[GK3]

https://www.politico.eu/article/top-russ...osthetics/

I can’t even…

BC

BC thanks for posting that only as it allows us to see the thinking going on in Russia.  Here is a pretty current analysis of the Russian economic situation which according to this is not too bright.  
https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/09/04/rus...get-peace/

From the above link

In fact, economic pressure remains the best leverage that Ukraine’s supporters have over the Kremlin. It remains to be seen whether Europe and the United States will choose to play the economic ace they still have up their sleeves.

The "best" leverage may be inadequate, but it is what we have to work with. We must use it, and use it well. Modi has to be given an alternative source of crude at a price that isn't too much worse than he is paying Russia. That will be a "good deal" for him when the alternative is slightly cheaper Russian oil but also an extra 25% tariff on all India's exports to the US. IMO we really need to make this happen. The longer Russia can hang around economically the more probable it is other nations will "normalize" Russian aggression and go back to buying energy from them. The article may be incorrect. Russia may be in a "good" spot to weather a new set of sanctions. However, given that is our best leverage, we MUST execute it now before it ceases to be useful.

In the face of the news of Russian strikes on Kyiv, there is this Economist article that discusses how the Ukrianian drone strikes on Russias oil industry is starting to hurt and perhaps hurt in a big way. Price of petrol has risen 54%, gasoline exports stopped, petrol rationing in some parts of the country. It makes for interesting reading.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/09...rol-crisis

[GK3]

https://www.politico.eu/article/top-russ...osthetics/

I can’t even…

BC

BC thanks for posting that only as it allows us to see the thinking going on in Russia.  Here is a pretty current analysis of the Russian economic situation which according to this is not too bright.  
https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/09/04/rus...get-peace/

From the above link

In fact, economic pressure remains the best leverage that Ukraine’s supporters have over the Kremlin. It remains to be seen whether Europe and the United States will choose to play the economic ace they still have up their sleeves.

The "best" leverage may be inadequate, but it is what we have to work with. We must use it, and use it well. Modi has to be given an alternative source of crude at a price that isn't too much worse than he is paying Russia. That will be a "good deal" for him when the alternative is slightly cheaper Russian oil but also an extra 25% tariff on all India's exports to the US. IMO we really need to make this happen. The longer Russia can hang around economically the more probable it is other nations will "normalize" Russian aggression and go back to buying energy from them. The article may be incorrect. Russia may be in a "good" spot to weather a new set of sanctions. However, given that is our best leverage, we MUST execute it now before it ceases to be useful.

In the face of the news of Russian strikes on Kyiv, there is this Economist article that discusses how the Ukrianian drone strikes on Russias oil industry is starting to hurt and perhaps hurt in a big way. Price of petrol has risen 54%, gasoline exports stopped, petrol rationing in some parts of the country. It makes for interesting reading.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/09...rol-crisis

[Goose]

https://www.dw.com/en/could-frances-econ...%20worried.

Given the much more central role the European states are expected to play in Ukraine vs Russia, the economic situation in France is particularly relevant. While the article mostly quotes experts that believe the crisis is not immediate, there are lots of very plausible scenarios where it would indeed become immediate. As the article points out, this problem has been festering for years. The fact France has kept a lid on it so far makes people assume they can continue to do so. Bankruptcy comes slowly and then rapidly. A lot of political instability, including strikes and riots, could easily drive the interest rate on French bonds well above what France could pay. The buyers could also definitely be scared off. The ECB in the past has been able to rely on Germany to "bail out" problem nations, like Greece. Right now, Germany isn't all that flush. France has MUCH bigger debt than Greece, so proportionally more "bail out" money would be needed. Germany also intends to borrow many billions to increase their defense spending. That intent will definitely sop up lots of the available bond demand. German bonds, while weaker than they were, are still much "safer" than French ones. It has the makings of a "perfect storm".

[Goose]

https://www.dw.com/en/could-frances-econ...%20worried.

Given the much more central role the European states are expected to play in Ukraine vs Russia, the economic situation in France is particularly relevant. While the article mostly quotes experts that believe the crisis is not immediate, there are lots of very plausible scenarios where it would indeed become immediate. As the article points out, this problem has been festering for years. The fact France has kept a lid on it so far makes people assume they can continue to do so. Bankruptcy comes slowly and then rapidly. A lot of political instability, including strikes and riots, could easily drive the interest rate on French bonds well above what France could pay. The buyers could also definitely be scared off. The ECB in the past has been able to rely on Germany to "bail out" problem nations, like Greece. Right now, Germany isn't all that flush. France has MUCH bigger debt than Greece, so proportionally more "bail out" money would be needed. Germany also intends to borrow many billions to increase their defense spending. That intent will definitely sop up lots of the available bond demand. German bonds, while weaker than they were, are still much "safer" than French ones. It has the makings of a "perfect storm".

[M T]

Today one of the big headlines is the Israel missile (and fighters?) violating Qatar's sovereign air space.   And, since Israel doesn't border Qatar, the assets must have violated other country's air space.

But, did you also see that Russia sent several drones deep into Poland, presumably again testing NATO response.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c2enwk1l9e1t

[M T]

Today one of the big headlines is the Israel missile (and fighters?) violating Qatar's sovereign air space.   And, since Israel doesn't border Qatar, the assets must have violated other country's air space.

But, did you also see that Russia sent several drones deep into Poland, presumably again testing NATO response.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c2enwk1l9e1t

[dabigv13]

At least one US F-35 scrambled to shoot down those drones, amongst other NATO aircraft.

A large and clearly intentional provocation. But I suspect the impulse will be to try and ignore this. Doubt there will be a strong response.

[dabigv13]

At least one US F-35 scrambled to shoot down those drones, amongst other NATO aircraft.

A large and clearly intentional provocation. But I suspect the impulse will be to try and ignore this. Doubt there will be a strong response.

[Mick]

At least one US F-35 scrambled to shoot down those drones, amongst other NATO aircraft.

A large and clearly intentional provocation. But I suspect the impulse will be to try and ignore this. Doubt there will be a strong response.

Other than the F-35 scramble/drone shoot-down, what should the collective NATO response have been?

[Mick]

At least one US F-35 scrambled to shoot down those drones, amongst other NATO aircraft.

A large and clearly intentional provocation. But I suspect the impulse will be to try and ignore this. Doubt there will be a strong response.

Other than the F-35 scramble/drone shoot-down, what should the collective NATO response have been?

[fullmetal]

I think a reasonable response would be to fortify Poland's airspace with NATO assets and then begin sending in defensive assets (air defense) into Ukraine if necessary, especially if some of those drones that hit Poland came through Ukrainian airspace (I didn't check).

[fullmetal]

I think a reasonable response would be to fortify Poland's airspace with NATO assets and then begin sending in defensive assets (air defense) into Ukraine if necessary, especially if some of those drones that hit Poland came through Ukrainian airspace (I didn't check).

[dabigv13]

Bomb them. Bullies only respect force.

NATO will pretend this didn't happen, which will invite further incursions.

NATO (well, the US) could easily destroy the factories making these drones with missiles that would not put pilots at risk. We should do so.

[dabigv13]

Bomb them. Bullies only respect force.

NATO will pretend this didn't happen, which will invite further incursions.

NATO (well, the US) could easily destroy the factories making these drones with missiles that would not put pilots at risk. We should do so.

[M T]

Tuesday’s drones followed drones on Saturday and Sunday and late August. 19 drones. 
Pretty far into Poland by the map at CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/09/europe/po...ntl-hnk-ml

[M T]

Tuesday’s drones followed drones on Saturday and Sunday and late August. 19 drones. 
Pretty far into Poland by the map at CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/09/europe/po...ntl-hnk-ml

[Goose]

Bomb them. Bullies only respect force.

NATO will pretend this didn't happen, which will invite further incursions.

NATO (well, the US) could easily destroy the factories making these drones with missiles that would not put pilots at risk. We should do so.

I admit I am kind of wondering if this is sarcasm. The very, very last thing the US should ever consider doing is firing a missile in the direction of Russia unless we are launching our entire strategic deterrent, God forbid. Russia too has satellites that detect missile launches. Once they determine the missile is heading to Russia, it is entirely possible a maximal retaliatory nuclear response will be on the way. We know how the Russian strategic rocket forces are supposed to be controlled, but it is Russia. They may not wait for "confirmation". Even if Armageddon does not immediately ensue, it would be an act of war. Russia will respond. You can count on it. A missile will be fired at the US. The US will then react. For many years this was war-gamed and essentially always escalation to full-scale war ensued.
 
IMO the Poles need to be the lead dog on this issue. They should call the Russian ambassador to "discuss" the problem. If Poland determines these drones were intelligence detection drones (which AFAIK they have not yet done) the Russians should be told that Poland will break diplomatic relations with Russia if it happens again. Russia's choice. Poland should also point out that they of course will destroy any UAVs illegally in Poland's air space. They should also point out the serious danger of a "misunderstanding" leading to a much more serious outcome.

[Goose]

Bomb them. Bullies only respect force.

NATO will pretend this didn't happen, which will invite further incursions.

NATO (well, the US) could easily destroy the factories making these drones with missiles that would not put pilots at risk. We should do so.

I admit I am kind of wondering if this is sarcasm. The very, very last thing the US should ever consider doing is firing a missile in the direction of Russia unless we are launching our entire strategic deterrent, God forbid. Russia too has satellites that detect missile launches. Once they determine the missile is heading to Russia, it is entirely possible a maximal retaliatory nuclear response will be on the way. We know how the Russian strategic rocket forces are supposed to be controlled, but it is Russia. They may not wait for "confirmation". Even if Armageddon does not immediately ensue, it would be an act of war. Russia will respond. You can count on it. A missile will be fired at the US. The US will then react. For many years this was war-gamed and essentially always escalation to full-scale war ensued.
 
IMO the Poles need to be the lead dog on this issue. They should call the Russian ambassador to "discuss" the problem. If Poland determines these drones were intelligence detection drones (which AFAIK they have not yet done) the Russians should be told that Poland will break diplomatic relations with Russia if it happens again. Russia's choice. Poland should also point out that they of course will destroy any UAVs illegally in Poland's air space. They should also point out the serious danger of a "misunderstanding" leading to a much more serious outcome.

[dabigv13]

Not at all sarcastic. Russia is comfortable shooting things at NATO. NATO should be comfortable sending a similar message back.

Sure it will be managed; we give Russia a brief warning telling them what's happening a bit before the launches. Has been done a lot recently in the middle east, including strikes on Russian airbases.

Could also just give Ukraine a bunch of tomahawks to do it themselves, but I don't think the US or NATO should be scared to act on their own.

[dabigv13]

Not at all sarcastic. Russia is comfortable shooting things at NATO. NATO should be comfortable sending a similar message back.

Sure it will be managed; we give Russia a brief warning telling them what's happening a bit before the launches. Has been done a lot recently in the middle east, including strikes on Russian airbases.

Could also just give Ukraine a bunch of tomahawks to do it themselves, but I don't think the US or NATO should be scared to act on their own.

[fullmetal]

I'd support Ukraine or Poland pulling the trigger on any kind of response.  Mainly Ukraine since they're non-NATO.  I wish we could just silently arm Ukraine to the teeth and take the leash off of ally-supplied weapons.

[fullmetal]

I'd support Ukraine or Poland pulling the trigger on any kind of response.  Mainly Ukraine since they're non-NATO.  I wish we could just silently arm Ukraine to the teeth and take the leash off of ally-supplied weapons.

[Goose]

I'd support Ukraine or Poland pulling the trigger on any kind of response.  Mainly Ukraine since they're non-NATO.  I wish we could just silently arm Ukraine to the teeth and take the leash off of ally-supplied weapons.

Agree that Ukraine has to be the conduit of any kinetic response. They are already at war with Russia. No way they could be "more" at war. Poland as a NATO member would be problematic. It would clearly widen the conflict. IMO we can arm Ukraine with missiles that can strike the manufacturing facilities for Russian drones and short range ballistic missiles (SRBM). Ukraine already has attacked them using indigenous manufactured drones. One has to be realistic however. It will take repeated periodic strikes to actually reduce production substantially. Ukraine cannot ATM source that level of weaponry. The US would need to help massively. IMO the current administration will never do it.

[Goose]

I'd support Ukraine or Poland pulling the trigger on any kind of response.  Mainly Ukraine since they're non-NATO.  I wish we could just silently arm Ukraine to the teeth and take the leash off of ally-supplied weapons.

Agree that Ukraine has to be the conduit of any kinetic response. They are already at war with Russia. No way they could be "more" at war. Poland as a NATO member would be problematic. It would clearly widen the conflict. IMO we can arm Ukraine with missiles that can strike the manufacturing facilities for Russian drones and short range ballistic missiles (SRBM). Ukraine already has attacked them using indigenous manufactured drones. One has to be realistic however. It will take repeated periodic strikes to actually reduce production substantially. Ukraine cannot ATM source that level of weaponry. The US would need to help massively. IMO the current administration will never do it.

[GK3]

I think a reasonable response would be to fortify Poland's airspace with NATO assets and then begin sending in defensive assets (air defense) into Ukraine if necessary, especially if some of those drones that hit Poland came through Ukrainian airspace (I didn't check).

From what I can read, this is exactly what is going to happen.  Apparently the USA has around 10,000 men in Poland doing various things.

[GK3]

I think a reasonable response would be to fortify Poland's airspace with NATO assets and then begin sending in defensive assets (air defense) into Ukraine if necessary, especially if some of those drones that hit Poland came through Ukrainian airspace (I didn't check).

From what I can read, this is exactly what is going to happen.  Apparently the USA has around 10,000 men in Poland doing various things.

[Goose]

Not at all sarcastic. Russia is comfortable shooting things at NATO. NATO should be comfortable sending a similar message back.

Sure it will be managed; we give Russia a brief warning telling them what's happening a bit before the launches. Has been done a lot recently in the middle east, including strikes on Russian airbases.

Unfortunately these two things are not at all equivalent either legally or in Russian eyes. Attacking Russian soil is a totally different kettle of fish that attacking a Russian military outpost located in another country. Legally the Russian air bases in the middle east are part of and acting for the state in which they reside (e.g Syria) and not part of Russia. Legally embassies are "different" but that is usually ignored :-). Emotionally to the Russian public there is no equivalence at all. NATO absolutely doesn't want to start a full-on war. Blowing up war material plants in Russia very probably would do that. The benefit isn't worth the cost because only repeated strikes can obtain the benefit.

Could also just give Ukraine a bunch of tomahawks to do it themselves, but I don't think the US or NATO should be scared to act on their own.

It isn't a matter of being "scared". It is a matter of recognizing what NATO's interests are and how to protect those interests in the face of Russia's intentional provocations. One thing that absolutely is NOT in NATO's interest is Poland invoking Article 5 and demanding "action". Essentially none of the NATO states would heed the call. That is Russia's "best case" outcome. That is why Poland went with Article 4.
 
It appears all the drones were actually armed with warheads and not intelligence equipment. That allows Russia to say they were just "off course". One possible response suggested by some ex-NATO leaders is for NATO to declare an extended air defense zone covering from the Bulgarian border to the Baltic. That ADZ would extend 200 km to the EAST of the border, which would include a 200 km strip of Ukraine (and Belarus, but who cares). NATO would declare that since Russia keeps sending drones into NATO countries, whether accidental or intentional, NATO reserves the right in cooperation with the Ukrainian government to shoot down any UAV inside that 200 km deep Ukrainian territory that NATO believes could be a threat to NATO territory. Totally a self-defense mission required by Russian irresponsibility.
 
This response would allow NATO to de-facto assume the counter-UAV mission for this strip of Ukraine. It would be a "proportional" response to the new threat introduced by Russia. The response IMO would harm Russia far more than any benefit they can obtain by launching "nuisance" drones into Poland. It would not be "boots on the ground" and the pilots would RTB in NATO nations after each mission. It would make a big swath of western Ukraine pretty safe from drones.

Of course, I also think the US should sell lots of long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine. There should be no strings attached to their use. I think we can trust Ukraine to "do the right thing" with them :-). Ukraine is already at war with Russia, so no widening of the conflict is required.
 
Unfortunately I doubt either one of those things will happen.

[Goose]

Not at all sarcastic. Russia is comfortable shooting things at NATO. NATO should be comfortable sending a similar message back.

Sure it will be managed; we give Russia a brief warning telling them what's happening a bit before the launches. Has been done a lot recently in the middle east, including strikes on Russian airbases.

Unfortunately these two things are not at all equivalent either legally or in Russian eyes. Attacking Russian soil is a totally different kettle of fish that attacking a Russian military outpost located in another country. Legally the Russian air bases in the middle east are part of and acting for the state in which they reside (e.g Syria) and not part of Russia. Legally embassies are "different" but that is usually ignored :-). Emotionally to the Russian public there is no equivalence at all. NATO absolutely doesn't want to start a full-on war. Blowing up war material plants in Russia very probably would do that. The benefit isn't worth the cost because only repeated strikes can obtain the benefit.

Could also just give Ukraine a bunch of tomahawks to do it themselves, but I don't think the US or NATO should be scared to act on their own.

It isn't a matter of being "scared". It is a matter of recognizing what NATO's interests are and how to protect those interests in the face of Russia's intentional provocations. One thing that absolutely is NOT in NATO's interest is Poland invoking Article 5 and demanding "action". Essentially none of the NATO states would heed the call. That is Russia's "best case" outcome. That is why Poland went with Article 4.
 
It appears all the drones were actually armed with warheads and not intelligence equipment. That allows Russia to say they were just "off course". One possible response suggested by some ex-NATO leaders is for NATO to declare an extended air defense zone covering from the Bulgarian border to the Baltic. That ADZ would extend 200 km to the EAST of the border, which would include a 200 km strip of Ukraine (and Belarus, but who cares). NATO would declare that since Russia keeps sending drones into NATO countries, whether accidental or intentional, NATO reserves the right in cooperation with the Ukrainian government to shoot down any UAV inside that 200 km deep Ukrainian territory that NATO believes could be a threat to NATO territory. Totally a self-defense mission required by Russian irresponsibility.
 
This response would allow NATO to de-facto assume the counter-UAV mission for this strip of Ukraine. It would be a "proportional" response to the new threat introduced by Russia. The response IMO would harm Russia far more than any benefit they can obtain by launching "nuisance" drones into Poland. It would not be "boots on the ground" and the pilots would RTB in NATO nations after each mission. It would make a big swath of western Ukraine pretty safe from drones.

Of course, I also think the US should sell lots of long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine. There should be no strings attached to their use. I think we can trust Ukraine to "do the right thing" with them :-). Ukraine is already at war with Russia, so no widening of the conflict is required.
 
Unfortunately I doubt either one of those things will happen.

[BostonCard]

My response would be to start sending NATO airplanes into Ukranian airspace (well away from Russian air defenses) to shoot down drones before the reach NATO airspace.  It can be done in the name of protecting NATO at the invitation of the Ukranians even though what they will really be doing is helping Ukraine protect itself.

BC

[BostonCard]

My response would be to start sending NATO airplanes into Ukranian airspace (well away from Russian air defenses) to shoot down drones before the reach NATO airspace.  It can be done in the name of protecting NATO at the invitation of the Ukranians even though what they will really be doing is helping Ukraine protect itself.

BC

[Goose]

My response would be to start sending NATO airplanes into Ukranian airspace (well away from Russian air defenses) to shoot down drones before the reach NATO airspace.  It can be done in the name of protecting NATO at the invitation of the Ukranians even though what they will really be doing is helping Ukraine protect itself.

BC

That is part of the "external ADZ". Those 200 km are for that purpose. In order to prevent Russia from just sending the drones by routes that don't include Ukraine (e.g. the Baltic States, Belarus) the defended area needs to be somewhat broader in scope. It also has the advantage of intellectual consistency, in that all the NATO border states are defended equally. The fact Ukraine gets free air defense is a serendipity. If the Baltics come under the same threat that 200 km will extend into Russia. Then things could get interesting. Hopefully the initial declaration will give Russia pause and they will not risk widening the conflict.

[Goose]

My response would be to start sending NATO airplanes into Ukranian airspace (well away from Russian air defenses) to shoot down drones before the reach NATO airspace.  It can be done in the name of protecting NATO at the invitation of the Ukranians even though what they will really be doing is helping Ukraine protect itself.

BC

That is part of the "external ADZ". Those 200 km are for that purpose. In order to prevent Russia from just sending the drones by routes that don't include Ukraine (e.g. the Baltic States, Belarus) the defended area needs to be somewhat broader in scope. It also has the advantage of intellectual consistency, in that all the NATO border states are defended equally. The fact Ukraine gets free air defense is a serendipity. If the Baltics come under the same threat that 200 km will extend into Russia. Then things could get interesting. Hopefully the initial declaration will give Russia pause and they will not risk widening the conflict.

[BostonCard]

yeah, I had written as a reply to Mick and did not see your response, but great minds think alike (in this particular case, I feel validated that I recapitulated your thinking as I know that you’ve forgotten more about this topic than I could ever know).

One thought now that I read your response, while Russia has some plausible deniability that the drones made it into Poland accidentally by straying off course, there is no such excuse for a drone incursion into the Baltics, and it would be a clear escalation by Russia.  I guess that is what you mean by “then things could get interesting”.

Only other thought is that I think Kyiv is more than 200 km from the Polish border.  Eyeballing it, I think you would need to make the external ADZ 400 km in order to cover Kyiv.  Of course, that also approximately the distance of Sevastopol from Romania, and even though legally it is considered Ukranian territory, Russia has a lot of air defenses there.

BC

[BostonCard]

yeah, I had written as a reply to Mick and did not see your response, but great minds think alike (in this particular case, I feel validated that I recapitulated your thinking as I know that you’ve forgotten more about this topic than I could ever know).

One thought now that I read your response, while Russia has some plausible deniability that the drones made it into Poland accidentally by straying off course, there is no such excuse for a drone incursion into the Baltics, and it would be a clear escalation by Russia.  I guess that is what you mean by “then things could get interesting”.

Only other thought is that I think Kyiv is more than 200 km from the Polish border.  Eyeballing it, I think you would need to make the external ADZ 400 km in order to cover Kyiv.  Of course, that also approximately the distance of Sevastopol from Romania, and even though legally it is considered Ukranian territory, Russia has a lot of air defenses there.

BC

[GK3]

yeah, I had written as a reply to Mick and did not see your response, but great minds think alike (in this particular case, I feel validated that I recapitulated your thinking as I know that you’ve forgotten more about this topic than I could ever know).

One thought now that I read your response, while Russia has some plausible deniability that the drones made it into Poland accidentally by straying off course, there is no such excuse for a drone incursion into the Baltics, and it would be a clear escalation by Russia.  I guess that is what you mean by “then things could get interesting”.

Only other thought is that I think Kyiv is more than 200 km from the Polish border.  Eyeballing it, I think you would need to make the external ADZ 400 km in order to cover Kyiv.  Of course, that also approximately the distance of Sevastopol from Romania, and even though legally it is considered Ukranian territory, Russia has a lot of air defenses there.

BC

[GK3]

yeah, I had written as a reply to Mick and did not see your response, but great minds think alike (in this particular case, I feel validated that I recapitulated your thinking as I know that you’ve forgotten more about this topic than I could ever know).

One thought now that I read your response, while Russia has some plausible deniability that the drones made it into Poland accidentally by straying off course, there is no such excuse for a drone incursion into the Baltics, and it would be a clear escalation by Russia.  I guess that is what you mean by “then things could get interesting”.

Only other thought is that I think Kyiv is more than 200 km from the Polish border.  Eyeballing it, I think you would need to make the external ADZ 400 km in order to cover Kyiv.  Of course, that also approximately the distance of Sevastopol from Romania, and even though legally it is considered Ukranian territory, Russia has a lot of air defenses there.

BC

[Goose]

yeah, I had written as a reply to Mick and did not see your response, but great minds think alike (in this particular case, I feel validated that I recapitulated your thinking as I know that you’ve forgotten more about this topic than I could ever know).

Wish I could take credit for inventing the idea, but I borrowed it from an ex-NATO commander via the BBC. IMO it is a "good" idea though. It is defensive in nature but has side effects that help Ukraine a lot. As a side benefit it will clearly demonstrate the necessity of capable AWACS aircraft for wars that could break out tomorrow. Relying on a space-based system that doesn't exist yet (and may never exist) does NATO no good right now. It will also demonstrate how woefully short of capability NATO is in that area.

One thought now that I read your response, while Russia has some plausible deniability that the drones made it into Poland accidentally by straying off course, there is no such excuse for a drone incursion into the Baltics, and it would be a clear escalation by Russia.  I guess that is what you mean by “then things could get interesting”.

There are two kinds of drone incursions that could take place in the Baltics. One would be drones that enter Baltic airspace and attack targets in the Baltics. That would indeed be a clear and blatant escalation by Russia. The other possibility is that Russia routes the drones through Baltic airspace to reach Poland, ostensibly on the way to Ukraine. Russia already regularly violates Belorussian air space in that manner. Some of the drones that ended up in Poland came via that route. In theory, Belarus should defend its own air space, but in the event it does not the extended ADZ would allow NATO aircraft to intercept Russian drones in Belorussian airspace. That will be "interesting" all by itself. Nobody, least of all Ukraine wants Belarus to enter the war on Russia's side. OTOH if Belarus allows Russia to use its airspace, what is the difference? Belarus doesn't want to be involved in the war either. They just may tacitly allow NATO to enter their airspace to destroy "rogue" Russian drones.
 
In either case, if Russian drones are entering Baltic airspace the extended ADZ would allow NATO aircraft to engage such drones 200 km INSIDE RUSSIA. That was the case I found most "interesting". Russia would be asking for trouble if it send drones into the Baltics knowing that NATO may respond by violating Russian airspace. What does Russia do then? NATO isn't bombing Russia, killing Russians or damaging Russia in any way. It is merely destroying "rogue" Russian drones. Russia should thank NATO. Of course if Russia protests, NATO could say "Fine, you shoot down your own rogue drones. But if you don't, we will".   

Only other thought is that I think Kyiv is more than 200 km from the Polish border.  Eyeballing it, I think you would need to make the external ADZ 400 km in order to cover Kyiv.  Of course, that also approximately the distance of Sevastopol from Romania, and even though legally it is considered Ukranian territory, Russia has a lot of air defenses there.

BC

Yes, the extended ADZ approach can't be stretched anywhere near that far. The justification for some extension over the boarder is that NATO will have to timeshare jets to destroy large drone swarms. If the jets have to wait until the drones are in NATO airspace to destroy them, some will certainly get through. We need room to operate. 200km is a good number for that. 400 is clearly excessive and it would be "obvious" that the side effect was really the main effect. It additionally ensures that the NATO AWACS supporting the effort can do so from well inside NATO airspace. It would definitely be out of S-400 range, even for a "long shot". This is quite important. NATO isn't flush with AWACS.
 
Be warned I am working on an opus about the ability (or lack thereof) of Russia to use their A-50s to create a drone barrier against Ukraine :-). I will add some info about the notional AWACS support required for the NATO extended ADZ envisioned in this thread.

[Goose]

yeah, I had written as a reply to Mick and did not see your response, but great minds think alike (in this particular case, I feel validated that I recapitulated your thinking as I know that you’ve forgotten more about this topic than I could ever know).

Wish I could take credit for inventing the idea, but I borrowed it from an ex-NATO commander via the BBC. IMO it is a "good" idea though. It is defensive in nature but has side effects that help Ukraine a lot. As a side benefit it will clearly demonstrate the necessity of capable AWACS aircraft for wars that could break out tomorrow. Relying on a space-based system that doesn't exist yet (and may never exist) does NATO no good right now. It will also demonstrate how woefully short of capability NATO is in that area.

One thought now that I read your response, while Russia has some plausible deniability that the drones made it into Poland accidentally by straying off course, there is no such excuse for a drone incursion into the Baltics, and it would be a clear escalation by Russia.  I guess that is what you mean by “then things could get interesting”.

There are two kinds of drone incursions that could take place in the Baltics. One would be drones that enter Baltic airspace and attack targets in the Baltics. That would indeed be a clear and blatant escalation by Russia. The other possibility is that Russia routes the drones through Baltic airspace to reach Poland, ostensibly on the way to Ukraine. Russia already regularly violates Belorussian air space in that manner. Some of the drones that ended up in Poland came via that route. In theory, Belarus should defend its own air space, but in the event it does not the extended ADZ would allow NATO aircraft to intercept Russian drones in Belorussian airspace. That will be "interesting" all by itself. Nobody, least of all Ukraine wants Belarus to enter the war on Russia's side. OTOH if Belarus allows Russia to use its airspace, what is the difference? Belarus doesn't want to be involved in the war either. They just may tacitly allow NATO to enter their airspace to destroy "rogue" Russian drones.
 
In either case, if Russian drones are entering Baltic airspace the extended ADZ would allow NATO aircraft to engage such drones 200 km INSIDE RUSSIA. That was the case I found most "interesting". Russia would be asking for trouble if it send drones into the Baltics knowing that NATO may respond by violating Russian airspace. What does Russia do then? NATO isn't bombing Russia, killing Russians or damaging Russia in any way. It is merely destroying "rogue" Russian drones. Russia should thank NATO. Of course if Russia protests, NATO could say "Fine, you shoot down your own rogue drones. But if you don't, we will".   

Only other thought is that I think Kyiv is more than 200 km from the Polish border.  Eyeballing it, I think you would need to make the external ADZ 400 km in order to cover Kyiv.  Of course, that also approximately the distance of Sevastopol from Romania, and even though legally it is considered Ukranian territory, Russia has a lot of air defenses there.

BC

Yes, the extended ADZ approach can't be stretched anywhere near that far. The justification for some extension over the boarder is that NATO will have to timeshare jets to destroy large drone swarms. If the jets have to wait until the drones are in NATO airspace to destroy them, some will certainly get through. We need room to operate. 200km is a good number for that. 400 is clearly excessive and it would be "obvious" that the side effect was really the main effect. It additionally ensures that the NATO AWACS supporting the effort can do so from well inside NATO airspace. It would definitely be out of S-400 range, even for a "long shot". This is quite important. NATO isn't flush with AWACS.
 
Be warned I am working on an opus about the ability (or lack thereof) of Russia to use their A-50s to create a drone barrier against Ukraine :-). I will add some info about the notional AWACS support required for the NATO extended ADZ envisioned in this thread.

[dabigv13]

The drones that entered Poland were all of the same Gerbera type, cheaper and smaller with less payload than Shaheds, and typically without warheads. They are mainly used to saturate air defenses. I haven't seen anything indicating these had warheads though they sometimes can.

If you look at a map of the flight paths of all the drones used in the attack, there are not a lot of drones that randomly go off path. Pretty much all of them except for the 19 that went into Poland seemed to converge on their expected targets.

Clearly a provocation, and IMHO also a way of testing NATO responses to a large drone incursion.

I think it's important to remember this event in the context of other Russian actions on NATO soil. They have attacked weapons stocks and factories, and been caught planning to assassinate defense company CEOs, such as the Rheinmetall CEO. They have attacked European rail infrastructure and set fires to malls and stores in Poland, Lithuania, the UK.

Russia is already at war with NATO, NATO is just pretending they aren't. If NATO does not respond, Russia will continue to escalate. They cannot be appeased. NATO should show some spine and bomb them. They won't be able to stop it, and they won't escalate conventionally because NATO would smash them conventionally. Russian nuclear threats are just that. Ukraine has done a lot to Russia and despite their nuclear threats they have not been used, because they would be counterproductive to Russian goals.

Extending a NATO air patrol over Ukraine would be great. I don't think it will happen but I would welcome it. Even more than that, NATO needs to punch the bully in the nose.

They won't however, and Russian attacks and provocations will continue to escalate. They will continue trying to isolate and "grey zone" Poland and the Baltic states, like they did with Crimea and the Donbass.

[dabigv13]

The drones that entered Poland were all of the same Gerbera type, cheaper and smaller with less payload than Shaheds, and typically without warheads. They are mainly used to saturate air defenses. I haven't seen anything indicating these had warheads though they sometimes can.

If you look at a map of the flight paths of all the drones used in the attack, there are not a lot of drones that randomly go off path. Pretty much all of them except for the 19 that went into Poland seemed to converge on their expected targets.

Clearly a provocation, and IMHO also a way of testing NATO responses to a large drone incursion.

I think it's important to remember this event in the context of other Russian actions on NATO soil. They have attacked weapons stocks and factories, and been caught planning to assassinate defense company CEOs, such as the Rheinmetall CEO. They have attacked European rail infrastructure and set fires to malls and stores in Poland, Lithuania, the UK.

Russia is already at war with NATO, NATO is just pretending they aren't. If NATO does not respond, Russia will continue to escalate. They cannot be appeased. NATO should show some spine and bomb them. They won't be able to stop it, and they won't escalate conventionally because NATO would smash them conventionally. Russian nuclear threats are just that. Ukraine has done a lot to Russia and despite their nuclear threats they have not been used, because they would be counterproductive to Russian goals.

Extending a NATO air patrol over Ukraine would be great. I don't think it will happen but I would welcome it. Even more than that, NATO needs to punch the bully in the nose.

They won't however, and Russian attacks and provocations will continue to escalate. They will continue trying to isolate and "grey zone" Poland and the Baltic states, like they did with Crimea and the Donbass.