The recent drone incursions into Polish and Romanian airspace have shifted the discussion in Central Europe from immediate crisis response to the political and diplomatic consequences of such events. Rather than debating what happened, regional attention has turned to how governments interpret these violations and what steps NATO should take to prevent future incidents. In this context, the reactions of Slovakia and Hungary are particularly revealing, showing the delicate balance both countries try to strike between expressing solidarity with their neighbors and maintaining a cautious, de-escalatory approach toward Russia.
Slovakia’s reaction has been characterized by both expressions of solidarity with Poland and a cautious tone that drew criticism from some quarters. Slovak officials voiced their support for Poland’s decision to request NATO consultations under Article 4, stressing that the security of one member state concerns the entire alliance. At the same time, Bratislava called for a careful assessment of the situation, noting that it was not yet certain whether the drone incursions were deliberate acts against Poland or the result of miscalculated trajectories aimed at Ukrainian targets. Foreign Minister Juraj Blanár remarked that he preferred to believe the drones were not intended to attack Poland, a statement that drew sharp criticism from Kyiv, which warned against diluting or shifting blame away from Russia. Observers note that this cautious stance reflects Prime Minister Robert Fico’s broader foreign policy approach, which has often involved skepticism toward confrontation with Moscow and calls for a balanced approach within the EU and NATO.
Hungary’s response followed a similar pattern, combining support for Polish sovereignty with careful language designed to avoid direct escalation. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán declared that Hungary stood in full solidarity with Poland and called the airspace violations unacceptable, but refrained from naming Russia explicitly. Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó, speaking during a visit to Belarus, also avoided directly accusing Moscow, instead stressing the importance of keeping calm and preventing further escalation. This approach is consistent with Budapest’s long-standing foreign policy of maintaining a pragmatic relationship with Russia, staying out of direct involvement in the war in Ukraine, and emphasizing peace initiatives and diplomatic channels.
The responses from Slovakia and Hungary illustrate a broader challenge within NATO: maintaining unity while balancing the diverse political realities and foreign policy priorities of member states. Poland and other frontline countries see the incursions as a deliberate test of NATO’s resolve and call for stronger deterrence measures, such as enhanced air defense deployments and stricter engagement rules. In contrast, Bratislava and Budapest prefer a more measured approach, fearing that overly aggressive reactions could trigger a dangerous cycle of escalation. Their rhetoric, which avoids outright blaming Russia, reflects both a desire to keep diplomatic channels open and a response to domestic constituencies that are wary of deepening involvement in the conflict.
These incidents highlight the difficulty of managing collective security in a complex environment where hybrid warfare, drone incursions, and spillover effects from the war in Ukraine are becoming increasingly common. How NATO and the EU respond will be crucial for deterrence credibility: a strong and unified stance could dissuade further provocations, while mixed messages might embolden future violations. For Slovakia and Hungary, the challenge will be to reconcile their cautious diplomacy with the expectations of their allies, ensuring that solidarity does not appear conditional or hesitant in the face of repeated breaches of allied airspace.
