(NEW YORK) – United States leader Donald Trump has sparked new debate after calling on NATO to shoot down Russian aircraft that violate allied airspace, a stance analysts say could escalate tensions with Moscow and put NATO on a collision course with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.
Trump, who has in the past been criticised for inconsistent positions on Ukraine, made the remarks after meeting Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky at the United Nations. According to security expert Edward Lucas, the shift marks a rare moment of hawkishness from Trump, who has previously accused Ukraine of starting the war. Lucas, a senior fellow at the Centre for European Policy Analysis, noted that while the rhetoric is sharper, it remains uncertain whether words will be matched with actions.
The war in Ukraine has entered its 1,310th day, with Russia’s military suffering more than 1.1 million casualties. Despite this, Russian incursions into NATO territory have continued, including recent drone and aircraft violations in Poland, Estonia, and Denmark. Analysts argue that NATO has so far responded too cautiously, allowing Moscow to test the alliance’s unity and resolve.
Trump’s latest comments suggested NATO forces should act more decisively if Russian planes or drones enter allied airspace. His message appeared to be a warning that hesitation only emboldens Moscow. However, critics point out that Trump has not outlined tougher sanctions on Russia, nor has he committed to delivering more military aid to Ukraine.
Lucas highlighted the danger of leaving NATO’s response tied up in political consultations, warning that decision making needs to be decentralised to allow faster action against Russian intrusions. He argued that Moscow interprets hesitation as weakness, encouraging further provocations.
Observers also note that Trump may be motivated by frustration with Putin, who has failed to deliver him political victories, such as a Nobel Peace Prize bid. Others suggest Trump’s stance reflects his desire to position NATO as a marketplace for American weapons, with allies buying equipment rather than the US committing directly to defend Europe.
European nations remain divided in their approach. Poland has pushed for a tougher line, while countries such as Denmark and Sweden face criticism for failing to recognise Russian hybrid attacks on infrastructure as strategic threats. Hungary and Slovakia, still reliant on Russian oil, continue to complicate EU sanctions policy.
Lucas argued that Europe has the tools to strengthen Ukraine’s defence independently, including seizing Russian state assets frozen abroad, estimated at over $300 billion (about 360 billion US dollars), and providing funds to boost Ukraine’s own growing weapons industry. Britain, he said, has yet to act on more than £2.5 billion (about 3 billion US dollars) from the sale of Chelsea Football Club, funds that were meant to be redirected to Ukraine.
The question for NATO, experts warn, is whether the alliance is willing to escalate its response now rather than waiting for a ceasefire. Lucas cautioned that any international agreement signed on paper will be meaningless without political will, referencing past failures such as the Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees that were later ignored.
Trump’s sudden hawkish tone, while welcomed by some, has left NATO allies uncertain. The alliance faces growing pressure to demonstrate unity through action rather than statements.