, there are two Eurofighter in Germany who have to be in the air within 15 minutes. “When alarm, two pilots run to their fighter planes,” the Bundeswehr writes. NATO partners take on the task in rotation over the Baltic States, which do not have their own fighter planes.

In addition, allies have reinforcements after the recent incidents. In the future, the Bundeswehr will face four instead of just two fighter jets to take part in armed protection flights over Poland. They are stationed on the air base in Rostock-Laage. France represents three rafale fighting jets for monitoring airspace on the eastern flank, Denmark two F-16.

What military acts are conceivable?

The pilots of the interceptors are authorized for self -defense. However, both sides have so far been considered to avoid the appearance of an attempted attack.

The Air Force of the NATO state of Türkiye shot down a Russian fighter plane Su-24 in 2015 because, according to Turkish information from Syria, it had entered Turkey’s airspace. A political ice age followed between Ankara and Moscow. However, the Baltic Sea room has a significantly greater escalation potential.

It is conceivable that NATO aircraft push down Russian machines, i.e. cause a change of direction. The flight route published by Estonia shows a straight line as a kind of abbreviation through the NATO airspace and out again. However, this is apparently a simplified graphic.

Couldn’t NATO also become clearer and say: The next airspace injury is shot by fighter jets?

In theory, this would be possible, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte spoke out again on Tuesday, which needs to be weighed up. However: Putin could allow a shot to decide on a military tightening of the conflict.

For example, he could make Russian pilots a comparatively harmless airspace injury and then use the following shooting in order to escalate the conflict in his sense or to use the events communicatively.

At the same time, there was a risk that NATO countries like Italy will withdraw their fighter jets from NATO surveillance on the eastern flank because they do not want their pilots to shoot a Russian plane on the command of the responsible NATO commander.