Speaker 1: Already and this is the daily This is the Dailias.
Speaker 2: Oh now it makes sense. Good morning, and welcome to
Speaker 2: the Daily OS. It's Wednesday, the seventeenth of September. I'm
Speaker 2: Sam Kazlowski.
Speaker 1: I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 2: In the past two weeks, both Poland and Romania have
Speaker 2: reported Russian drones flying in their airspace. Importantly, NATO forces
Speaker 2: shot down Russian aircraft for the first time in the
Speaker 2: alliance's seventy five year history. Now both countries and neighbors
Speaker 2: of Ukraine, which continues to face Russian air strikes and
Speaker 2: ground offensives as the conflict between Russia and Ukraine continues.
Speaker 2: But there's a key difference between an attack on Ukraine
Speaker 2: and an attack on Poland or Romania, and that's NATO.
Speaker 2: On today's podcast, we're going to look at what makes
Speaker 2: Russian activity in Poland and Romania so different, the idea
Speaker 2: of collective defense and some of the broader implications here.
Speaker 1: Sam, this is a really interesting topic that we're chatting
Speaker 1: through today and I'm really keen to learn more. But
Speaker 1: before we get into the kind of specifics of what's
Speaker 1: happened in the past week over countries like Romania and Poland.
Speaker 1: I think we need to break down a bit more
Speaker 1: about NATO to understand what it is and how it
Speaker 1: actually functions.
Speaker 2: So here's where my mind went with this question that
Speaker 2: I knew was going to come. Because this is an
Speaker 2: important part is we could do it as a straight
Speaker 2: politics explain now, but we could also do it like
Speaker 2: we're at school, because we always say that these world
Speaker 2: leaders are kind of like kids fighting in the playground.
Speaker 2: So let's go through it in a school metaphor. Okay, okay. So, NATO,
Speaker 2: which is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is a military
Speaker 2: alliance of thirty two European and North American countries. It
Speaker 2: was founded just after World War Two and originally designed
Speaker 2: to counter the Soviet threat during the Cold War. Now,
Speaker 2: in the playground, if you and your thirty one other
Speaker 2: friends make a promise to always stick up for each
Speaker 2: other against bullies, no matter who that bully was, they
Speaker 2: basically went a bit further and promised that if someone
Speaker 2: picks on one of them, all the others will help
Speaker 2: protect them. Okay, Now, one important thing to remember here
Speaker 2: is that Ukraine is not a member of NATO. It's
Speaker 2: not in that list of thirty.
Speaker 1: Two, Ukraine goes to a different school.
Speaker 2: It goes to a different school. It's been actually requesting
Speaker 2: to join for a long time now. Instead, NATO classifies
Speaker 2: Ukraine as a NATO partner country, which basically means they're
Speaker 2: friends with the group in the playground. But if there's
Speaker 2: only one seat left at the back of the bus,
Speaker 2: a NATO member country is going to get it over Ukraine,
Speaker 2: but they'll kind of go into bat for each other.
Speaker 2: As a general principle, Okay, got it.
Speaker 1: So the core kind of principle of NATO, the North
Speaker 1: Atlantic Treaty Organization is that an attack on one ally
Speaker 1: is an attack on all a thirty two person or party,
Speaker 1: friendship or alliance. That's a lot of people. They've got
Speaker 1: to be some rules around making this work, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And that's the Treaty of NATO, And we refer
Speaker 2: to the parts of that treaty as articles. And the
Speaker 2: two articles to really pay attention to today are articles
Speaker 2: four and five. So Article four is like when one
Speaker 2: friend thinks they're getting bullied or something worrying happens to
Speaker 2: them and they tell their friends, Hey, I think we
Speaker 2: need to talk about this. So it's when one country
Speaker 2: says to all the others, I'm worried about my safety.
Speaker 2: Can we just sit down and have a discussion about
Speaker 2: what to do? Yep? Article five is the actual promise
Speaker 2: to help. That's like saying, in the playground, someone has
Speaker 2: hit me, so we're all going to come and help
Speaker 2: you out now, Okay.
Speaker 1: So Article four is more about maybe the perceived threat
Speaker 1: or increased aggressions, whereas Article five is about this has
Speaker 1: literally happened. There has been a breach of one ally,
Speaker 1: and therefore now we are all in it.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And the really confusing part though, is what it
Speaker 2: means and what help means. So Article five says that
Speaker 2: each country will help by quote taking such action as
Speaker 2: it deems necessary. That basically means each country decides for
Speaker 2: itself what kind of support it provides. So it doesn't
Speaker 2: mean that all thirty two countries go to war. Some
Speaker 2: might send troops, others might offer money or diplomatic backing.
Speaker 2: It really depends on each country's own decision making. And
Speaker 2: so I guess in the playground it would be you
Speaker 2: could go and tell the teacher, or you could get
Speaker 2: directly involved in the fight.
Speaker 1: Okay. So Article five, then it seems kind of almost
Speaker 1: deliberately vague in its wording to give each country their
Speaker 1: own scope to determine their response. Has it actually ever
Speaker 1: been used? Has Article five ever been triggered by a
Speaker 1: breach of a NATO member?
Speaker 2: So only once, and that's remarkable, since nineteen forty nine,
Speaker 2: and that one time was straight after nine to eleven.
Speaker 2: So the US, who is a member of NATO, they
Speaker 2: didn't actually even ask for it. NATO's Secretary General suggested
Speaker 2: it as a show of solidarity after the attacks on
Speaker 2: the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the response
Speaker 2: involved NATO's surveillance planes patrolling US territory and NATO ships
Speaker 2: standing by for deployment in the Mediterranean, there's the closest
Speaker 2: body of water to Afghanistan. But NATO didn't actually participate
Speaker 2: in the Afghanistan invasion itself, and that's because the US
Speaker 2: preferred to work with individual countries like Australia rather than
Speaker 2: dealing with this whole alliance and this whole body.
Speaker 1: Okay, fascinating, So it sounds more like in that instance
Speaker 1: that the NATO alliance was kind of posturing its power,
Speaker 1: this sort of aloof presence of you know, we have
Speaker 1: these ships we have these planes we're contributing to surveillance,
Speaker 1: but from.
Speaker 2: A distance exactly, and there hasn't been besides that, another
Speaker 2: example for us to point to to see a variation
Speaker 2: in that response.
Speaker 1: Okay, but then in terms of Article four, which speaks
Speaker 1: to the perception of a threat or an escalating threat,
Speaker 1: that has been invoked much more recently, right, Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well a couple of days ago, and it was invoked
Speaker 2: by Poland after Poland alleged Russian drones violated its airspace.
Speaker 2: It's significant to invoke Article four, but it's definitely not
Speaker 2: a dramatic escalation. Any NATO member can invoke Article four
Speaker 2: if they think their security is threatened. And interestingly, when
Speaker 2: I was looking into what that actually looks like, NATO
Speaker 2: countries meet regularly anyway, so this was kind of an
Speaker 2: agenda item to their regular meeting of we need to
Speaker 2: talk about this, and I think it went right up
Speaker 2: the top of the agenda, right. But it's been used
Speaker 2: eight times before, so Turkia has used it several times
Speaker 2: over Syria, and eight NATO countries used it together when
Speaker 2: Russia invaded Ukraine back in twenty twenty two. Now, Article
Speaker 2: four doesn't mean that any country actually has to do anything.
Speaker 2: It's just formal talks about a growing threat.
Speaker 1: Okay, so a little more frequently used that article five,
Speaker 1: but still only eight times since nineteen thirty nine. It's significant.
Speaker 1: But let's now get into sam what has actually happened
Speaker 1: over the past week. Now we have all this knowledge,
Speaker 1: we understand the playground politics. Nice walk me through it.
Speaker 2: So we go to September nine, last week. That was
Speaker 2: when Russia launched a massive drone attack on Ukraine, and
Speaker 2: nineteen Russian drones ended up flying into Polish airspace. Poland
Speaker 2: and Ukraine share of border. Poland immediately shut down four
Speaker 2: major airports in the country and scrambled their fighter jets.
Speaker 2: And this became NATO's real first test of working together
Speaker 2: to shoot down enemy aircraft. So Polish F sixteens fighter jets,
Speaker 2: they teamed up with Dutch F thirty fives and they
Speaker 2: were backed up by Italian and German forces.
Speaker 1: That's quite a big response.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was short and sharp because by the morning
Speaker 2: of September ten, NATO forces had shot down four of
Speaker 2: the drones. There were no other drones in the airspace.
Speaker 2: The rest of them either crashed or were found scattered
Speaker 2: across Polish territory.
Speaker 1: I remember when that new story broke last week and
Speaker 1: was kind of splashed all over the TVs and new sites,
Speaker 1: and it felt a little bit scary straightaway, like, oh,
Speaker 1: my god, is Russia attacking Poland? But then Russia came
Speaker 1: out and kind of said, oh, these were drones that
Speaker 1: strayed into Polish territory.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, the Foreign Minister said these were groundless accusations,
Speaker 2: they had no interest in any escalation, and the Defense
Speaker 2: Ministry even made the point that its drones couldn't actually
Speaker 2: reach Poland because it was too far. That was all
Speaker 2: pretty easily debunked. Investigators found that the crash drones had
Speaker 2: been fitted with extra fuel tanks specifically for the further distance,
Speaker 2: and the wreckage had identifying features that directly tied the
Speaker 2: drones to Russia's military.
Speaker 1: All right, So analysts then suggesting that rather than this
Speaker 1: kind of accidental straying into Polish territory, it might have
Speaker 1: been a lot more of a posturing by Russia. Is
Speaker 1: that when Poland then decided to invoke Article four.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was only a couple of hours after the
Speaker 2: drones were in the air. So the Polish PM said
Speaker 2: this brought Poland quote the closest we have been to
Speaker 2: open conflicts since World War II. NATO's boss said this
Speaker 2: wasn't an isolated incident, and the EU called it the
Speaker 2: most serious European airspace violation by Russia since its war
Speaker 2: with Ukraine began. And so late last week NATO held
Speaker 2: talks under Article four at its headquarters in Belgium. And
Speaker 2: I think another way to frame that posturing idea that
Speaker 2: you're talking about is it sounds like what a lot
Speaker 2: of the response is centered around. Is this idea of
Speaker 2: Russia testing the waters? What can they do that invokes
Speaker 2: an Article four response but not an Article five response.
Speaker 1: Because it is worth mentioning here that Putin has been
Speaker 1: a vocal critic, a long standing critic of NATO. He
Speaker 1: repeatedly talks about, you know, NATO threatening Russia's own self determination,
Speaker 1: and he has threatened Ukraine with you know, Ceasepine negotiations
Speaker 1: that they cannot include NATO membership.
Speaker 2: He really doesn't want NATO or a NATO member on
Speaker 2: his doorstep. And so if you think about the Russian
Speaker 2: border as that doorstep, he wants NATO to be as
Speaker 2: far away from that as.
Speaker 1: Possible right, And so that's Poland. We had that happen,
Speaker 1: and this pretty you know, widespread condemnation from across the
Speaker 1: EU and NATO's strong language against Russia's actions. But a
Speaker 1: few days later, something very similar took place in Romania,
Speaker 1: which is a NATO member too.
Speaker 2: Right, Yes, over the weekend, a Russian drone flew ten
Speaker 2: kilometers into Romanian territory, hung around in the airspace for
Speaker 2: about fifty minutes, and this time it was Romanian and
Speaker 2: German fighter jets that tracked it but didn't shoot it down,
Speaker 2: And that's because they were worried about the collateral damage
Speaker 2: that falling drones may cause on civilian community below in Romania.
Speaker 2: Now Romania is a NATO country, So that's the airspace
Speaker 2: of two NATO countries violated in seven days.
Speaker 1: Okay, so a lot that's been going on. But Russia's
Speaker 1: invasion of Ukraine was several years ago, now, twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: This conflict has been ongoing. Has this kind of thing
Speaker 1: happened frequently over the course of that conflict? Are we
Speaker 1: talking about a kind of new development entirely in the course.
Speaker 2: Of this war. I think a lot of people are
Speaker 2: trying to figure out in this conversation and whether this
Speaker 2: is something they should sit up and take notice too,
Speaker 2: because it's really different, and it's a bit of a
Speaker 2: yes no answer, because since the invasion of Ukraine, NATO
Speaker 2: says there's been over one hundred and fifty incidents of
Speaker 2: what they call hybrid operations in NATO territory and that
Speaker 2: has escalated in their frequency as the years have passed.
Speaker 1: Okay, so I am not a military or geopolitical expert.
Speaker 1: What is a hybrid operations?
Speaker 2: Neither am I, but some really helpful resources on the
Speaker 2: Internet were so hybrid operations are basically the hostile stuff
Speaker 2: that falls short of actual war. So Russia can cause
Speaker 2: damage still by these acts. It can still test NATO's
Speaker 2: responses without knowing they're about to trigger Article five. So
Speaker 2: we're talking here about cyber attacks on power grids, disinformation
Speaker 2: being spread online, cutting Internet cables under the sea, and
Speaker 2: they definitely all cause real problems, but they are tricky
Speaker 2: to respond to with traditional military force. It's not the
Speaker 2: kind of thing that an army can respond too quickly.
Speaker 2: And so, as I said before, this idea that Russia's
Speaker 2: trying to find where NATO's line is in terms of
Speaker 2: evoking a response. It is the first time though that
Speaker 2: drones in another country's airspace, let alone two other countries,
Speaker 2: has happened in such a short period of time.
Speaker 1: Right, So two breaches of NATO members airspace in one week.
Speaker 1: NATO since you know, basically doubling down on its condemnation
Speaker 1: against Russia for these aggressions. Let's say there is an
Speaker 1: escalation here that Russia invades more airspace of more NATO members,
Speaker 1: or it you know, goes back to Poland and Romania
Speaker 1: and threatens them more extensively.
Speaker 2: Or a drone actually lands in you know, exactly the
Speaker 2: territory of another country.
Speaker 1: Advice into a territory. What happens for NATO as a
Speaker 1: body to take the conversation from Article four to Article.
Speaker 2: Five, So they would sit down quite quickly and invoke
Speaker 2: Article five. It would be the second occasion, as we've said,
Speaker 2: since nineteen forty nine. And they need consensus, really, they
Speaker 2: need all thirty two members to agree that a military
Speaker 2: response is about to happen and what the nature of
Speaker 2: that response would look like. And that's not something that
Speaker 2: we should presume is going to be easy to achieve.
Speaker 2: You have to remember that when the organization was established
Speaker 2: back in the forty there were twelve. Now it's thirty two.
Speaker 2: There are about four or five countries in Europe, including Ukraine,
Speaker 2: who want entry into NATO, So it could get even bigger,
Speaker 2: and I guess it theoretically means that any member could
Speaker 2: actually block action, and that could get complicated. One point
Speaker 2: to remember is the US and the US in all of.
Speaker 1: I was going to say, just because this is a
Speaker 1: military pact, it's not a political pact per se, it
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that all governments are aligned on the same agenda.
Speaker 1: And you can't ignore the US in that conversation.
Speaker 2: No, so the US are not for Ukraine being in NATO.
Speaker 2: And the reason for that across many presidents, not just
Speaker 2: President Trump, both Democrats and Republican is that they want
Speaker 2: to avoid the situation where American troops and Russian troops
Speaker 2: are facing off, because that scene is kind of the
Speaker 2: worst case scenario, and so the fear there would be
Speaker 2: that if Ukraine was in NATO and then Ukraine got hit,
Speaker 2: the US would be obliged to go in and back
Speaker 2: them up. That would lead to a direct confrontation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but NATO has gotten bigger. We had Sweden join.
Speaker 1: Recently its membership has expanded. Finland as well joined, which
Speaker 1: increased the kind of NATO land border around Russia. But
Speaker 1: Ukraine obviously has the very real and live threat of
Speaker 1: an ongoing conflict. As we speak, sam, where does this
Speaker 1: leave us? Where do we go from here? What happens next?
Speaker 2: Well, I think we have some answers, but then we
Speaker 2: have some new questions. So the answer that we have
Speaker 2: is that NATO are ready to work together, and we
Speaker 2: saw that with some of the kind of combined fighter
Speaker 2: jet operations that were scattering the drones and responding in lifetime,
Speaker 2: Germany's being particularly present in those operations, same with the Netherlands,
Speaker 2: and Russia learned then that just flying a drone over
Speaker 2: those sorts of countries will lead to a response. So
Speaker 2: they kind of tested the line and perhaps put their
Speaker 2: toe a little bit over it in terms of a
Speaker 2: non response. But the big question that is still there
Speaker 2: is how many violations, even if they're smaller ones, we'd
Speaker 2: actually count as an armed attack that requires Article five.
Speaker 1: When do you cross that line from hybrid operations to
Speaker 1: accidental or posturing moments to an offensive.
Speaker 2: If it's two in a week, it's article four. You
Speaker 2: know where is that line? Is it ten? Is it twenty?
Speaker 2: Is it three? We don't really know. It's not our
Speaker 2: job you and I to figure that one out. We'll
Speaker 2: leave it to the pros. But it's definitely a heightened
Speaker 2: temperature in that part of the world, more so than
Speaker 2: it was seven days ago. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Fascinating stuff and as always, we will continue to keep
Speaker 1: a close eye on this one and cover it over
Speaker 1: on the Daily OL's feed as well as here on
Speaker 1: the podcast. Thank you Sam for taking us through that.
Speaker 2: Thanks Sam, and thank you for listening.
Speaker 1: To today's episode, or thanks for watching if you're over
Speaker 1: on our YouTube. We'll be back a little bit later
Speaker 1: with your evening news headlines, but until then, have a
Speaker 1: great day.
Speaker 2: My name is Lily Madden. I'm a proud Arunda Banjelung
Speaker 2: Kalkadin woman from Gadighl country. The Daily oz acknowledges that
Speaker 2: this podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadighl
Speaker 2: people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest Rate
Speaker 2: island and nations. We pay our respects to the first
Speaker 2: peoples of these countries, both past and present.