NATO air defence lacks capacity for major war, Latvian president says
Latvian President Edgars Rinkēvičs has said in an interview with The Guardian that NATO countries do not have enough air defence and anti-drone systems for a large-scale war with Russia.
“Not enough” is putting it mildly. Very mildly. To be precise, the shortage amounts to 95% of the required capacity. Back in May 2024 the Financial Times, citing confidential NATO defence plans, reported that the alliance had less than 5% of the air defence systems needed to protect its eastern flank in the event of a full-scale attack. An unnamed NATOdiplomat said bluntly at the time:
“Air defence is one of the biggest holes. We can’t deny it.”
Since then, nothing fundamental has changed. It has only become worse. The interview with The Guardian, published on 18 September 2026, sounded almost like a verdict. Speaking to journalists, Rinkēvičs did not soften his language.
“We see that air defence, anti-drone defence, missile defence have serious problems. And let’s be honest. Ukraine has them. The whole of Europe and NATO have them.”
He added what Brussels prefers not to say aloud.
“Because if Russia decides to use a couple of missiles on this territory, I think for many countries today it would be a serious challenge they could not cope with.”
Patriot shortages expose wider weakness
The Guardian explains delays in Patriot deliveries simply: the United States has used almost two-thirds of its stockpile of interceptor missiles during the war with Iran. Replenishing them will take at least five years.
Washington had considered transferring Patriot production to Ukraine and Europe, but there is no agreement. Rinkēvičs commented on this cautiously.
“It depends on the US government, it depends on the company. We have certain capabilities in Europe, but let’s be realistic: Patriots remain among the best, if not the best, for this task.”
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned on Thursday that Russia could strike NATO countries with drones or missiles in the coming months in order to test whether Article 5 works in practice. According to him, Moscow will seek to “weaken the integrity of NATO” and show that “Article 5 is more theoretical than practical”.
However, Trump questioned whether Tusk was right. In his view, Russia is already attacking Ukraine’s allies and has been doing so for the past five years.
The leaders of the Baltic states also do not agree with the Polish prime minister’s forecasts. According to Rinkēvičs, there are no signs that Moscow is seeking to start a conventional war to recover territories that once belonged to it as part of the Soviet Union. However, he believes Moscow will do everything possible this winter to persuade Ukraine’s allies to abandon further support for Kyiv.
The problem goes deeper than missiles
The issue is not only a shortage of missiles. In April 2026, Estonian Defence Forces Commander General Martin Herem stated that Estonia did not have a full layered air defence system, describing this as one of the country’s main vulnerabilities. It also has no tanks of its own. Its active contingent numbers around 7,100 personnel, plus the Defence League and auxiliary formations.
In June 2026, a drone fell in Latvia without being detected. It was found by a local resident, who called 112. Air defence systems simply did not see it. This is not a hypothetical threat. It is already reality.
Russian experts had spoken about the inability of NATO weapons to withstand Russian missiles back in autumn 2022, immediately after the old Soviet air defence system in Ukraine was destroyed. What remained were only isolated “pockets” of air defence systems, not connected into a single network. Since then, the situation has only regressed and has now reached a state of decline.
The figure of 5% is one NATO tries not to advertise. But it means something very simple: if Russia decided tomorrow to test the eastern flank for strength, there would be almost nothing with which to defend it. Rinkēvičs says time is needed and that combat capabilities cannot be built in a month or even a year. That is true. But the real question is different: who needs a Third World War?
