SEPT 23 — Earlier this month, Poland scrambled its fighter jets when 21 Russian drones entered its airspace. Nato's response was immediate. Secretary-General Mark Rutte announced the creation of the Eastern Sentry mission, a coordinated effort to strengthen the alliance’s eastern flank and reinforce confidence in its air defenses. 

To Europe, this was more than a technical military adjustment; it was a political gesture that affirmed Nato’s solidarity and its determination to deter future incursions. Yet, as significant as this announcement was, Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk offered a reminder that resonates far beyond Europe: not every provocation should trigger a reaction. 

When Russian fighter jets recently flew near Poland’s Petrobaltic drilling platform in the Baltic Sea, outside its territorial waters but uncomfortably close, Tusk explained that responses must be carefully considered. In ambiguous cases, he warned, “you need to think twice before deciding on such actions.”

For Asean, this mix of vigilance and restraint offers a lesson of enduring value. Southeast Asia may not face incursions from Russia, but the region is no stranger to provocative acts in contested domains. 

Chinese military aircraft flying close to Brunei and Malaysia’s air defense identification zone in 2021 compelled Kuala Lumpur to scramble jets. Albeit the Chinese jets, flying at 26,000 feet, were also considered international air space too.

Indonesia has faced similar episodes around the Natuna Islands, while the Philippines continues to contend with frequent overflights and maneuvers near disputed waters. 

Even within Asean itself, history shows that tensions along the Thai–Cambodian border can spill over into the air domain, creating risks of miscalculation. In each of these cases, as in Poland, the dilemma is the same: how to defend sovereignty without escalating unnecessarily.

Europe’s Eastern Sentry highlights that defending airspace is not simply a matter of technology. 

It is about building the confidence of citizens and the credibility of regional institutions. Nato has long understood that collective vigilance reassures members while signaling resolve to outsiders. Asean, though not a military alliance, can draw lessons from this approach. 

Just as Poland recognized that one state’s vulnerability is inseparable from the security of its neighbors, Asean must appreciate that protecting its skies is not solely a national matter but a regional concern.

The issue becomes even more pressing when one considers the cost dilemma. In Europe, scrambling fighter jets and firing advanced missiles against cheap drones is already raising questions of sustainability. 

For Asean, with its uneven defense budgets and pressing developmental needs, such asymmetry would be even more punishing. If each country were left to manage incursions alone, responses would likely be inconsistent, costly, and at times ineffective. This is why a regional perspective is necessary. Shared early warning systems, cooperative monitoring, and coordinated drills can all build resilience at lower cost while also reducing the risks of accidental escalation.

Yet this conversation is not only about efficiency. It is also about Asean’s moral authority. 

Since its founding, Asean has derived credibility from its ability to prevent disputes from spiraling into wider conflict. By establishing a framework to manage airspace incidents, Asean can show that it is adapting to new realities while remaining true to its mission of preserving peace. The task is not to condemn any particular state but to recognize that misunderstandings and misinterpretations are natural risks in a region as dynamic as Southeast Asia. 

By building habits of communication, from hotlines between air force commands to protocols for incident reporting, Asean can reduce those risks and strengthen trust.

Of course, Asean has often leaned on the principle of non-interference to avoid entanglement in sensitive disputes. This approach has value, but it is not always sufficient. The air domain, like the maritime one, requires cooperation to prevent accidents and escalation. 

Asean already has precedents to draw from. The Five Power Defence Arrangements involving Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom regularly conduct joint air defense exercises. 

These may not involve all Asean members, but they demonstrate that cooperative air security measures are possible. 

Similarly, the Asean Defense Ministers’ Meeting Plus, which brings in partners such as the United States, China, Japan, and India, has already incorporated aerial coordination into multilateral drills. 

By expanding these initiatives, Asean can gradually develop its own approach to airspace management without needing to mirror Nato’s model.

The point is not for Asean to militarize the skies or to take on the posture of a formal defense alliance. Instead, the region can develop its own cooperative framework, emphasizing prevention, transparency, and proportionality. 

Exercises can be framed around humanitarian and disaster relief operations, ensuring that the skills needed for aerial coordination are built in ways that resonate with Asean’s traditions of pragmatism and non-alignment. 

In this way, Asean would not only prepare for potential provocations but also strengthen its capacity to respond to natural disasters and emergencies, tasks that enhance legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.

The incursion of Russian drones into Poland may appear to be a European problem, yet it is emblematic of the world Asean inhabits as well. Drones, ambiguous overflights, and gray-zone tactics are now common instruments of statecraft. They blur the lines between peace and conflict, forcing governments to rethink old assumptions. Nato responded by creating Eastern Sentry. 

Asean, in turn, must begin imagining its own equivalent — not a carbon copy of Nato’s mission, but a uniquely Southeast Asian mechanism rooted in dialogue, restraint, and quiet preparedness.

Ultimately, protecting Southeast Asia’s skies is about more than sovereignty. It is about ensuring that the region retains the credibility to manage its own peace, without leaving space for external powers to exploit divisions or for local disputes to escalate. 

Europe’s Eastern Sentry is therefore not only a shield for Nato but also a mirror for Asean, reflecting what the future could demand of this region. 

The lesson is clear: credible security today requires both capacity and caution. If Asean can embrace that lesson and act before crises force its hand, it will reinforce its standing as a stabilizer in an uncertain world.

*Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is professor of Asean Studies at the International Islamic University of Malaysia and director of the Institute of International and Asean Studies (IINTAS).

**This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.