Just to say it makes no difference if it is unintentional by Russia or intentional but deniable. Either way Romania does NOT have to respond by attacking Russia indeed there is NO WAY it attaks Russia. But this seems likely to be UNINTENTIONAL.
Likely unintentional - was sure to happen at some point with so many drones straying into Romania throughout the war
- intentional but deniable means that Russia could have programmed that particular drone out of the dozens of drones in the attack to mimick a drone that was mistargeted or thrown off by electronic jamming.
Always some drones go astray and crash into an empty field or something often because of Ukrainian signal jamming which is now very effective against Shaheds.
But the pattern does NOT suggest it’s intentional. The Russian drones have often hit Romania but usualy in remote areas far from anyone. It was just a matter of time before one of them flew over a more inhabited area of the border of Romania with Ukraine.
And Romania is ready to shoot down the drones now and will shoot them down if they are headed over an uninhabited area towards an inhabited area.
However Nicusor Dan, president of Romania, says that the F-16s had orders to shoot it down but couldn’t because it flew over densely inhabited areas throughout its flight path - they never had an opportunity to shoot it down without risk of the debris injuring civilians.
The issue there is they can’t know where it is going to crash - it crashes when it runs out of fuel or when it reaches its programmed target. In this case likely it just fell out of the sky when it ran out of fuel and landed on an apartment
From the photos I’ve seen so far it seems to have landed on the roof so it wasn’t likely targeted at it.
A few statements from Nicosur Dan from his Facebook timeline:
Romania and Ukraine will boost their defences against drones
In his latest post on FB Nicusor Dan says that Romania and Ukraine will respond by boosting joint production of drones. These are drones used both internally in Ukraine to protect Ukraine and externally by the NATO allies to shoot down drones in their territory.
QUOTE STARTS
Today I had a conversation with the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenski, following the incident …
This thing has got to stop. Russia must end the attacks and engage in a meaningful dialogue for a just and lasting peace in Ukraine.
We agreed, together with President Zelenski, to accelerate cooperation between Romania and Ukraine on the joint production of drones that can be deployed quickly. Ukraine’s battlefield experience and drone technology are strategic assets for the defense of the entire East Bank.
Romania continues to invest in strengthening NATO’s Eastern Flank and in supporting Ukraine in its legitimate quest for self-defense.
Romania is already working on production of anti-drone capabilities with US And UK. And also bilateral agreements for equipment in Romania to shoot them down. Romania insists on urgency with the NATO secretary general.
We have, at the same time, a common mechanism with the United States and the UK to accelerate the production and testing of drones and, obviously, anti-drone capabilities. And, until these equipment will be delivered, we have bilateral agreements, and within NATO, with partners for equipment to be present in Romania. Some have come, some are yet to come, and in our discussion with the NATO Secretary-General, I insisted for urgency and absolutely agreed that these equipment should reach our country as soon as possible.
His statement about the incident. The F-16s had the firm order to shoot down the drone as soon as the conditions allowed it without risk of casualties and destruction on the ground but they never encountered suitable conditions before the drone hit the apartment.
The Romanian Armed Forces acted by respecting the procedures that have been established for such situations, having the firm order to shoot down the drone as soon as the conditions would allow such an operation without the risk of casualties or destruction on the ground.
After the army radars detected the drone at the entrance to the national airspace, two F-16 aircraft of the Romanian Air Force and an IAR-330 SOCAT helicopter followed the drone into the national airspace. The decision not to hire the target was taken because there were no conditions to allow it to be destroyed without the risk of severe endangering the safety of the civilian population.
Romania’s resonse
- informed its allies and will inform the NATO security alliance
- formally requested allies to put more anti-drone capabilities on its territory to strengthen its defences as well as the Estonian flank of the alliance.
It’s also started an investigation of what happened.
Romania’s answer is firm and on several levels. I have arranged and committed the following measures, some of them have already been implemented:
- Allied information - All NATO allies and EU partners have been informed about the incident. Communication with allied military structures is underway in real time.
- Additional allied anti-drone capabilities - Romania has formally requested that allies to deploy additional anti-drone capacities on the national territory to strengthen our defense and the Estonian Flank of the Alliance, in accordance with the instructions of SACEUR.
- UN Security Council - Romania will formally inform the Security Council of the United Nations regarding this brutal and repeated violation of international law by the Russian Federation.
The Ministry of National Defense, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Department for Emergency Situations, the Romanian Information Service have been mobilized. Together with the local authorities from Galatia, they manage the consequences of the incident on the spot.
A comprehensive investigation into the circumstances of the drone crash was launched and technical expertise was provided to retrieve the fragments to accurately identify the weapon type and trajectory. I asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to present immediately a series of measures to be taken regarding the relationship with the Russian Federation, proportional to this very serious situation.
Example of the Gulf States and UK base in Cyprus - intentionally targeted and NONE OF THEM joined the war against Iran - a country DOES NOT HAVE TO ATTACK attack a country that fires drones or missiles at it EVEN IF IT WAS INTENTIONAL
But remember the gulf states in the Iran war WERE ALL intentionally targeted. Including Saudi Arabia which doesn’t even let the US have bases on its territory and got very serious attacks. NONE of them joined the war against Iran.
A country does NOT have to attack a country that fires drones at it. It has the right to defend itself. It doesn’t have any obligation under international law to counterattack. It also has no moral or ethical obligation to counterattack and none of the Gulf states did. They didn’t even target launchers in Iran that they knew were firing missiles at them. Just shot down the missiles.
Similarly the UK base in Cyprus was intentionally targeted by Iran. The UK did NOT respond.
Romania will NOT attack Russia
Romania is certainly NOT going to attack Russia. There is NO WAY it would do that. It would risk casualties in Russia both miitary and civilian, it would risk damage to equipment in Rusisa, and it would risk it entering the war and Russia intentionally targeting Romania. No way they do that.
It’s response will be diplomatic and also focused on defending itself.
One other thing it could do - a bilateral agreement with Ukraine to let Romania shoot down drones over Western Ukraine before they reach Romania - Poland and Ukraine are considering such a proposal though not yet in force
In this particular case there are many things that Romania can do to defend itself.
One option is a bilateral agreement with Ukraine to let Romania shoot down drones in Western Ukraine.
It would need permission from Ukraine because this is Ukrainian air space. And also because there is a risk of debris from the drone injuring Ukrainians.
However Ukraine ALREADY shoots down drones over Ukraine and it absorbs the risk of injury.
Also it would let Romania shoot down the drones over rural areas of Ukraine before they reach populated areas around Odessa.
Sometimes Ukrainians are harmed by debris from shot down drones but the level of risk is far less than if that drone hits a building.
And the calculus changes in that case. Romania could shoot down drones headed for Romania that come within say 70 km of the border of Romania.
That will give extra protection to the Ukrainians who live within 70 km of the border. They accept the risk of injury from falling debris since it reduces the risk of shaheds exploding in their homes / warehouses / ships etc. And it would likely lead to Russia no longer targeting the area of Ukraine just within its border with NATO countries.
It would be coordinated with Ukraine. The Ukrainians would say “This is a good moment to intercpet this drone becuse it is flying over empty fields and any debris is unlikely to hit anything, can you join in since we are short of inteceptors” and they could have a joint operat ion to shoot down the drones.
Poland already has a joint proposal with Ukraine to have a joint drone interception shield over Western Ukraine including Lviv
Poland has been asking for this, I think since 2022 I think. It could do this bilaterally. It doens’t need permission from NATO members to do this.
They actually signed a joint agreement in 2024 to do this. Poland and Ukraine agreed to explore the possibility of jointly working together to shoot down drones over all of Western Ukraine.
“The participants agree on the need to continue bilateral dialogue and dialogues with other partners aimed at studying the rationale and feasibility of possible interception of missiles and drones fired in the airspace of Ukraine towards the territory of Poland, following the necessary procedures agreed by the states and organizations involved,”
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/07/09/poland-ukraine-move-to-link-arms-industries-coordinate-air-defenses/
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk put it like this:
QUOTE STARTS
“Membership in NATO does not trump each country’s responsibility for the protection of its own airspace – it’s our own constitutional duty,” Sikorski told the Financial Times.
“I’m personally of the view that, when hostile missiles are on a course of entering our airspace, it would be legitimate self-defense (to strike them) because once they do cross into our airspace, the risk of debris injuring someone is significant.”
Sikorski began to insist on Poland’s right to shoot down air targets after a Russian drone reportedly crossed the country’s border in an attack against Ukraine on Aug. 26. The minister said that the risk of Polish casualties increases the closer a missile is to its target when intercepted, so it was better to shoot it down at a higher altitude over Ukraine.
“Ukrainians have told us: you’re welcome,” Sikorski added.
https://kyivindependent.com/poland-has-responsibility-to-shoot-down-air-targets-over-ukraine-because-of-its-own-safety-polish-fm-says/
QUOTE STARTS
Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski has said Warsaw is considering a proposal from Kyiv to shoot down Russian missiles heading towards Polish territory while they are still in Ukrainian airspace.
The proposal was included in a joint defence agreement between the two countries signed during President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to Warsaw earlier this week.
"At this stage, this is an idea. What our agreement said is we will explore this idea,” Mr Sikorski told the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.
He said some Russian missiles fired from the St Petersburg area towards Ukrainian targets near the western city of Lviv, not far from the Polish border, traversed Belarus and entered Polish airspace for about 40 seconds before turning towards their targets in Ukraine.
Mr Sikorski acknowledged that such a short time gave Poland little time to react.
…
"And the Ukrainians are saying, ’Please, we will not mind, do it over our airspace when they’re in imminent danger of crossing into Polish territory.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn09234xxn1o
Poland wants it. Ukraine wants it. But NATO is skeptical about it. This dyanmic has been in place since early in the war.
QUOTE STARTS
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, in turn, was skeptical about this point of the agreement, saying that it puts the alliance at risk of “becoming part of the conflict.”
https://kyivindependent.com/poland-has-responsibility-to-shoot-down-air-targets-over-ukraine-because-of-its-own-safety-polish-fm-says/
German politicians support the proposal
QUOTE STARTS
German political leaders are considering a proposal to use NATO’s air defense systems stationed in Poland and Romania to protect the skies over Western Ukraine from Russian drone attacks.
This initiative, which aims to create a safe zone extending up to 70 kilometers into Ukrainian territory, would potentially relieve pressure on Ukraine’s own air defense resources, allowing them to focus on other critical areas along the front.
The proposal, backed by various members of Germany’s ruling parties including the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the Greens, was highlighted in a recent FAZ newspaper report, as cited by DW. Notably, this plan follows a similar line of thought as expressed by French President Emmanuel Macron, who has contemplated sending French troops to assist Kyiv but from positions outside Ukrainian territory.
https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/05/11/german-politicians-suggests-nato-shoot-down-russian-drones-over-ukraine/
BTW those air defences include the Aegis Ashore which is able to shoot down intermediate range ballistic missiles like the Oreshnik. Romania and Poland could technically shoot down the Oreshnik over all of Ukraine if they got permission though this is unlikely. But it shows how good their air defences are. They could shoot down the Oreshnik if headed for Lviv with this arrangement.
The US however got cold feet about using those defences, this is Under Biden. They ruled out using the long range air defences over Poland to protect any of Ukraine.
QUOTE STARTS
Q: Thank you. So today, President Zelenskyy urged NATO allies to help intercept Iranian missiles and drones over Ukraine, as they do with Israel. Can the United States and allies help Ukraine with that? I mean since it’s possible Israel, why cannot it be done with Ukraine?
MS. SINGH: So thank you for the question. While I appreciate the question, we are talking about two very different landscapes and battlefields. The president, at the very beginning of when Russia invaded Ukraine, has directed this department to provide Ukraine what it needs on the battlefield.
…
The president has made a commitment that the United States is not putting boots on the ground into Ukraine, but we are supporting Ukraine in their efforts to take back their sovereign territory.
Q: Well, shooting those targets, say from Polish or Romanian territory, would that be putting boots on the ground?
MS. SINGH: That would be involving us in a war in a different way. And right now, we feel that Ukraine has been able to successfully defend against Russian strikes to their cities, to their populations, to their infrastructure. And we’re going to continue to make sure that they have the support that they need to do that.
https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3926224/deputy-pentagon-press-secretary-sabrina-singh-holds-a-press-briefing/
It’s possible that the inuries could lead to a change of policy which would make both Ukraine and Romania safer.
The US would likely have to sign off on it if it includes NATO equipment like Aegis ashore or the F-16 fighter jets so that could be an issue.
NATO only has to respond back if Russians actually cross into NATO territory - example of hypothetical attempt to infiltrate into Latvia - would be handled by the police and by NATO soldiers already in Latvia
And there is really only one situation where NATO would have to respond. That is if Russia was to actually try to cross into a NATO country in an invasion to try to hold territory in that country. Like it did when it invaded Ukraine. In that situation then the whole of NATO is committed to respond to this to stop Russia take over NATO territory under the terms of the treaty.
It still wouldn’t be article 5 though if the infiltration was a small one, say into Latvia and Latvia can easily handle it with their own police and the assistance of the NATO soldiers already stationed in Latvia (several thousand plus fighter jets flying from a Latvian air base).
Suppose say a dozen soldiers infiltrate into Latvia and try to set up a camp there and declare a few square meters of Latvia as Russian territory. For an example to show how it works.
Then Latvia is not likely to just say “Okay we agree, Russia can just hold onto those 10 square meters of Latvian territory because we don’t want to fight back.”
If it was a small infiltration of a dozen soldiers, say, it would be a joint army / police action and they would just encircle them and order them to put down their weapons and surrender, e.g. shouted out over loudspeakers from a helicopter. If they refused to surrender they could then shoot them just as for a fighter jet that won’t turn back if it flies over Latvian territory.
This would still not be article 5. The reason is because Latvia could cope with it using soldiers and police already in Latvia.
Even a larger attempt - would just focus on stopping them - never a tit for tat
If it was larger - then still the focus would be on stopping them. Tanks would be useless even without drone defences because the NATO F-35s would have immediate air superiority and could destroy them from the air
Russian soldiers would be very exposed even with the Russian drones because NATO would control the air.
If Russia did a big exercise like it did before the Ukraine invasion - Latvia could get immediate access to up to 300,000 NATO soldiers to mirror the exercise in Latvia - after which Russia would just stand down
If Russia did some big exercise like it did before invading Ukraine - then the Baltic states wouldn’t attack it. It would just mirror it. If Russia has 100,000 soldiers marching outside of the Baltic states and doing exercises, Latvia asks for help under article 5, the NATO allies all need to agree in unison to accept this which they would - and that gives it acceses to up to 300,000 soldiers without any further commitments from its allies. So it would then likely match Russia and have 100,000 soldiers marching inside Latvia doing exericises there.
No shots fired. Russia then would surely not attack Latvia.
NATO didn’t do that for the Ukraine war becuse Ukraine isn’t in NATO. That is why Russia invaded Ukraine instead of the far far weaker Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
No NATO commitment to use nukes - only commitment is to provide up to 300,000 soldiers with their equipment (including fighter jets etc) with optionally more at discretion of the allies
That is the one commitment thbere is under NATO. There is NO COMMITMENT TO USE NUKES. It is not in the charter anywhere. As we saw when it was used for 9/11. But it does give the country that calls for help under article 5 up to 300,000 soldiers from its allies which they can deploy with the details depending on the nature of the emergency.
And that includes all the modern NATO equipment like fighter jets, cruise missiles etc which they can use to DEFEND the NATO territory IF NEEDED.
The NATO treaty is always about defence, NEVER about tit for tat retaliation - if a house in Romania is destroyed the aim is to prevent more houses being destroyed NOT to destroy a house in Russia
They do NOT use them to retaliate. It’s never about “Russia destroyed a house in Romania so we have to destroy a house in Russia”. It’s about “Russia destroyed a house in Romania so we have to do whatever is needed to stop them destroying another house in Romania”.
So response is diplomatic - and focus on ways to prevent similar injuries in the future - and pressure to end the war in Ukraine
So anyway the response in this case will be diplomatic and also focusing on ways to prevent similar injuries in the future.
It may lead to new rules of engagement for the F-16 fighter jets
It is already likely to lead to more drone interceptors for Romania - which are a far lower cost and also safer way to shoot down drones. Because the explosions from the F-16 missiles are too large and are overkill.
And it could lead to Romania and Ukraine considering a similar bilateral agreement to the one that Poland and Ukraine drafted to help defend Western Ukarine from incoming drones before they can reach either Poland or Romania.
And they don’t have to get permission from the rest of NATO but if the defences use US equipment they may need US approval.
If however they respond by scaling up the Shahed interceptors as small drones Poland and Romania can make themselves - they could then use those fired from Romanian and Polish territory as a unified shield with both countries working together to down the drones over Ukraine just before they reach Poland, without any US consent needed.
Then it would be just the diplomatic thing, whether the NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte now, says this is okay and whether NATO countries object to Poland and Romania using their own self made drone interceptors to assist Ukraine directly by firing them from within their countriers to hit shaheds over Ukrainian territory.
And - you could argue that this makes the operators of those interceptors targets for Russia. But in practice Russia is not likely to target them and instead would just absorb the losses or stop targeting Lviv and the sea ports within 70 km of the Romanian border.
And NATO is quickly building up its drone wall. But it doesn’t exist yet on the ground, it consists mainly of factories in Germany and other places ready to build large number of drones on demand but not yet actually producing them for NATO. Once NATO has those they will be able to use the far lower cost Shahed interceptors to shoot down the shaheds instead of F- 16 fighter jets.
But even if Russia attacked Latvia say or Estonia or Lithuania directly - for small incursions the likely NATO response is to focus on just making sure they can’t occupy any NATO territory. For a larger attack e.g. involving artillery firing over the border from Russia into the Baltic states, then they would of course target the artillery that’s firing at NATO. For cruise missiles and drones they’d target the launchers and in a big attack they’d target the factories. Just as for Iran.
But there is no way Russia does this because it knows how weak it is.
None of this ever involves nukes.
So that is how article 5 works.
I already linked to this before just repeating for anyone who hasn’t read the rest of this thread:
BLOG: Why Poland doesn’t use NATO’s article 5
— it is:
- REQUESTED
— NOT triggered
- only for states which NEED HELP
— NOT based on a preset threshold
- ALWAYS to PROTECT members
— NEVER to attack others
You can read it here:
https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/fact-checking-natos-article-5-it
Also see my:
BLOG: It is impossible to win with a nuclear first strike
— and NATO’s article 5 is defensive not retaliatory
— IMHO much of the Twitter / social media panic is based on not understanding these points
You can read it here:
https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/It-is-impossible-to-win-with-a-nuclear-first-strike-and-NATO-s-article-5-is-defensive-not-retaliatory-IMHO-much-of-t
