The Washington Post’s Editorial Board correctly identifies sending nineteen Gerbera drones into Polish airspace as a calculated test of alliance credibility.
However, their proposed response exposes a deeper problem: solutions remain dangerously inadequate even when America’s foreign policy establishment grasps the threat.
Putin moves from Ukraine conflict to testing NATO
Putin has fundamentally changed the game. After stalling Trump’s peace efforts with massive strikes on Kyiv, Moscow moved to test NATO territory.
The Post recognizes this isn’t random—it’s strategic boundary-pushing designed to fracture alliance unity.
Yet the papers’ “short of war” recommendations—redeploying some existing troops to Poland, allowing drone shootdowns over Ukrainian airspace—treat a strategic escalation with tactical adjustments.
For a newspaper warning that “ambiguity telegraphs weakness,” this seems remarkably restrained.
Why Washington’s weak response matters globally
However, this gap matters globally. Very much so.
When America’s leading foreign policy voices correctly diagnose Russian escalation but offer modest responses, it signals continued Western hesitation.
Putin reads this disconnect perfectly—establishment analysis shows awareness, but policy recommendations show continued caution.
The specific incident proves the pattern. While Trump responded with a dismissive social media post—“What’s with Russia violating Poland’s airspace with drones? Here we go!”—Moscow demonstrated it can probe NATO territory and expect limited responses.
This represents the core problem Euromaidan Press has tracked throughout the war: Western institutions see Russian threats clearly but consistently under-respond.
The Washington Post warns that alliance guarantees are “ultimately just a promise written on paper,” yet Putin’s calculation appears correct—each escalation meets academic analysis rather than decisive action.
