In this piece Teodor Stefan Ionescu reflects on the recent drone attacks on Romanian soil. In doing so it argues these attacks are sufficient for evoking NATO’s Article 4. The fact that it is unlikely that it will therefore requires NATO to rethink what it considers to be ‘accidental spillover’ in the war in Ukraine and therefore what it must do to protect its member states.

The Reality on The Ground

Early morning on May 29th, A Russian drone entered Romania’s airspace and crashed into an apartment block in the city of Galați. The incident led to a fire and two civilians being slightly injured.

The drone was a part of a campaign targeting Ukraine’s south-western Odesa Oblast. Whilst it has become common for drones to cross into Romanian airspace throughout the four-year war in Ukraine, this marks the first time an attack caused Romanian casualties. Accordingly, the strike is regarded as the ‘most serious security incident’ in Romania since the start of the Ukraine war.

The threat to Romanian soil shifted from the air to the sea just a week later. On June 5th, a Ukrainian maritime drone self-detonated inside the Port of Constanța, only 500 meters from a major oil terminal. While the area was successfully evacuated and no casualties were reported, the blast shattered windows across the city and forced over 1,000 people to flee nearby beaches.

Amidst increased fear and distrust amongst Romanians, authorities in Bucharest have assured the public that Romania is not part of the Russo-Ukrainian war, but that such situations may reoccur, sporadically with consequences for the local population. In addition, Brigadier General Gheorghe Maxim affirmed that, due to Romania’s peaceful status, this NATO country cannot fire projectiles into Ukrainian airspace, even when if Russian attack happens to ricochet into Romanian territory.

Mixed Reactions and Pledged Support

Following the incident there has been a rise in Pro-Russian posts as well as general misinformation. This include the idea that the drone originated from Ukraine and that Russia has imperialist ambitions in Romania. Besides being fuelled by plenty of prominent figures in Romanian media, from journalists to foreign influencers, the ‘fake news’ campaign comes against the backdrop of intensified dissatisfaction in Romania’s decisionmakers, following the recent successful no-confidence vote against Romanian PM Ilie Bolojan’s government.

Regardless, Romanian officials have quickly turned refuted the allegations. Minister of Foreign Affairs Oana Ţoiu asserted the ministry has the final confirmation from teams on the ground that the drone is a Russian drone and it was carrying explosives. The Romanian Minister also argued that the episode is sufficient to activate NATO’s Article 4 on threats to an ally’s territorial integrity, which could trigger Article 5 on collective defence after consultations at the North Atlantic Council.

Moreover, while visiting Galați, President Nicușor Dan reinforced his claim that the drone belongs to Russia, and was likely hit while over the Ukrainian city of Reni by Ukraine’s air defences, altering its course and deflecting it into Romanian territory. The head of state explained that the drone’s recovered fragments, including navigation systems, control modules, engine, and structural elements, were analysed, and similitudes with other Geran-2 drones (previously recovered on Romanian territory and identified with certainty as being manufactured in the Russian Federation) were found.

Pinpointing Russia as the root cause of this accidental assault, President Dan took a further step and decided to shut down the Russian consulate in Constanța, declaring the consul persona non grata. If such events continue, President Dan claims he is ready to expel the Russian ambassador to Bucharest as well, citing a ‘diplomatic hierarchy of measures‘.

International reactions were immediate. While Russian President Vladimir Putin insists there is no evidence the drone is Russian, there was a consensus amongst NATO and European leaders that the drone strike was not merely an isolated accident, but another manifestation of the security risks generated by Russia’s war against Ukraine.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte condemned Russia’s ‘reckless and dangerous’ behaviour, reiterating that the Alliance remains prepared to defend ‘every inch of Allied territory.’ This viewpoint closely aligns with Washington’s position despite its frequent stance against NATO. The US Ambassador to NATO described the explosion as a ‘reckless incursion’ and the USA vowed to defend ‘every inch of NATO’ after the Galați incident.

Regarding the Constanța incident, the Ukrainian Navy proactively contacted Bucharest to warn them that Russian electronic warfare had jammed the sea drone, causing it to lose control and drift off course. Romanian Defence Minister Radu Miruță confirmed this early warning allowed emergency services to safely implement the “Red Intervention Plan” and evacuate the area before the self-destruct mechanism triggered. The Russian Embassy in Bucharest quickly denied any involvement in the Constanța sea drone launch.

NATO’s Article 4 – Implications and Implausibility

In practice, the support Romania is seeking after these twin calamities is the acceleration of previously discussed deliveries of air-defence assets, particularly systems capable of detecting and intercepting low-altitude drones. The request reportedly received support from senior NATO military officials, including U.S. General Alexus Grynkewich, who signalled openness to strengthening Romania’s defensive posture.

While Romania’s calls for intensified air-defence measures appear to have gained traction among NATO allies, the proposal to invoke Article 4, strongly advocated by Foreign Minister Oana Țoiu, has obviously thus far received a more cautious response. Although international partners have expressed solidarity with Bucharest and condemned the drone strike, no allied government has publicly endorsed the initiation of formal Article 4 consultations, leaving the prospect of such a move remote.

Under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty, member states may request consultations whenever they perceive any menace to their political independence, security, or territorial integrity. Contrary to popular belief, Article 4 does not result in collective military action, an issue which is addressed in Article 5. It rather represents an apparatus for states to coordinate responses to emerging security threats, such as the onset of the Russo-Ukrainian war, when eight nations (Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia) in proximity to the afflicted Eastern European warzone jointly invoked Article 4 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Given that a Russian-origin explosive drone entered Romanian territory and a Ukrainian combat sea drone drifted directly into Romania’s largest commercial port, damaged civilian infrastructure, and caused injuries, there is a strong legal and political basis for Bucharest to seek discussions within the North Atlantic Council.

However, it is unlikely that Article 4 will be invoked. In November 2022, a missile explosion in the Polish village of Przewodów killed two civilians, prompting emergency consultations among NATO members. Although investigations later concluded that the missile was most likely fired by Ukrainian air defences responding to a Russian attack, the episode still prompted alliance ambassadors to meet in an emergency reunion in Brussels, demonstrating the Alliance’s willingness to convene rapidly when spillover effects threaten member states.

In spite of this hasty collective reaction, preliminary analysis indicated Russia was not preparing an offensive military campaign against NATO, hence no call for Article 4 activation was accelerated. The Galati and Constanta incidents are likely to also be rejected due to being accidental spillovers rather than direct security threats. But how ‘accidental’ should these incidents be deemed moving forward?

Conclusion: Should NATO Revise Its Legislation?

The refusal to invoke Article 4 in this case is concerning. Russian drone and missile attacks continue to occur in close proximity to NATO borders, raising the risk of NATO territory being subject to unforeseen violations. Nevertheless, as the attacks’ intent is always either a Russian offense targeting Ukraine or the unintended consequence of Ukrainian defensive actions, the odds of such matters being viewed as more than ‘spillovers’ remains slim.

Incidents of this nature must intensify debates within the Alliance regarding deterrence, air-defence integration, and the threshold at which unintended incursions may begin to be treated as attacks against NATO territory itself.

Unless NATO is willing to reconsider how cross-border violations are assessed, the populations of member states bordering the conflict will remain exposed to the risks generated by Russia’s military campaign. Their recurrence suggests that the danger to NATO citizens is no longer exceptional, but an increasingly foreseeable consequence of Russia’s conduct of the war.

Featured photo above is of NATO, Romanian, and European flags wave together harmoniously at the Romanian Navy Day celebration in Constanta, Romania, Aug. 15, 2024. This file is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made as part of that person’s official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, it is in the public domain in the United States.