By Matt Underwood 
The subject matter at hand is the alleged GPS interference experienced by the EU head’s plane during landing, as reported by the Financial Times. It’s certainly a scenario that sparks a lot of thought. One of the initial reactions seems to be a palpable sense of unease. There’s a fear of escalating into a larger conflict, a full-blown “hot WW3,” and that’s understandable. However, it’s also argued that allowing actions like GPS jamming, which could endanger lives, without any repercussions is not a viable strategy. This seems to highlight a fundamental issue: how do you respond to actions that are clearly aggressive, even if they don’t constitute a direct declaration of war?
It’s a complex situation, and the potential for this kind of incident to be a form of influence, a subtle attack aimed at destabilization, is mentioned. We’re seeing how these influence campaigns can be insidious. If you look at places like Bulgaria, there are worrying signs in the public’s reaction, suggesting a lack of concern or understanding of the gravity of the situation. This also raises a critical point: the EU’s response, or the lack thereof, will be crucial. Some fear the EU will merely issue strongly worded letters, which might be seen as insufficient.
Now, let’s get into the technical aspects. Pilots, as many know, have multiple ways of navigating, including GPS, IRS/INS systems, and traditional paper charts. The consensus seems to be that GPS jamming is a known and expected issue, particularly in Eastern Europe near Russian borders. Pilots train for it, they plan for it, and they have backup procedures. So, in a technical sense, the interference itself isn’t necessarily a huge threat to safety. However, the fact that it happened to a high-profile figure, the head of the EU, changes the equation. It moves from a regular operational challenge to a potential act of provocation, a deliberate testing of boundaries.
The focus shifts to the political ramifications. Many feel the EU’s response, and the West’s in general, has been too weak. The situation is seen as a textbook “grey-zone” tactic, a way to exert pressure without crossing the threshold into open warfare. This is where the real danger lies, because it normalizes low-grade hostilities. If these actions are met with a shrug, it sends a message that even threats to leadership can be dismissed. The worry is that Russia might be able to get away with pretty much anything without facing serious consequences. This can easily be used in the future.
There’s a call for a stronger response. It’s suggested the EU needs to adopt a more “offensive” strategy against Russia, focusing on countering misinformation and propaganda, rather than simply issuing statements. Some even propose a division of the world into distinct blocks. And, perhaps most alarmingly, there’s the feeling that the West is not playing the same game as Russia. While Russia seems willing to operate in the shadows, the West, bound by certain ethical or political constraints, is at a disadvantage. The ability of Russia to act in a way that does not abide by the same rules is a huge concern.
There’s also a lot of frustration with the situation. One perspective shared is the feeling that the West is already losing the digital war. Russia has been running misinformation and propaganda campaigns for years, influencing populist and right-wing parties that are contributing to the destabilization of Western alliances. It’s a complex and insidious threat that the West has not sufficiently addressed. This is coupled with the frustration that the EU has not been able to take concrete steps, such as confiscating Russian assets.
Finally, some opinions question the reliance on GPS, especially given its vulnerability to jamming and spoofing. There is a genuine curiosity as to why GPS hasn’t been treated with more caution. A pilot mentioned that reverting to paper charts is not necessarily the problem, as modern aircraft have other navigational tools. However, the whole incident feels like an example of how these “grey zone” tactics are becoming more commonplace. It is a reflection of a world that’s becoming more dangerous and complicated. The situation presents a clear challenge to the EU: respond in a meaningful way, or risk sending a dangerous message of weakness.