The discussions come amid a surge in mysterious drone sightings across European countries, raising fears of Russian involvement in hybrid warfare and renewed concern about the alliance’s security.

According to four NATO officials briefed on the talks, the goal is to raise the cost of Moscow’s gray-zone operations and strengthen deterrence following a series of incursions by Russian drones and aircraft, the FT reported.

Among the steps under consideration are deploying armed drones along the Russian border and easing engagement rules to let NATO pilots open fire on Russian aircraft that violate allied airspace.

The officials said countries bordering Russia, supported by France and the U.K., started the discussions.

Proposals include arming spy drones that currently operate only in an intelligence-gathering role and easing engagement rules for pilots patrolling the eastern flank. Another measure under review involves conducting NATO military exercises directly along Russia’s borders.

The debate follows a string of airspace incidents, including two consecutive disruptions at Munich International Airport. Similar incidents temporarily shut down Oslo Airport in Norway and Copenhagen Airport in Denmark in recent weeks.

In September, Polish forces shot down several Russian drones that entered Polish territory. Days later, a Russian drone breached Romanian airspace, though Bucharest chose not to engage.

Three Russian MiG-31 fighters also entered Estonian airspace over the Gulf of Finland for 12 minutes in mid-September, prompting the Baltic country to invoke consultations under NATO’s Article 4.

European allies began pushing for stricter measures against Russian energy, particularly after former U.S. President Donald Trump has stated that Washington would impose sanctions on Russia if all NATO members halted imports of Russian oil.

The plan to phase out Russian oil and gas by January 2028 has received broad backing from most member states, though Hungary and Slovakia continue to oppose it, a source told Reuters.

Both countries remain heavily reliant on Russian energy and maintain warmer ties with Moscow than many of their EU counterparts.

EU ambassadors have agreed to move the draft legislation forward, paving the way for ministers to vote during a meeting scheduled for Oct. 20.

For the plan to pass, it will need a “qualified majority,” meaning support from at least 55% of member states, representing at least 65% of the EU population.

If approved, the law will proceed to negotiations between EU governments and the European Parliament, where the final text will be agreed.

Under the proposal, each member state would be required to develop a national plan to end Russian oil and gas imports by 2028.

One sticking point in the discussions remains the challenge of verifying the origin of liquefied natural gas (LNG). EU countries are still debating how to establish an effective system to ensure that imported LNG does not originate from Russia.

The EU is also in talks over a new sanctions package that would move up the ban on Russian LNG to January 2027, one year earlier.

Ukraine introduced a new wave of sanctions and extended existing measures against Russia’s energy sector, with a particular focus on the oil industry, in early October.

Ukraine plans to intensify efforts over the next month to align its sanctions policy more closely with its Western allies. This push comes as the European Union prepares to adopt its 19th package of sanctions targeting Russia.

The European Commission unveiled in mid-September its latest proposed sanctions, which include further restrictions on Russia’s financial and energy sectors, along with a full ban on imports of Russian LNG.

The Belgium-based Euroclear depository currently holds about €190 billion ($220 billion) in Russian sovereign funds, frozen by the EU. EU leaders and pro-Kiev governments have been attempting to force through a €140 billion ($160 billion) “reparations loan” for Kiev by December, leveraging the frozen Russian assets.

Russia has denounced any attempt to repurpose its sovereign wealth as “theft.” Skeptics, such as IMF chief Christine Lagarde, have warned that the move could undermine global trust in the EU’s financial system.

Supporters of the plan argue it falls short of outright confiscation, claiming Moscow could eventually agree to repay the loan as part of a future peace settlement.

Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said last week that his country does not want to be solely responsible for the proposed obligation “if it goes wrong,” and has called for other EU nations to share the potential liabilities.

“Belgium has spent three years saying Euroclear is Belgian and so are the benefits,” one senior official told FT, adding, “Now, when it wants to share the risks, it claims Euroclear is European.”

Another source argued that the financial risks were “probably manageable.”

“There is no more low-hanging fruit,” another EU diplomat told the newspaper, arguing that Brussels needs new funding sources for Ukraine.

“Everyone has to do what they can.”

According to the FT, De Wever’s reluctance frustrated several EU leaders during last week’s Ukraine-focused summit in Copenhagen.

Moscow has accused the EU of sabotaging potential peace efforts, arguing that Kiev’s backers would rather prolong the conflict than admit their strategy has failed.