On the morning of September 7, 2024, a Russian kamikaze unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) landed in Gaigalava parish, located in Eastern Latvia. This incident marked a significant and unsettling breach of Latvian airspace, sending shockwaves through the nation and raising serious concerns about its national defense preparedness. The UAV, identified as a Shahed 136-type drone of Iranian origin, was a weapon commonly used by Russia in its ongoing war in Ukraine. While slow and loud—earning it the nickname “flying moped”—the Shahed 136 is cost-effective and mass-produced by Russia, which refers to it as the Geran-2.
This breach of Latvia’s airspace underscores a growing threat: the infiltration of Russian drones and missiles into NATO territory, which is no longer an extraordinary event. Just a day after the Latvian incident, Romania reported a similar case involving a Russian drone that entered its airspace. Other NATO members, including Poland and Croatia, have also experienced incursions by Russian drones, illustrating the broad geographical reach and increasing frequency of these incidents.
Russian Drone in Latvia
Latvia, a NATO member that borders Russia and Belarus but not Ukraine, was caught off-guard by this aerial intrusion. The drone’s arrival was unexpected not only to the Latvian public but, it seems, to the Latvian National Armed Forces as well. The fact that this UAV managed to travel some 100 kilometers into Latvian territory before landing was alarming. Latvia’s limited air defense capabilities, combined with the absence of long- or medium-range defense systems, made the incident even more concerning. Although Latvia, in cooperation with Estonia, is working to acquire the IRIS-T medium-range system, its current defenses are rudimentary, especially when compared to more robust NATO counterparts.
Latvia is far from the only NATO member struggling to address the challenge posed by UAV incursions. The difficulty of identifying and intercepting these low-cost, relatively unsophisticated drones has led to similar incidents in countries with far more sophisticated defense systems. Despite Latvia’s ongoing investments in its military (expected to account for 3.15% of its gross domestic product this year), the drone incident revealed substantial gaps in the country’s ability to protect its airspace.
While the drone incursion itself was deeply troubling, the aftermath of the incident drew even more criticism, particularly concerning the response of Latvia’s defense sector. For one, the Latvian public was not informed of the drone landing until an entire day after the fact, and even then, the communication was vague and left many questions unanswered. This gap in communication extended to local authorities, with the head of the Gaigalava municipality learning of the incident only through media reports.
Although a handful of households near the drone’s crash site were warned of the impending detonation of its explosives, the blast, which could be heard and felt up to three kilometers away, caught many off-guard. The Latvian military held a press conference the following day, but key details—such as the drone’s flight path and the military’s response—were not disclosed, leaving the public frustrated and bewildered.
One of the most pressing questions left unanswered was why the drone was not intercepted before it crossed into Latvian airspace. Reports suggest that the drone flew in from Belarus, raising concerns about the extent of Latvia’s surveillance and air defense capabilities. Many wondered what might have happened had the drone crashed in a populated area like Rēzekne, Latgale’s second-largest city, which appeared to be along or near the drone’s flight path.
Latgale: Latvia’s Vulnerable Eastern Frontier
The drone incident highlighted Latvia’s vulnerable eastern border, which it shares with both Russia and Belarus. Until recently, much of the focus on this region had centered around securing the land border, particularly in response to the weaponization of migration, which has become a growing concern for many Baltic nations. Latvia has been constructing a fence along its border with Russia and Belarus and investing in the creation of the Baltic Defense Line, a network of anti-tank ditches, dragon’s teeth, and other obstacles aimed at defending against a possible ground invasion.
However, this drone incursion made it clear that air defense, particularly along the eastern frontier, must now become a priority. Latvia’s border with Russia and Belarus remains a critical flashpoint in the broader geopolitical struggle between NATO and Russia, particularly as the war in Ukraine rages on. Aerial threats—whether in the form of drones or missiles—are no longer hypothetical. The Shahed 136’s landing in Gaigalava underscored the urgent need for enhanced air surveillance and defense measures to protect not only Latvia but NATO as a whole.
Latvia’s Response: Enhancing Defense and Cooperation
In the wake of the drone incident, Latvian authorities acted swiftly to initiate an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the drone’s flight and landing. In addition to this, Latvia called on its NATO allies to bolster the country’s air defenses. The Latvian government has also increased the military presence in the eastern regions of the country, deploying additional forces to better monitor and intercept future threats. This includes improving detection capabilities in the border areas, an area that had previously received less attention compared to land-based defenses.
On September 17, NATO fighter jets were scrambled from Lielvārde airbase in response to reports of another unidentified flying object near Belarus. Though the object turned out to be a flock of birds, the rapid response indicated that Latvian and NATO forces are learning from the earlier incident and are better prepared to act quickly in the face of possible incursions.
The drone incident also spurred discussions about the need for greater cooperation between NATO members. Latvia is already part of several joint defense initiatives, but incidents like this underscore the necessity of further integration and information-sharing between NATO countries. For instance, the joint procurement of the IRIS-T medium-range air defense system with Estonia demonstrates how cooperation can enhance regional security.
One of the biggest takeaways from the drone incident was not just the need for better air defenses but also the importance of effective crisis communication. The public’s frustration with the lack of timely and transparent information was palpable, and the defense sector has since acknowledged its shortcomings. Going forward, it has promised to improve communication with local municipalities and the broader public in the event of similar incidents.
The lack of immediate information, coupled with the vague statements from military officials, created an atmosphere of uncertainty and anxiety in the affected region. In any national security crisis, managing public perception is crucial, and timely, accurate communication can help mitigate panic and prevent misinformation from spreading. Latvia’s defense sector must now work to rebuild trust with the public, not only by strengthening its defenses but also by keeping the lines of communication open in future incidents.
Russian Denials and the Strategic Implications
Predictably, Russia denied any involvement in the drone incident, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Such denials are a well-worn tactic in Moscow’s playbook, used to sow confusion and avoid responsibility for provocative actions. While Latvian officials believe that the drone was not deliberately targeting Latvia, there remains a possibility that this was a deliberate attempt by Russia to test Latvia’s air defense capabilities. In either case, the incident illustrates Russia’s willingness to push the boundaries of international norms, particularly in its interactions with NATO members.
The strategic implications of this drone incursion are significant. While Latvia has invested heavily in its defense infrastructure, particularly along its eastern border, this incident highlights the need for even more robust air defenses, especially as Russia continues to exploit unconventional and asymmetric means of warfare. Drones like the Shahed 136 are not sophisticated by modern military standards, but they are cheap, effective, and capable of causing significant disruption. For Latvia and its NATO allies, the challenge lies in balancing the need for high-tech defense systems with the practical realities of countering low-cost, low-tech threats.
The Russian drone incursion on September 7 serves as a stark reminder of the evolving security landscape facing Latvia and the broader NATO alliance. While this was only a single drone and there were no casualties, the incident highlighted serious gaps in Latvia’s air defense capabilities and raised concerns about the country’s preparedness to respond to future threats. At the same time, the public outcry following the incident revealed a deep desire for greater transparency and accountability from the defense sector.
Moving forward, Latvia must continue to strengthen its air defenses, improve communication with its citizens, and work closely with its NATO allies to ensure the security of its borders. The incident in Gaigalava may have been an isolated event, but it has exposed vulnerabilities that cannot be ignored. Latvia, like the rest of NATO, must remain vigilant in the face of an increasingly unpredictable and assertive Russia.
