By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Russian Su-24MR military aircraft violated Polish airspace for 72 seconds on February 11, 2025, entering four miles over the Gulf of Gdansk’s territorial waters. Polish radar tracked the aircraft, originating from Kaliningrad, before a Russian air traffic controller corrected its course. Polish authorities reported that Russia acknowledged the airspace violation, attributing it to navigational system failure. This incident follows heightened tensions between Russia and NATO, raising concerns about potential escalation.
Read the original article here
A Russian Sukhoi Su-24MR fighter jet briefly violated Polish airspace, a NATO member state, for a minute and twelve seconds. This incident, occurring over the territorial waters of the Gulf of Gdansk, near the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, is far from unprecedented. Many commenters online pointed out that such airspace violations by Russian aircraft are frequent occurrences, affecting not only Poland, but also Finland, Sweden, and the Baltic states.
The seemingly nonchalant attitude expressed in many online comments highlights the frustrating regularity of these events. The sheer frequency makes this particular incident feel less like breaking news and more like a predictable escalation of ongoing tensions. The question many are asking is why these violations aren’t met with a more decisive response.
Some argue that the response time—a mere minute and twelve seconds—was too short to authorize a shoot-down. While this raises questions about the operational procedures and decision-making protocols of the Polish Air Force, the suggestion of standing orders for immediate engagement against any unauthorized aircraft entering airspace is deemed unlikely, at least for now.
However, the precedent set by Turkey in 2015, when a Russian jet was shot down for a similar airspace violation, is frequently cited. This serves as a stark reminder that shooting down an intruding aircraft is a viable option, and some online commentators strongly advocate for this course of action. The argument is often framed around Russia’s apparent disregard for international norms and the belief that only forceful responses will deter future violations. This sentiment suggests a growing impatience with Russia’s continued aggressive behavior and a willingness to escalate the response.
There’s a palpable frustration in the online discourse around the lack of a more forceful response to these repeated violations. The inaction, in the eyes of many, only emboldens Russia to continue testing the boundaries of NATO’s response capabilities. Concerns are raised about the implications of inaction and the potential for these actions to further destabilize the region. The repeated violations are seen as a clear signal of Russia testing the resolve of NATO and its member states.
The online discussion also touched upon the broader context of escalating tensions between Russia and the West. The incident is viewed within a larger picture of Russian aggression, including alleged acts of sabotage, spying, and other destabilizing actions. The cumulative effect of these actions fuels the call for stronger action against Russia, extending beyond simply addressing airspace violations.
The brevity of the airspace violation—only one minute and twelve seconds—becomes a point of contention in the discussion. Some see it as insufficient time to react effectively, while others feel it’s still a blatant provocation that demands a more decisive response. This differing perspective highlights the complexities of navigating such tense international situations and the delicate balance between escalation and deterrence.
The lack of immediate, decisive action in response to this and previous violations raises serious questions. Is a stern warning enough? Or is a more forceful approach, mirroring Turkey’s action, needed to deter further aggression? The ongoing debate reflects a range of opinions, from the need for a measured and diplomatic approach to a more assertive stance that would escalate the situation. This underscores the intricate nature of international relations and the complex challenges of maintaining peace and security in a volatile geopolitical environment.
Ultimately, the incident highlights the ongoing challenges and risks associated with Russia’s aggressive behavior and the difficulty of finding a balanced response that deters further violations without escalating the conflict. The conversation online underscores the urgency for finding an effective solution to counter these actions and deter future violations. The consistent pattern of airspace violations raises the question of whether a significant shift in strategy is required from NATO and its members to ensure the integrity of their airspace and to deter future aggressive actions from Russia.