This is The DEFCON Warning System. Alert status for 1300 UTC, Monday, 15th September 2025:
Condition Green – DEFCON 5.
There are currently no imminent nuclear threats at this time.
Drone Incursions into NATO Territory
On the night of September 9–10, 2025, multiple Russian drones—estimates range from 19 to 23—entered Polish airspace after allegedly being launched from Russia or transiting via Belarus.
Polish air defences, aided by other NATO assets, responded by shooting down several of the drones. Because of this airspace breach, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk invoked Article 4 of the NATO charter, requesting consultations under the treaty, citing a threat to Poland’s security and that the incursion also threatens NATO territory.
Following this, NATO launched Operation Eastern Sentry on September 12. The alliance has moved to reinforce its eastern flank, bolstering air defence and increasing readiness in Poland and neighbouring states.
The Polish government also closed airspace temporarily over several airports—including those in Warsaw and Lublin—while the drones were in flight. Taken together, this marks the first time Poland (and by extension NATO on this scale) has shot down Russian drone assets for violating NATO airspace in connection with Russia’s war in Ukraine. It is seen by Warsaw and many NATO capitals as a deliberate challenge or escalation by Moscow.
Just days later, another incursion was reported—this time into Romania’s airspace. On or about September 12–13, 2025, a Russian-made Geran drone entered Romanian airspace, was tracked for nearly an hour, and then exited without inflicting damage. Romanian F-16s were scrambled; Romanian defence officials criticized the violation as a serious breach of NATO territory.
This second incursion in the same week underscores a pattern. NATO’s eastern flank is seeing repeated tests: Poland downing multiple drones; Romania facing more airspace violations. In response, NATO is increasing surveillance, reinforcing air defence, and signalling that these breaches will not go unanswered.
For Poland, the two incidents combined have pushed Warsaw to request permanent upgrades to its air defence posture, and for NATO to clarify how to intercept or neutralize threats before they cross into allied territory. Romania similarly is pushing for readiness and clearer rules of engagement.
Kremlin Rhetoric: NATO as a Combatant
As these incursions unfold, the Kremlin has openly shifted its rhetoric. On September 15, 2025, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declared that NATO is “de facto involved in this war”—that by providing direct and indirect support to Ukraine, NATO is actually fighting against Russia.
This statement is more than just propaganda. It reveals how Moscow views the alliance: any military support for Ukraine is interpreted as direct confrontation. In Kremlin terms, supplying weapons, intelligence, and logistical backing is already “military involvement.”
Such framing serves multiple purposes:
- Internally, to justify Russia’s defensive and offensive responses under the rubric of national security;
- Externally, to try to delegitimise NATO’s support for Ukraine;
- Diplomatically, to raise the cost for any NATO member contemplating deeper involvement.
When overlaid with the drone incursions into NATO airspace, the rhetoric and physical provocations have a cumulative effect. Moscow is stressing that NATO’s support of Ukraine is not a side-show—it is part of the conflict itself. That raises the risk that certain NATO responses, even routine air defence actions, may be portrayed by Moscow as escalatory or even as aggression.
Iran and Nuclear Inspections
In the Middle East, a somewhat more positive development emerged. On September 9, 2025, Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) signed a technical agreement in Cairo to resume cooperation over inspections of its nuclear program.
This agreement aims at restoring inspections at facilities including those damaged by prior conflicts, such as Israeli or U.S. strikes. The only facility still confirmed accessible so far is the Bushehr nuclear power plant, but the framework opens the door for broader reporting and verification.
Key caveats remain: Iran has made clear that this deal is conditional on sanctions not being re-imposed, and that any inspections beyond Bushehr must be approved by its National Security Council.
From the IAEA side, Director General Rafael Grossi has called the agreement an important step, particularly given global concerns over Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile—some of it enriched to roughly 60%, which is close to weapons grade. But the mechanisms of access, reporting, and timing still need to be clarified.
In short, this is diplomatic progress, but fragile. It has potential to slow the reimposition of sanctions or snapback measures, but only if implementation holds and Iran’s cooperation is verified.
China–North Korea Relations
Meanwhile, in East Asia, China and North Korea have taken visible steps toward closer relations, though underlying distrust remains. On September 3–4, 2025, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un visited Beijing, met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, and reaffirmed the DPRK’s commitment to support China in defending its sovereignty, territory, and developmental interests.
For China, the meeting was an opportunity to signal to the world a return of more open diplomacy with Pyongyang, after years of cold distance or ambivalence. The leaders also discussed long-term cooperation plans—economically, politically, and militarily.
However, analysts note that despite the pomp of joint appearances, there remains significant distrust from North Korea toward China. Beijing is still viewed through the lens of past grievances: enforcement of sanctions, curbs on trade and aid, inconsistent policies. Pyongyang seeks more tangible guarantees—economic, diplomatic, even security—and is keen to avoid over-dependence.
In effect, this partnership appears to be strengthening, but it is a cautious, transactional one. The symbolism is large; the underlying structures—supply chains, trust, commitments—are still being tested.
Closing Notes
The DEFCON Warning System is a private intelligence organization which has monitored and assessed nuclear threats by national entities since 1984. It is not affiliated with any government agency and does not represent the alert status of any military branch. The public should make their own evaluations and not rely on the DEFCON Warning System for any strategic planning. At all times, citizens are urged to learn what steps to take in the event of a nuclear attack. If this had been an actual attack, the DEFCON Warning System will give radiation readings for areas that are reported to it. Your readings will vary. Official news sources will have radiation readings for your area.
For immediate updates, visit www.defconwarningsystem.com. Breaking news and important information can be found on the DEFCON Warning System community forum and on the DEFCON Twitter feed @DEFCONWSAlerts. You may also subscribe to the DEFCON Warning System mailing list. Note that Twitter updates may be subject to delays.
The next scheduled update is 1350 hours, September 29, 2025. Additional updates will be made as the situation warrants, with more frequent updates at higher alert levels.
This concludes this report of the DEFCON Warning System.
