Attack on One is an Attack on All?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, better known as NATO, was formed on April 4, 1949, in Washington, D.C., when twelve nations entered a military alliance. Born out of the devastation of World War II and rising tensions with the Soviet Union, NATO was designed as a shield for its members, promising that no country would ever stand alone against aggression. Article 5, its most famous principle, states that “an attack on one member is considered an attack on all.” For decades, this promise gave NATO strength and credibility, reassuring nations that their security was guaranteed by a powerful network of allies. Yet today, more than seventy years after its inception, the question is no longer why NATO was formed, but whether it can still live up to that promise. In particular, NATO’s credibility is challenged by divisions within the alliance that are beginning to crystallize and the resulting fact of Russia testing its limits.
Russia’s antagonism toward the West did not just start out of the blue. This tense relationship stems from the different ideologies that these countries possess, as well as their deep sense of cultural identity.
In recent months, there have been many violations of NATO’s agreements, and the alliance is split about how or whether to respond. For example, Russian drones spied on European military bases, Russian fighter and reconnaissance jets violated NATO’s airspace and in one instance, helium balloons were even flown to the NATO border. NATO cannot afford to treat these violations as minor irritations. Every drone that crosses into restricted airspace, every fighter jet that breaches sovereign skies and every balloon drifting across borders tests NATO’s determination to defend every inch of its borders. With these actions, Russia is exploiting NATO’s hesitation, betting that the alliance will remain paralyzed by internal debate rather than act with unified strength.
On Nov. 5, 2025, Russian fighter jets violated Estonia’s airspace for 12 minutes, and more than 20 Iranian-manufactured Russian suicide drones, nicknamed Shahed drones, entered Polish airspace. This shows that Russia is planning to strain the alliance by strategically highlighting how NATO’s core is immensely fragile. The significance of this is crystal clear: NATO’s interference depends not on treaties written decades ago, but on its ability to enforce them today against Russia and other enemies.
Most people believe that the alliance should shoot the drones down, but the equipment required to do so is currently scarce. Moreover, to shoot down the drones, NATO’s military must first ensure that they would not endanger human life or risk damage to property. One additional challenge is that President Trump stipulated that unless the European counterparts pay their fair share, “I'm not going to defend them.” This is a deviation from historical norms, wherein support from the United States was generally considered automatic. The United States’ hesitation is especially surprising given that Article 5, the core tenet of the alliance, was used only once after the devastating attacks of 9/11.
These events highlight how vulnerable the alliance really is and why it should invest in cutting-edge weaponry capable of shooting down the drones. Other conflicts throughout the world show how drones are an immensely frustrating problem to face during a war. In the Russia-Ukraine war, a huge number of suicide drones have been launched at Ukraine’s infrastructure and military bases. Suicide drones were also launched from Iraq, Iran and Yemen at Israel during the 7-day war with Iran.
This raises an intriguing question: Why doesn’t the alliance learn how to handle drone use from Ukraine and Israel? The answer lies in that NATO is more concerned with being politically correct than with organizing international defense. This is causing internal strain in the alliance. For instance, NATO has avoided closer military cooperation with Israel to maintain internal consensus and avoid offending Turkey. This “politically correct” balancing act has deprived NATO of Israel’s advanced intelligence and defense capabilities, weakening its strategic edge in the broader geopolitical arena.
Additionally, NATO countries are profoundly reliant on U.S. signals, which is seen as a weakness. When Russia violated NATO airspace with drones and fighter jets, NATO defenses shot down only four of 19 drones. The weak response accompanied U.S. statements minimizing the incidents, showing NATO’s dependence on Washington’s framing.
These weaknesses have been used as leverage by the Moscow regime. Russia’s ambition is to undermine the unity of the alliance, and sadly it appears to be working.
Photo Caption: NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and NATO Heads of State and Government
Photo Credit: NATO
