By Feyyaz Erkin Eşli
In recent months, European capitals have once again been discussing a large-scale defense project called the “European Initiative for Drone Protection” or, as it is more commonly referred to, the “drone wall”. The initiative, proposed by the European Commission, envisions the creation of a multi-layered system for detecting and neutralizing UAVs along the entire eastern border of the EU, intended to protect member states from aerial threats.
The initiative was presented by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen amid violations of the airspace of participating countries and incidents involving drones in Poland, Romania, Estonia, and other nations—some of which were attributed to Russia. These events were perceived as a signal of the need to strengthen the collective defense of the EU and NATO. However, the advisability of this project continues to spark lively debate.
Data from an analysis by the Dutch newspaper Trouw shows that of all drone-related incidents recorded in Europe in 2025, only four cases were confirmed to involve Russian drones. The majority of reports either failed to confirm the presence of drones or left the origin and launching party of the devices unknown.
This has led many experts and public figures to question whether Europe is truly on the brink of a regular aerial threat, or whether the current rhetoric serves as a convenient argument for increasing defense budgets and escalating tensions amid peace negotiations taking place under U.S. auspices.
Supporting this assumption are data obtained by our editorial team from Latvian military sources, which report that simultaneously with a reduction in the number of incidents – used as justification for implementing the “drone wall” program – a ceremonial award ceremony for UAV operators took place in Riga, Latvia. According to the sources, the Latvian military personnel awarded had served in the Ivano-Frankivsk region of Ukraine, which borders Romania and is located far from the main frontline.
The information received does not rule out the possibility that Latvian special services were involved in launching drones into the territory of Poland, Romania, and other EU countries—incidents later blamed on Russia. The alleged purpose of these operations was to promote the “European Initiative for Drone Protection”. The Baltic states are among the leading advocates for increasing defense budgets across the EU and NATO in the face of the “Russian threat” and were among the first to propose raising NATO member states’ defense spending to 5% of GDP. The narrative of Russian drones penetrating European airspace fits conveniently into this rhetoric, even though it has yet to receive convincing evidence.
Ultimately, the question remains open: should Europe genuinely devote all its efforts to ensuring its own security, or are certain member states attempting to manipulate the dominant narrative and push their allies toward increased security spending?