Rising Threats: Russia’s Hybrid Warfare Tactics Challenge NATO’s Eastern Flank

Drone Incursions and GPS Disruptions Force Poland and Baltic States to Confront New Security Reality

In the pre-dawn hours of a crisp autumn morning last month, Polish border guards detected an unidentified drone crossing from Belarus into Polish airspace. The unmanned aircraft penetrated nearly eight kilometers into NATO territory before disappearing from radar. This incident wasn’t isolated—it marked the twelfth such incursion in recent weeks, part of what Polish officials describe as a calculated campaign to test defense systems and gather intelligence on critical infrastructure.

Meanwhile, across the Baltic region, commercial pilots have reported increasingly frequent GPS disruptions affecting flights near Kaliningrad, Russia’s militarized exclave wedged between Poland and Lithuania. Aviation authorities in Warsaw, Vilnius, and Riga have documented hundreds of navigation interference cases since January, forcing flight crews to rely on backup systems and causing concern among regional security experts. These invisible electronic attacks, attributed to sophisticated Russian jamming equipment, represent just one facet of what military analysts call Russia’s expanding “gray zone” operations—provocations designed to remain just below the threshold of conventional military conflict.

The Blurred Lines of Modern Conflict: Understanding Hybrid Warfare in Europe’s New Security Landscape

“What we’re witnessing is warfare by other means,” explains Dr. Marta Kowalski, senior fellow at the Warsaw Institute for Strategic Studies. “These aren’t just random provocations but elements of a coordinated strategy to destabilize NATO’s eastern flank without triggering Article 5.” The concept of hybrid warfare—combining conventional military threats with cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns, economic pressure, and technological disruption—has become increasingly central to understanding Russia’s approach to regional dominance following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

The drone incursions over Poland demonstrate a particularly troubling escalation. Analysis of recovered fragments indicates many of the unmanned aircraft are commercial models modified with surveillance equipment and, in some cases, potential payload capacity for small explosives. Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz recently told parliament that these drones appear to be “mapping critical infrastructure and testing response times” of Polish military units. Similarly, the GPS jamming affecting Baltic airspace creates what Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis calls “deliberately engineered zones of technological uncertainty” designed to demonstrate vulnerability without crossing clear red lines that would provoke military response.

NATO’s Eastern Members Demand Stronger Response as Electronic and Aerial Incursions Mount

The mounting incidents have exposed divisions within NATO about appropriate countermeasures. Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia advocate for what they term “proportional defensive measures,” including enhanced electronic warfare capabilities, expanded counter-drone systems, and potentially declaring certain airspace incursions as triggering collective defense provisions. “We cannot normalize these violations as merely inconvenient or provocative,” stated Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas during last month’s extraordinary security conference in Tallinn. “They represent a systematic attempt to degrade our security architecture and test our resolve.”

These Baltic and Polish perspectives sometimes clash with the more cautious approach favored by some Western European NATO members, who worry about escalation risks. “There’s a clear east-west divide in threat perception,” notes Dr. Henrik Jørgensen of the Danish Institute for International Studies. “Countries sharing borders with Russia or Belarus experience these hybrid threats as existential challenges, while those geographically removed sometimes see them as manageable irritants rather than immediate security crises.” This perception gap has complicated efforts to develop a unified NATO response strategy, with French and German officials privately expressing concern about potential overreaction to what they characterize as “provocations designed specifically to fragment alliance cohesion.”

Beyond Traditional Defenses: Adapting Security Frameworks for Evolving Threats

The technological dimension of these threats presents particular challenges for traditional security frameworks. GPS jamming, for instance, occupies an ambiguous position in international law. While deliberate interference with civilian navigation systems violates International Civil Aviation Organization regulations, proving attribution and establishing appropriate responses remains difficult. “The Russians maintain plausible deniability while achieving their strategic objectives,” explains Janis Bērziņš, senior researcher at Latvia’s National Defense Academy. “They can claim the jamming relates to military exercises within their territory while creating substantial disruption across our region.”

Similarly, drone incursions exploit gaps in air defense systems designed primarily to counter conventional aircraft and missiles. Poland has accelerated deployment of its “Sky Shield” counter-drone program, which combines radar detection systems with electronic countermeasures and kinetic interceptors. However, military officials acknowledge the difficulty of defending against small, commercially available drones that can be launched from mobile platforms near the border. “We’re essentially trying to build new defensive capabilities while the technology itself is rapidly evolving,” admits General Marek Sokołowski, who oversees Poland’s air defense modernization program. “It’s a constant race against adversaries who can quickly adapt commercial technology for military purposes.”

The Diplomatic Dilemma: Seeking Effective Countermeasures Without Escalation

The international response to these hybrid threats has sparked vigorous debate about appropriate countermeasures. Poland’s government has presented evidence of Russian involvement in both drone activities and electronic warfare to international forums, including the United Nations Security Council and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. However, Russian representatives have dismissed these claims as “paranoid fabrications” and “attempts to militarize routine technical issues.” This diplomatic impasse highlights what many security experts see as the fundamental challenge of responding to hybrid warfare: actions deliberately calibrated to exploit the gray zone between peace and conflict.

Several policy approaches have emerged in response. The European Union recently expanded its sanctions framework to specifically address hybrid warfare activities, allowing targeted measures against individuals and entities involved in drone incursions, GPS jamming, and related operations. NATO has established a dedicated Hybrid Warfare Analysis Center in Helsinki, tasked with monitoring, attributing, and developing countermeasures against such threats. Perhaps most significantly, the United States announced last week a $250 million package specifically designed to enhance Eastern European allies’ capabilities against electronic warfare and unmanned aerial systems. “We recognize that today’s battlefield extends beyond traditional domains,” stated U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin during the announcement. “Securing our allies against these evolving threats requires new thinking, new technologies, and new forms of deterrence.”

Finding Unity in the Face of Calculated Provocations

As winter approaches, military analysts expect these hybrid provocations to continue and potentially intensify. “The pattern we’ve observed suggests these activities are part of a long-term strategy rather than temporary provocations,” warns Admiral Rob Bauer, Chair of NATO’s Military Committee. This assessment has prompted renewed calls for alliance unity in defining clear red lines and proportional responses to hybrid threats that fall below the threshold of conventional attacks.

The emerging consensus among security experts suggests effective countermeasures must combine technological solutions with diplomatic pressure and strategic communication. “We need to make clear that we can attribute these actions even when they’re designed for deniability,” argues former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who now advises several Baltic governments on security matters. “And we must demonstrate that such actions carry meaningful consequences, whether through sanctions, counter-electronic warfare capabilities, or other measures that impose costs on the perpetrators.”

For ordinary citizens across Poland and the Baltic states, these invisible electronic battles and mysterious drone sightings have created a new sense of vulnerability despite NATO’s conventional military superiority. “We understand we’re on the frontline of a new kind of conflict,” reflects Tomasz Nowak, mayor of a Polish border town that has reported multiple drone sightings. “The question is whether our allies further west truly understand what we’re facing, and whether they’ll stand with us in confronting these threats before they expand further.” As Europe navigates this complex security landscape, finding that unity may prove as important as any technological countermeasure in deterring future provocations.