The incursion of three armed Russian MiG-31 fighter jets deep into Estonian airspace on 19 September marks a severe and calculated escalation on NATO’s eastern flank. The incident, which lasted a full 12 minutes, was not an isolated miscalculation. Rather, it represents the most aggressive point in a clear and intensifying pattern of Russian provocations designed to test the alliance’s borders, probe its response times, and sow strategic uncertainty among its members.
Coming just nine days after a large-scale Russian drone incursion into Poland, this “unprecedentedly brazen” act forced Estonia to invoke NATO’s Article 4 for urgent consultations—the second such invocation this month—and demand an emergency session of the UN Security Council. As the alliance bolsters its defences with a new operation, it finds itself confronted with a dangerous strategic dilemma, caught between the need to show resolve and the fear of an uncontrollable escalation, all under the shadow of an ambiguous Washington.
The 19 September Incursion: “Unprecedentedly Brazen”
The details of the 19 September violation, provided by Estonian authorities and NATO, are stark. At approximately 9:58 a.m., three Russian MiG-31 fighters, which are capable of carrying hypersonic missiles, entered Estonian airspace near Vaindloo Island in the Gulf of Finland.
This was not a fleeting breach. The aircraft penetrated 10 kilometres into sovereign NATO territory, flying parallel to Estonia’s coast for nearly 100 kilometres and coming within minutes of the capital, Tallinn. The Estonian Defence Forces published radar data visualising the flight path.
Estonian officials immediately stressed the deliberate nature of the act. The Russian jets flew without filed flight plans, had switched off their transponders, and failed to maintain two-way radio communication with Estonian air traffic control. NATO’s response was swift. Italian Air Force F-35s, stationed at Estonia’s Ämari Air Base as part of the NATO Baltic Air Policing mission, scrambled to intercept. Finland and Sweden also scrambled rapid-reaction aircraft. According to reports, the Italian pilots acknowledged the Russian pilots disregarded their communications before the F-35s ultimately escorted the MiGs back into international skies.
Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal described the breach as “malevolence, if not a deliberate operation,” while Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna branded it “unprecedentedly brazen.” This incident marked the fourth, and by far the most serious, Russian airspace violation against Estonia this year.
Moscow’s Denial and Competing Narratives
The Russian Federation, for its part, has flatly denied the allegations. The Russian Defence Ministry issued a statement via Telegram on 20 September, claiming its jets conducted a “scheduled flight” over neutral waters while proceeding from northwest Russia to the Kaliningrad exclave. Moscow maintains the flight was “in strict conformity with international rules governing airspace” and that objective monitoring confirmed they “did not violate the borders of other states.”
In a direct contradiction of Estonian data, the Russian statement specified that the route “was over neutral waters of the Baltic Sea at a distance of more than 3 km from the island of Vaindloo.”
At the subsequent UN Security Council meeting, the Russian representative dismissed the emergency session as “part two of the spectacle titled ‘Blame Russia for Everything’.” He accused Tallinn of fabricating the incident out of “Russophobic hysteria” and “engaging in megaphone diplomacy at multilateral platforms” without providing any concrete proof.
Estonia’s Foreign Minister, Margus Tsahkna, provided a direct rebuttal at the UN, holding up radar screenshots and photographs of the combat-ready jets. “The violation is crystal clear,” Tsahkna stated. “We remember… [the] 2008 occupation of Georgia, 2014 incursion into Crimea and 2022 aggression against Ukraine… So please don’t lie again—hard evidence is here.”
A Troubling Pattern: From Hybrid Attacks to Kinetic Probes
This Estonian incident does not stand alone. It is the kinetic crescendo of a much wider campaign of hybrid warfare and military provocations against NATO members, particularly since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
This will mark the second time in less than two weeks that the Security Council has met to discuss Russian violations of NATO territory. On 9-10 September, Poland reported a massive drone incursion, with 19 to 23 Russian drones entering its airspace amid a large-scale attack on Ukraine. NATO jets were scrambled to shoot down at least three of the drones, marking the first time NATO is known to have fired shots since the 2022 war began. Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk stated the incident was not accidental.
Just days later, on 13 September, Romania detected a Russian attack drone over its territory near the border with Ukraine, prompting it to scramble F-16s. This follows numerous other airspace violations reported by Croatia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Norway, as well as non-allied states like Moldova, since 2022.
Estonian Foreign Minister Tsahkna employed the “boiling frog” analogy to explain Russia’s strategy: by gradually ramping up provocations, none of which individually might trigger a full military response, Moscow aims to test and ultimately undermine NATO’s defences. Other officials, including Prime Minister Michal, assert Russia’s goal is to “draw attention and assistance away from Ukraine” by forcing NATO to focus on its own territorial defence.
This pattern extends beyond direct military incursions. Analysts point to a string of recent hybrid attacks:
- Naval Provocations: In early October, Denmark accused Russian warships of repeatedly sailing on collision courses with its naval vessels and disrupting navigation systems.
- Border Disruptions: Lithuania has been forced to close border crossings with Belarus due to smugglers’ “weather balloons” carrying cigarettes, an act the EU called part of a “broader targeted hybrid campaign.”
- Airport Closures: Unidentified drone sightings in late September forced the temporary closure of airports in Copenhagen, Aalborg, and Billund in Denmark, as well as Oslo in Norway.
- Cyber Warfare: The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre has previously judged Russia responsible for a massive cyberattack on the Viasat satellite service just an hour before the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, affecting wind farms and internet users across Europe.
Diplomatic and Military Fallout: Article 4 and ‘Eastern Sentry’
The response from NATO and its allies has been a unified show of condemnation and a tangible reinforcement of its posture.
In response to the “dangerous escalation,” Estonia immediately summoned the Russian chargé d’affaires in Tallinn to deliver a formal protest note. More significantly, it invoked Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty. This article allows any member to bring a matter of concern, particularly regarding its security, to the North Atlantic Council (NAC) for consultation. It is a serious political step, used only eight other times in NATO’s history, and marks the second such invocation this month, following Poland’s request on 10 September.
The North Atlantic Council met on 23 September, issuing a strong condemnation of Russia’s “dangerous violation” and “pattern of increasingly irresponsible Russian behaviour.” The alliance stated unequivocally that “Russia bears full responsibility for these actions, which are escalatory, risk miscalculation and endanger lives. They must stop.”
Critically, NATO had already begun to bolster its defences following the Polish drone incident. On 12 September, the alliance announced the launch of “Operation Eastern Sentry,” an operation to strengthen its military posture and air and land defences along the entire eastern flank. France, Denmark, Germany, and the UK have all pledged additional military assets, including fighter jets and troops, to this operation.
The NATO statement concluded with an ironclad commitment to Article 5 (collective defence) and a clear warning: “Russia should be in no doubt: NATO and Allies will employ, in accordance with international law, all necessary military and non-military tools to defend ourselves and deter all threats.”
The World Stage: A Divided UN Security Council
At the UN, Estonia’s request for an emergency briefing on 22 September was supported by the Council’s five European members (Denmark, France, Greece, Slovenia, and the UK). Prior to the meeting, Estonia organised a joint stakeout with 47 other UN member states and the EU, calling on Russia to “cease, without delay, its war of aggression against Ukraine” and end all provocations.
Inside the chamber, Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenča briefed the council on the facts of the incursion. The subsequent debate exposed the deep geopolitical rifts.
- NATO Allies were united. The United Kingdom’s Yvette Cooper warned the acts “risk miscalculation and open the door to direct armed confrontation.” The US delegate stated, “we will defend every inch of NATO territory.”
- France’s delegate called the incursion “unprecedented in over 20 years.”
- Poland’s Foreign Minister, Radosław Sikorski, was blunt: “If another missile or aircraft enters our airspace… and gets shot down… please don’t come here to whine about it.”
- Latvia’s Foreign Minister Baiba Braže, speaking also for Lithuania, declared, “Empires are dead.”
- Russia, as noted, rejected the accusations as “baseless.”
- China’s delegate called for calm and restraint, describing the incursions as predictable “spillover effects” of the Ukraine war as long as it continues.
Conclusion: The Strategic Dilemma and the “Trump Factor”
This pattern of provocation creates an environment of extreme strategic uncertainty. Russia is clearly testing NATO’s red lines, forcing a difficult question: what is the appropriate response? Former UK Defence Secretary Sir Ben Wallace argued that Russia must be presented with a “strategic dilemma”—a response demonstrating that its provocations come with a significant cost.
This recalls the 2015 incident where NATO member Turkey shot down a Russian jet after a brief airspace violation. That action resulted in diplomatic and economic consequences but did not lead to a wider war. However, it is impossible to say with any certainty if the same would be true today. This calculation is complicated by the “vital added complication” of the US response.
US President Donald Trump’s comments have been characteristically ambiguous. He first told reporters, “I don’t love it. I don’t like when that happens. Could be big trouble.” Yet, when asked at the UN General Assembly if NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft that enter their airspace, he reportedly replied: “Yes, I do.”
This ambiguity creates a nightmare scenario for European allies. Analysts cited in reports suggest it is “entirely conceivable” that in the event of a wider conflict resulting from a NATO shoot-down, President Trump might view Europe as responsible for the escalation and refuse to offer vital US support. This would call into question NATO’s bedrock principle, Article 5, which guarantees collective defence.
In my view, this strategic uncertainty is precisely the Kremlin’s objective. The recent incursions are not just military probes; they are political ones. By coupling kinetic provocations on NATO’s border with the political uncertainty surrounding America’s commitment to Article 5, Russia is attempting to engineer its “dream scenario”: a divided, hesitant, and ultimately self-deterred alliance. The challenge for NATO now is not just to police its skies, but to forge an ironclad, unified political response that Russia cannot miscalculate.
FAQ
Three armed Russian MiG-31 fighter jets violated Estonia’s airspace for 12 minutes, flying 10 kilometres deep into NATO territory.
Russia’s Defence Ministry denied the violation. It claimed the jets flew over neutral waters, more than 3km from Estonia’s Vaindloo Island, and accused Estonia of “Russophobic hysteria.”
No, it as a “pattern of provocation.” It followed a 9-10 September incident where 19-23 Russian drones entered Polish airspace and a 13 September incident where a Russian drone overflew Romania.
Estonia summoned the Russian chargé d’affaires for a formal protest. It also invoked Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty and requested an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council.
Article 4 allows any NATO member to request consultations with all other members when they feel their “territorial integrity, political independence or security” is threatened. This was the second time it was used in September 2025.
NATO scrambled Italian F-35s from its Baltic Air Policing mission to intercept and escort the Russian jets. Following the recent Polish incident, NATO also launched “Operation Eastern Sentry” to bolster its entire eastern flank.
Estonia’s Foreign Minister used this analogy to describe Russia’s strategy. He suggests Russia is gradually increasing its provocations, with no single act being large enough to trigger a war, to test and undermine NATO’s long-term defences.
he article mentions naval provocations against Danish ships, the use of weather balloons to close Lithuanian borders, drone sightings closing airports in Denmark and Norway, and major cyberattacks.
