October 9, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: European Parliament condemns Russian drone forays into airspace of five NATO members

Institute for the Study of War

EU and NATO states continue to take steps to increase European defenses against covert and overt Russian attacks. The European Parliament overwhelmingly voted on October 9 in favor of a resolution condemning Russia’s recent “escalatory actions” in violating Polish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Romanian airspace.[1] The resolution passed the parliament with 469 votes in favor, 97 against, and 38 abstentions. The parliament noted that Russia bears full and unequivocal responsibility for the actions in Polish, Estonian, and Romanian airspace. The European Parliament denounced Russia’s deliberate drone incursions aimed at critical infrastructure in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. The resolution did not mention the recent drone flights over the Munich Airport, but German officials recently attributed the incursions to Russia.[2] The resolution encouraged initiatives enabling EU states to take action against airspace violations, including by shooting down the threats, and welcomed the EU’s “drone wall” and Eastern Flank Watch initiatives.[3] The resolution called for the EU to “substantively” increase its defense and industrial cooperation with Ukraine, especially in the fields of drone technology and countermeasures. European parliament members advocated for sanctions against entities in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) supplying dual-use goods and military items that are essential for Russia’s production of drones and missiles, and called for punitive measures against all states enabling Russian actions, such as Belarus, North Korea, and Iran. The European Parliament stated that the range of Russia’s sabotage and “hybrid” activities against the EU amounts to state-sponsored terrorism, “even if they fall below the threshold of an armed attack.” ISW assesses, however, that Russia has been increasingly engaging in covert and overt attacks against Europe and that Russia has entered “Phase 0” — the informational and psychological condition setting phase — of its campaign to prepare for a possible NATO-Russia war in the future.[4]

The Financial Times (FT) reported on October 9 that four NATO officials stated that NATO states are discussing more forceful responses to Russia’s increasingly provocative actions.[5] Proposals reportedly include arming reconnaissance drones that collect intelligence on Russian military activity, reducing limits on pilots’ ability to shoot down Russian threats, and conducting NATO exercises at more remote and unguarded areas near the Russian border. Two NATO official sources told the FT that the talks aim to streamline rules of engagement among NATO states, as some require pilots to visually confirm threats before engaging, while others allow pilots to open fire based on radar data or perceived danger, given the direction or speed of the object. The officials stated that the talks aim to raise the costs for Russia and to clearly define countermeasures.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky added more details about Russia’s use of its shadow fleet to conduct recent drone incursions into European airspace. Zelensky stated on October 9 that intelligence indicates that the Russian shadow fleet consists of more than 500 tankers and that Russian special services were on board the Russian Borocay tanker that French authorities stopped off the coast of France on September 30 and seized on October 1.[6] Maritime-focused news outlet Maritime Executive reported on September 23 that the Boracay was one of three Russian-linked vessels near the coordinated drone incursion that shut down the Copenhagen Airport on September 22.

Kremlin officials continue to indicate that US-Russian relations are deteriorating to levels similar to those during the Biden administration. Zhuravlev claimed on October 9 that the West is unlikely to change its behavior and “embrace reconciliation” with Russia.[11] Zhuravlev claimed that Russia’s relations with the Trump administration have returned to the level of those under former US President Joseph Biden. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated on October 9 that Russian-US dialogue is experiencing a “serious pause.”[12] Peskov claimed that Russia has yet to receive a response from the United States to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) for one year past its expiration in February 2026.[13] Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov claimed on October 9 that US-Russian dialogue paused after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio met in New York City on September 25.[14]

Russia is increasingly conducting Shahed-type drone strikes against frontline areas, but will likely continue to conduct less precise guided glide bomb strikes as well due to their larger payloads.Ukrainian outlet Kyiv Independent reported on October 8 that Ukrainian soldiers and experts noted that Russia is increasingly relying on Shahed-type drones to strike Ukrainian frontline positions.[19] Ukrainian soldiers reported that Russian forces actively conducted Geran-type drone strikes (a Russian variant of Iranian Shahed drones) against frontline areas near Kostyantynivka in September 2025 and have recently increased their Geran-type drone strikes closer to the front in northern Sumy Oblast, particularly targeting Ukrainian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) and concentration areas 10 to 15 kilometers from the front. Ukrainian aviation expert Anatoliy Khrapchynskyi stated that Russia is increasingly employing Shahed-type drones near the frontline instead of KAB guided glide bombs, but stressed that Russia is not suffering from a KAB shortage. Khrapchynskyi noted that Shahed-type drones only have a 90-kilogram warhead — significantly smaller than the smallest KAB warhead at 250 kilograms — but that Shahed-type drone strikes are more precise. Khrapchynskyi also noted that Russia can produce a Shahed-type drone for about $20,000 to $50,000, whereas KAB costs about $25,000. Khrapchynskyi assessed that Russia is anticipating that Ukraine will be able to more effectively counter KAB strikes, which Russian forces launch from aircraft, particularly with the arrival of additional F-16 fighter jets in Ukraine.

Key Takeaways

  1. EU and NATO states continue to take steps to increase European defenses against covert and overt Russian attacks.
  2. The Kremlin continued its reflexive control campaign aimed at deterring the United States from selling Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, including by threatening to deploy Russian missiles to Cuba.
  3. Kremlin officials continue to indicate that US-Russian relations are deteriorating to levels similar to those during the Biden administration.
  4. Ukrainian Ambassador to the UK Valerii Zaluzhnyi highlighted a Russian cognitive warfare effort to spread false information about future Ukrainian elections.
  5. Russian President Vladimir Putin implicitly admitted that Russian air defenders shot two missiles at an Azerbaijan Airlines civilian plane in December 2024.
  6. Russian elites are reportedly expressing concerns over the Kremlin’s years long efforts to nationalize assets.
  7. Russia is increasingly conducting Shahed-type drone strikes against frontline areas, but will likely continue to conduct less precise guided glide bomb strikes as well due to their larger payloads.
  8. Russia continues to commit war crimes against Ukrainian civilians.
  9. Ukrainian forces advanced in northern Sumy Oblast and near Lyman and Velykomykhailivka. Russian forces advanced near Kupyansk and Pokrovsk, in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area, and in the Kherson direction.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.