By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On September 13, a Russian drone entered Romanian airspace during an attack on Ukraine, prompting the scrambling of two F-16 fighter jets. The drone, detected by radar systems, penetrated about six miles into Romanian territory, remaining in NATO airspace for around 50 minutes before turning back toward Ukraine. Though close to being shot down, the Romanian military did not engage, as the drone did not pose an immediate danger. This incident followed a similar incursion into Polish airspace where at least three drones were shot down, highlighting repeated violations of NATO airspace by Russian attack drones.
Read the original article here
Romania didn’t down the Russian drone in its airspace because, according to the Defense Minister, it eventually circled back to Ukraine. It’s a decision that sparks a lot of questions and, frankly, a fair amount of frustration. The main point here is about the choices made in a complex and dangerous situation, and the message that sends.
The fundamental issue here is the violation of Romanian airspace by a drone known to be used in attacks against Ukraine. The fact that the drone was eventually heading back to Ukraine, instead of, say, directly targeting Romanian territory, seems to be the key factor in the decision not to take it down. However, the prevailing sentiment seems to be that this is a weak move. Many people are saying that allowing the drone to simply return to its mission implies weakness and a lack of resolve.
The central concern is that this inaction signals to Russia that they can, with relative impunity, use Romanian airspace to launch attacks on Ukraine. The underlying worry is that this is a sign of NATO’s weakness, and that if a small country like Romania won’t stand up to such actions, it raises serious questions about how NATO would respond in a more significant crisis, like an invasion of the Baltics. The comments here highlight the concern that this could embolden Russia.
The comments are filled with a sense of disappointment, and even outrage, that the drone wasn’t shot down immediately. There’s a general feeling that a strong response was needed to deter future airspace violations and protect the sovereignty of Romania and the safety of civilians in Ukraine. The argument is that allowing a drone to continue its mission, regardless of its ultimate target, normalizes aggression and potentially endangers Romanian citizens as well as Ukrainians.
The responses also touch upon the cost-benefit analysis. One person sarcastically mentioned how Russia now knows their drones can repeatedly enter another country’s airspace without being shot down. The lack of action is interpreted as a green light for continued violations. It’s a missed opportunity to send a clear message about the limits of Russian aggression. Some express concern that the drone could have malfunctioned and fallen on a Romanian target anyway.
The comments point to the bigger picture, too. The idea of a more integrated air defense system encompassing Ukraine, Romania, Poland, and perhaps even Moldova is brought up. It reflects the need for a coordinated response to the evolving threat. The general argument is that NATO needs to adapt and learn quickly to counter these kinds of attacks. Some suggest that Ukraine’s experience should be leveraged to improve NATO’s defensive capabilities.
The argument from the defense minister, is that the drone eventually circled back to attack Ukraine, it might be seen as a technicality. Many see it as making excuses, not taking responsibility. And it’s clear from the comments that this perceived weakness fuels distrust and concerns about the strength of the alliance.
There’s a prevailing sense of disappointment, especially when comparing NATO’s image to how some view it. If this isn’t something they can deal with in a forceful way, will the alliance act when it actually matters? The responses go on to mention the cost benefit aspect, with one commentator wryly highlighting that it costs far more to take down a drone than the cost of the drone itself.
The overall tone is one of frustration and a deep-seated worry about the state of international politics and the courage of some nations to stand up to Russian aggression. The common thread is a feeling that a stronger, more decisive response was needed to protect both Romanian sovereignty and the lives of Ukrainian citizens. The decision not to shoot down the drone is seen as a missed opportunity to deter future violations and demonstrate a united front against aggression.