Ukrainian Drone Incursions, Russian Electronic Warfare, and International Law
AI Analysis
Recent incursions of Ukrainian drones into Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) are attributed to Russian electronic warfare (EW) countermeasures. Russia is likely employing GNSS spoofing and jamming techniques to disrupt Ukrainian drone operations, potentially redirecting them or causing crashes. The Ukrainian Foreign Minister claims these diversions are deliberate acts by Russia.
Key Takeaways
- Ukrainian drones have repeatedly entered Baltic airspace originating from Russia, causing minor damage in some instances.
- Russia is suspected of using GNSS spoofing to mislead drone navigation systems, forcing landings or redirecting flight paths.
- Russia may also be employing jamming techniques, though these are less controllable than spoofing.
- Drones equipped with AI may be able to overcome jamming by switching to inertial navigation or continuing attacks autonomously.
- Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia have issued airspace restrictions and protests to Russia following these incidents.
Why It Matters
These incidents demonstrate Russia’s growing proficiency in electronic warfare and its willingness to extend EW operations beyond the immediate conflict zone. This poses a risk to civilian infrastructure and highlights the vulnerability of GNSS-reliant systems, even those with AI capabilities. The events also raise questions about escalation risks and the potential for miscalculation.
Ukrainian Drone Incursions, Russian Electronic Warfare, and International Law
Just Security – JustSecurity.org
×
×
Ukrainian Drone Incursions into Baltic States, Russian Electronic Warfare Countermeasures, and International Law
By
and
On May 7, three uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones) crossed into Latvia from Russia. One exploded at an oil storage facility 40 KM from the Russian border, damaging empty oil tanks and sparking a small fire. The second crashed into a field, and the third flew into and then out of Latvia’s airspace. Latvia issued UAV alerts along the Russian border and restricted flights in its airspace, while French military aircraft participating in NATO’s Baltic Air Policing mission responded to the area. The Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the Russian chargé d’affaires and delivered a formal protest. Three days later, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister announced that “[i]nvestigations proved that this was the result of Russian electronic warfare deliberately diverting Ukrainian drones from their targets in Russia.”
This is not the first time Russia has apparently diverted Ukrainian UAVs into the Baltic States. A series of similar UAV incursions occurred in March. That month, a Ukrainian UAV crashed in Lithuania after veering off course during an attack on Russian oil infrastructure. Other Ukrainian UAVs entered Estonian and Latvian airspace from Russia, with one striking the chimney of an Estonian power station and another crashing in Latvia.
These penetrations of the Baltic States’ airspace by Ukrainian UAVs, including the most recent ones, are widely attributed to Russia’s use of electronic warfare (EW) countermeasures (in this context, we use countermeasures in the military, not legal, sense to mean devices or techniques that impair enemy operational effectiveness, DoD Dictionary). However, some doubt remains as to whether the intrusions and resulting damage were deliberate, as the Ukrainian Foreign Minister suggests, or an unintended byproduct of the Russian countermeasures.
Most reports suggest that Russia employed Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) spoofing techniques. Spoofing, commonly used in the Russia-Ukraine war, involves transmitters deliberately broadcasting fake signals that mislead the UAV to “accept incorrect coordinates, resulting in navigation failure, loss of control, or forced landing in enemy territory.” In some cases, it can even be used to redirect UAVs to specific coordinates.
Another possibility is that Russia employed jamming, a technique that degrades or blocks satellite navigation signals, causing the system to switch to inertial navigation or crash. While spoofing can intentionally redirect the UAVs, jamming only blocks signals. Thus, the effects of jamming are less controllable. For instance, if the UAV is equipped with AI capabilities, as is now frequently the case, it might be able to continue attacking targets autonomously, even if jamming disrupts communication