European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said she would not rule out shooting down Russian aircraft that irresponsibly enter NATO airspace—a stance that follows recent airspace incursions and echoes calls from U.S. President Donald Trump.
Von der Leyen made the comment in an interview with CNN, saying that defending “every square centimeter” of allied territory may, after clear warnings, include the option to down an intruding fighter jet. Her remarks came amid heightened tensions after three Russian MiG-31s flew into Estonian airspace on 19 September.
Von der Leyen was careful to note that she does not represent NATO in her capacity as Commission President, but she framed the position as a straightforward defense principle: intrusion followed by warning, and if the threat persists, the full range of defensive options must remain available.
The statement swiftly sparked a heated debate in Western countries regarding the boundary between deterrence and escalation, as well as the legal, operational, and political guidelines governing the use of lethal force against foreign military aircraft.
Trump’s call and the recent Estonian incursion: the immediate trigger
U.S. President Donald Trump publicly argued this week that NATO should shoot down Russian aircraft that violate alliance airspace, a position he repeated in interviews following the Estonian incident.
The Estonian government says three MiG-31 fighters entered its airspace near Vaindloo Island for about 12 minutes on 19 September; NATO scrambled allied jets to intercept. Tallinn described the incursion as “brazen,” while Moscow denied wrongdoing. Leaders pressing for firmer deterrence measures have widely cited the episode.
The risk calculus has now shifted: what previously might have been treated as a short-term violation or a routine intercept is increasingly being framed as a potential security threat that could—under certain rules of engagement—justify force.
That framing raises practical questions about identification, intent, proportionality, and the intelligence burden required to decide whether an intruding platform is a genuine threat or a deliberate provocation meant to test allied responses.
NATO’s posture: “shoot down if necessary.” — political backing from allies
In Washington and Brussels, some senior officials have endorsed the principle that allies must be ready to use force if an aircraft poses a clear danger.
Mark Rutte—now serving in the NATO leadership role referenced in recent coverage—told Fox News he “fully agrees” with the proposition that aircraft should be shot down “if so necessary,” stressing that allied militaries routinely assess threats and can escalate responses when required.
NATO’s Secretary General also emphasized that allied jets were scrambled and that the Alliance stands ready to defend member airspace.
“This incursion is part of a wider pattern of increasingly irresponsible Russian behaviour. This is the second time in two weeks that the North Atlantic Council has met under Article 4. On 10 September, the Council held consultations in response to the large-scale violation of Polish airspace by Russian drones. Several other Allies – including Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, and Romania – have also recently experienced airspace violations by Russia. We express our full solidarity with all Allies whose airspace has been breached,” NATO said in a statement.
That political backing is significant because it sends a unified deterrent message to Moscow: repeated incursions will not be treated as harmless. But it also forces NATO to clarify procedures for warnings, intercept rules, and the threshold for using lethal force—all while maintaining channels to prevent miscalculation.
NATO Allies face the dual task of demonstrating resolve without creating conditions that could be misread as preparation for broader conflict.
Legal, operational, and escalation risks
Shooting down a foreign military aircraft over or near allied territory is legally and operationally fraught. International law allows states to defend their airspace, but any use of force must meet tests of necessity and proportionality.
Practically, commanders would need near-real-time, high-confidence intelligence that an aircraft posed an imminent threat (for example, carrying weapons, preparing a strike, or refusing repeated interception and identification). The window for such decisions is often narrow.
Politically, even a justified shoot-down risks rapid escalation. Moscow could treat a downed aircraft as a major provocation and retaliate, while domestic politics in NATO capitals might demand a tough response that spirals beyond the original incident. Allies, therefore, have to weigh deterrence benefits against the near-term danger of a kinetic incident triggering wider confrontation.
Leaders and militaries to clarify their objectives
Experts say the Alliance needs clearer, public rules of engagement and improved airborne surveillance and identification capacity along the eastern flank. That includes faster, more resilient command-and-control, better integration of radar and AWACS coverage, and pre-agreed political lines about when lethal force is authorized. Having robust, rehearsed protocols reduces the risk of ad hoc decisions under pressure.
Equally important is political messaging: allies should communicate a consistent threshold for defensive action so that both citizens and adversaries understand that NATO will defend its territory—but only in a measured, law-abiding manner.
Mixed or ambiguous signals risk encouraging further probing operations by adversaries that seek to map allied reactions.
Strategic picture
The debate over shoot-downs is a sign of a wider security environment in which Russia increasingly tests NATO’s cohesion and reaction times—from drone incursions into Poland to the recent MiG-31 episode over Estonia.
For NATO, the challenge is to demonstrate credible deterrence while preserving avenues for de-escalation and diplomacy. High-stakes incidents on the air border are especially sensitive because split-second military decisions can have strategic consequences.
Von der Leyen’s remarks—while not a NATO statement—underscores how political leaders across Europe are moving toward a harder line on defending allied territory.
Whether that hardening translates into new operational doctrine or merely stronger public rhetoric will depend on upcoming allied consultations and the political will of member states to agree on common thresholds and resources for air defense.
