Standing assessment
Current condition
Moderate confidenceAs of
Twelve confirmed entries by Russian state aircraft are recorded from February 2022, concentrated in the eastern Gulf of Finland and on the Estonian frontier, with two Polish cases over territorial waters.
Sixteen confirmed uncrewed entries are recorded from September 2025 across Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania and Romania. In September 2025 seven Allies were affected in one month, two of them invoking Article 4 consultations, and NATO answered with Eastern Sentry rather than with a change to standing air policing.
Latest reviewBaseline
Baseline established as the module’s monitoring layer was built. The condition above is the state of the question on this date, drawn from the module’s canonical records; no earlier review exists and none is implied.
Why it matters
This question is about the pattern, not the count: which states, in what form, how often, and whether the Alliance’s response changes form. The two Tempo series carry the occurrences; this question reads them. What would change the answer is a shift in kind — entries by a class of aircraft not previously seen, or in a state not previously affected — or a change in the standing response, which has been additive since 2014.
Observables6 named · “met” describes evidence, not success
01Test
A confirmed entry in a state not previously affected
The geographic spread is the clearest signal available, and each state publishes its own confirmations.
02Test
A change in the form of the allied response
Every adaptation since 2014 has been additive. A change to the air-policing rotation, basing model or mission scope would be a change of kind.
03Test
A further Article 4 consultation over an airspace event
Two were requested in September 2025. Each is a published alliance act with a date.
05Test
A state’s own running count of violations
Estonia states a running count per case, which is the reconciliation device for the manned series and the only official denominator available.
06Test
Changes in how states describe the origin of uncrewed entries
Latvia says a foreign drone entered through Russian electronic-warfare effects; Estonia says likely Ukrainian. A change in that language is a change in what is being established.
What would change the assessment3 assessment-change conditions · qualitative, as the record states them
A confirmed entry in a state with no previous case.
A change to the standing air-policing mission rather than an addition alongside it.
An official state attribution for an uncrewed entry.
What remains unknown
- No state-year in the uncrewed series is covered zero, and most state-years in the manned series are not either.
- Scramble and intercept totals measure allied responses and are excluded from every count here.
Readings the evidence also supports
- A concentration of cases in one month may reflect a change in behaviour or improved allied detection and publication of behaviour that was already occurring. Neither is established.
Listed because the record's own assessment is not the only one its sources permit — not as a hedge on the assessment above.
Review ledger1 entry · opened · newest first, each tied to the review that made it
Baseline
Baseline established as the module’s monitoring layer was built. The condition above is the state of the question on this date, drawn from the module’s canonical records; no earlier review exists and none is implied.
Connected system9 canonical records this question runs through · Watch owns the edge; each record shows the question back
Means and systems 3
Ground 3
Arrangements and events 2
Vigil analysis 1
Open this question in Explore Interactive: select this record and follow what connects to it.
Assessed as of — 2026-09-21 Last reviewed — 2026-09-21