The question haunting Western capitals today is whether NATO's measured response to these incursions mirrors the fatal hesitation that allowed Adolf Hitler to devour Europe piece by piece in the late 1930s.

The parallels between Putin's current strategy and Hitler's methodical expansion are striking in their deliberate incrementalism. In the 1930s, Hitler's territorial ambitions began with seemingly reasonable demands: the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, justified as restoring German sovereignty; the Anschluss with Austria in 1938, framed as unifying German-speaking peoples; the occupation of the Sudetenland later that year, presented as protecting ethnic Germans from Czech oppression.

Each violation of international law was accompanied by assurances that this would be the final territorial adjustment, that Hitler's ambitions were limited and rational.

Western democracies, still traumatized by the carnage of World War I and desperately hoping to avoid another continental conflict, chose to interpret these violations charitably. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain famously declared after the Munich Agreement that he had secured "peace for our time." French leaders, despite their extensive Maginot Line fortifications, proved reluctant to test their military preparedness against German expansion.

The pattern was consistent: each transgression was treated as an isolated incident, each diplomatic protest was measured and restrained, and each concession was justified as the price of preserving peace.

Latest drone incursions over NATO territory follow a remarkably similar playbook. Russian drones "accidentally" drift into Romanian airspace for fifty minutes before disappearing from radar screens. Polish airports close as unmanned aircraft cross sovereign boundaries, ostensibly targeting Ukrainian infrastructure but somehow finding their way into NATO skies.

Each incident can be dismissed as a navigation error, a technical malfunction, or collateral damage from legitimate military operations against Ukraine. Yet the cumulative effect is unmistakable: Russia is systematically probing NATO's responses, testing the alliance's willingness to defend its own airspace with the same determination it claims to reserve for defending member states.

The drone represents a perfect instrument for this modern version of salami-slicing strategy. Unlike the Panzer divisions that swept across European borders in 1939-1940, drones offer plausible deniability. They are expendable assets that can be sacrificed without significant military or political cost to their operators. When a Russian drone crashes in a Romanian field or triggers air defense systems over Poland, Moscow can credibly claim the incident was unintentional, the result of technical failure rather than deliberate aggression.

This technological evolution fundamentally alters the calculus of escalation. During the Cold War, border violations typically involved manned aircraft or ground forces whose presence was unambiguously intentional.

A Soviet fighter jet in NATO airspace represented a clear political decision in Moscow, demanding an equally clear response from the West. Today's drone incursions exist in a gray zone of attribution and intent that complicates alliance decision-making. How does NATO respond proportionally to a weapon system that may or may not be operating under direct human control? How does the alliance distinguish between genuine technical failures and deliberate probing operations?

Putin's regime has demonstrated particular skill in exploiting these ambiguities. Russian military doctrine has embraced what Western analysts term "hybrid warfare" – the use of irregular forces, cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns, and now drone incursions to achieve strategic objectives while maintaining plausible deniability. This approach allows Moscow to gradually shift the parameters of acceptable behaviour without triggering the kind of decisive response that would follow a conventional military attack.

The alliance's response to these provocations has been characterized by the same measured restraint that defined Western policy in the late 1930s. Romanian F-16s scramble to intercept intruding drones but take no aggressive action.

Polish authorities close civilian airports and issue diplomatic protests but avoid any response that might be interpreted as escalatory. NATO officials emphasize the alliance's commitment to defending "every inch" of member territory while carefully avoiding any actions that might suggest they are prepared to treat drone incursions as acts of war.

This cautious approach reflects several structural challenges within the alliance that Putin has clearly identified and is systematically exploiting.

First, NATO's decision-making processes require consensus among thirty-two member states with vastly different strategic priorities and threat perceptions. Poland and the Baltic states, having experienced Soviet occupation and sharing borders with Russia or its allies, view these drone incursions as harbingers of larger aggression requiring immediate and forceful response. Hungary, led by Viktor Orbán's increasingly pro-Russian government, consistently blocks or dilutes EU sanctions against Moscow and opposes military assistance to Ukraine. Germany and France, while supporting Ukraine diplomatically, remain reluctant to take actions that might provoke direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed adversary.

Second, the United States, NATO's dominant military power and ultimate security guarantor, faces its own internal divisions over European engagement. The 2024 presidential election has highlighted growing American reluctance to bear the costs of European security, with both major political parties questioning the sustainability of current commitments. This domestic uncertainty inevitably translates into hesitant leadership within the alliance, creating opportunities for adversaries to exploit perceived weaknesses in American resolve.

Third, European nations remain economically vulnerable to Russian coercion despite years of efforts to reduce energy dependence. While the most egregious dependencies on Russian natural gas have been eliminated following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Moscow retains significant leverage through food exports, nuclear fuel supplies, and raw materials essential to European industry. This economic interdependence creates powerful constituencies within NATO countries that advocate for restraint and accommodation rather than confrontation.

The danger of the current trajectory lies not in any single drone incursion but in the gradual normalization of boundary violations. Each incident that passes without decisive response establishes a new baseline for acceptable Russian behavior. Today's "accidental" drone overflights become tomorrow's "routine" air patrols. Temporary incursions evolve into permanent challenges to NATO airspace.

The alliance finds itself engaged in a process of gradual retreat without ever making a conscious decision to withdraw.

This dynamic precisely mirrors the European experience of the late 1930s, when each accommodation to German demands made the next demand seem reasonable by comparison. The remilitarization of the Rhineland made the Anschluss with Austria appear less threatening. Austrian annexation made the Sudetenland crisis seem like a minor boundary adjustment.

By the time German forces crossed into Poland proper in September 1939, the pattern of incremental expansion had become so established that many observers were surprised by the sudden shift from gradual encroachment to full-scale invasion.

Putin's strategy appears designed to achieve similar psychological effects within NATO. By maintaining a careful balance between provocation and restraint, Russian forces can gradually expand their operational envelope without triggering the alliance's collective defense mechanisms. The goal is not immediate conquest but rather the slow erosion of NATO credibility and the gradual establishment of Russian spheres of influence in Eastern Europe.

History suggests that the current moment represents a critical decision point for the NATO alliance. The Western democracies' failure to respond decisively to Hitler's early provocations was not inevitable; it represented a series of conscious choices to prioritize short-term peace over long-term security. At several points – the Rhineland crisis, the Anschluss, even the Sudetenland occupation – forceful Western action might have halted German expansion without precipitating the global catastrophe that ultimately followed.

Similarly, NATO's response to Russian drone incursions will likely determine whether these violations remain isolated incidents or escalate into broader challenges to the post-war international order. The alliance faces a fundamental choice: establish clear red lines and enforce them consistently, or accept the gradual erosion of member state sovereignty in the name of avoiding immediate confrontation.

The stakes of this choice extend far beyond the immediate tactical questions of drone interception and airspace management. Putin's regime is carefully observing NATO's responses to gauge the alliance's willingness to defend its stated principles. A pattern of hesitation and accommodation will inevitably encourage more ambitious Russian adventures, potentially including direct challenges to the sovereignty of NATO member states in the Baltics or elsewhere in Eastern Europe.

The shadow of the 1930s reminds us that the choice between peace and war is rarely as clear as democratic leaders hope. More often, nations find themselves choosing between the certainty of immediate confrontation and the risk of larger conflicts in the future.

NATO's response to Russian drone incursions may well determine whether Europe faces another generation of peace or finds itself, once again, struggling to contain an expansionist power that has grown emboldened by Western restraint. (IPA Service)