Poland’s interception of low-cost Russian drones has exposed NATO’s reliance on billion-dollar defences, fuelling urgent debate on how the alliance can counter cheap threats without unsustainable responses.

When at least 19 Russian drones entered Polish airspace on Wednesday, NATO scrambled some of its most advanced military hardware. Dutch F-35s, a NATO refuelling aircraft, an Italian surveillance plane and a German Patriot battery were deployed to intercept what were described as Geran drones – knockoffs of Iran’s Shahed systems costing only around ten thousand dollars apiece.

The imbalance was striking. A fleet of drones worth less than a quarter of a million dollars prompted a defensive operation involving aircraft and systems worth billions.

“What are we going to do, send F-16s and F-35s every time? It’s not sustainable,” said Ulrike Franke of the European Council on Foreign Relations, stressing the need for purpose-built anti-drone systems.

Poland responded by invoking NATO’s Article 4, triggering urgent consultations across the alliance. Latvia closed its airspace, while the UK’s Defence Secretary John Healy announced he would seek ways for Britain to bolster NATO’s air cover. Ukraine also offered support, pointing to its own cheaper methods of drone defence.

For Kyiv, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has argued that U.S.-made Patriot and Franco-Italian SAMP/T systems, each worth hundreds of millions, are not a viable answer to swarms of drones that cost a fraction to produce. Instead, Ukraine relies on electronic warfare and large volumes of inexpensive interceptors, destroying most Russian drones even during massed attacks.

The debate over Poland’s drone night has now sharpened an old concern: NATO’s dependence on highly expensive systems to counter low-cost threats. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte acknowledged the issue during a briefing with European Union ambassadors, saying F-35s cannot be regularly used to stop drones – a conclusion no one in the room disputed.

European defence industries are trying to adapt. Sweden’s Saab recently unveiled Nimbrix, a low-cost missile designed for small drones, while France’s procurement agency has ordered an anti-drone laser demonstrator. Yet analysts warn progress is slow, with procurement cultures favouring small numbers of long-lasting systems over large batches of disposable kit.

General Thierry Burkhard, France’s former defence chief, argued that this mindset must change. “For certain equipment, it is probably better to buy in batches of 10, 15, 20 or perhaps 50,” he told POLITICO.

“It doesn’t matter if the company that develops it is not able to provide maintenance for 20 years, because in a year’s time, that thing will either be dead on the battlefield or obsolete,” he said.

As Russia deploys cheap mass-produced drones to sap NATO resources, the alliance faces a pressing question: how long can it afford to fight bargain weapons with billion-dollar defences?

Copied