The drone was apparently taken down by an employee that happened to spot the drone. The statement describes it rather weirdly as a 'contact between the employee and the drone, after which the drone came to lay on the ground'.Leipzig drone failed to detonate.
Lithuanian military intelligence says it has information indicating that Russia is considering using Ukrainian-made drones to carry out attacks on critical infrastructure in the Baltic region, with the aim of obscuring responsibility for any strikes, according to a report published Thursday by 15min.lt.
https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-engli...NZyAU0pypvKdypWeFGGkAY53TpqQowokCw7Y1teZK7jtUAccording to the report, Russia could deploy captured Ukrainian drones in an attempt to create uncertainty over the origin of an attack and deny responsibility for striking NATO territory.
The drone loaded with explosives, which was discovered at Leipzig/Halle Airport , was equipped with 5G antennas. ZDF frontal learned this from security sources on Thursday. This suggests it was controlled via mobile network – and not a "DIY store drone"
ZDF reports that the drone, through 5G scanning, may have been indistinguishable from a mobile phone.
And Der Spiegel reports that part of the drone was found on the aircraft's wing near the fuel tankers.
I fkin hate what this world is turning into.Leipzig airport also has a system that is supposed to recognise drones and warn of incursions into the airport area and vicinity. They now have to figure out how and why it did not trigger when there were at least two drones there.
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/u-...natos-resolve-with-limited-incursion-e3b02e2cRussian President Vladimir Putin could try to test NATO’s resolve with a limited assault on an allied country in the next few years, according to new U.S. intelligence reports that posit possible scenarios ranging from a cyberattack to a small-scale land incursion.
I would be very surprised if NATO didn’t retaliate if this happened, and surely Russia can’t afford an escalation in tit-for-tat if the EU decided to lean in.Unfortunately I can't seem to get past the paywall this time but the WSJ reports that Putin might test NATO with a cyber attack or limited incursion.
I assume that the goal wouldn't be to get into a shooting war with NATO but rather get them to stop aid to Ukraine. Also, this assessment from US intelligence is new. Earlier assessments did not indicate that Putin would be interested in doing this
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/u-...natos-resolve-with-limited-incursion-e3b02e2c
I think the key terms here are "cyber attacks" and "limited incursions". I cannot see NATO launching cyberattacks on Russia and how do you respond tit for tat to a limited scale drone operation? Not saying they wouldn't retaliate, but I think there'd be excruciating discussions in NATO headquarters as to what the appropriate response would be.I would be very surprised if NATO didn’t retaliate if this happened, and surely Russia can’t afford an escalation in tit-for-tat if the EU decided to lean in.
This makes zero sense. Which doesn’t mean that it’s not true, Putin’s logic so often alludes me, but still. Let’s directly attack NATO to stop them from helping another country to fight us? Because NATO surely won’t retaliate, right?Putin might test NATO with a cyber attack or limited incursion.
I assume that the goal wouldn't be to get into a shooting war with NATO but rather get them to stop aid to Ukraine.
I've managed to somewhat bypass the paywall and the article says that Putin's aim would be to fracture the alliance, essentially trying to divide the US from Europe and test NATO's credibility in collective defense.This makes zero sense. Which doesn’t mean that it’s not true, Putin’s logic so often alludes me, but still. Let’s directly attack NATO to stop them from helping another country to fight us? Because NATO surely won’t retaliate, right?
I feel that logic applies to a lot of talk about Putin 'testing' borders of NATO countries. As long as there is no actual attack but just accidental (whether that's true or not) drone incursions and the like, NATO isn't really going to retaliate. So what can that possibly say about NATO's response in case of an actual attack or invasion? What is really being 'tested'?This makes zero sense. Which doesn’t mean that it’s not true, Putin’s logic so often alludes me, but still. Let’s directly attack NATO to stop them from helping another country to fight us? Because NATO surely won’t retaliate, right?
Yeah, same. Tbf it it's really "Putin's aim would be to fracture the alliance, essentially trying to divide the US from Europe and test NATO's credibility in collective defense" then it's nothing new, he's been doing everything in his power to do so, mostly by supporting either nationalistic or simply chaotic (often both) politicians. Trump getting elected wasn't by his design but he did everything to make sure that he helped him get there. Same for Hungary, Italy, Great Britain, France... and probably every single other NATO country with various degrees of success. He's actively interfering with the upcoming French elections by spreading disinformation on a few pro-Ukrainian candidates, his troll farms ignite more and more anti-migrant (including Ukrainian) and put-any-countries-name-here first mentality.I feel that logic applies to a lot of talk about Putin 'testing' borders of NATO countries. As long as there is no actual attack but just accidental (whether that's true or not) drone incursions and the like, NATO isn't really going to retaliate. So what can that possibly say about NATO's response in case of an actual attack or invasion? What is really being 'tested'?
I feel like this is another a sort of narrative about Putin's 4D-chess brilliance (there have been examples before), that's now part of standard conversation and hence just gets trotted out without much thought whenever there is another incident. But Putin is really quite transparent (he has been shown to actually say what he means), so it seems to me that more straightforward explanations make more sense. (Like, Russia just doesn't care much about drones and rockets going off course a little and possible flying through or even landing in another country.)
I mean, I don't question that Russia is try to cause discord within NATO, the EU, and individual countries. But this 'testing' stuff doesn't make much sense to me.
Unless there’s a strong element of deniability for Russia, it basically changes the situation from it being Ukraine’s war to it being NATOs war. The former is the main wedge for Russia to drive, so I can’t really see the sense in it.I think the key terms here are "cyber attacks" and "limited incursions". I cannot see NATO launching cyberattacks on Russia and how do you respond tit for tat to a limited scale drone operation? Not saying they wouldn't retaliate, but I think there'd be excruciating discussions in NATO headquarters as to what the appropriate response would be.
It's much easier if the Russians just bombed something or sent tanks across the border because that would make for a more black and white argument as to how to respond.
Ukraine is defending, where as the Wermacht overextended itself and stupidly split up.Was thinking about something recently, this war has been going for almost 5 years . In WW2, the red army went from Stalingrad to Berlin in three years. Granted this is not the red army and its not a complete mobilisation, but the Ukrainian army is not the three army groups of the Ostfront either.
Was thinking about something recently, this war has been going for almost 5 years . In WW2, the red army went from Stalingrad to Berlin in three years. Granted this is not the red army and its not a complete mobilisation, but the Ukrainian army is not the three army groups of the Ostfront either.
Regardless of overextension or not, at some point they started digging in. And before the second front was even opened, the Wermacht had suffered some major blows already. So its not that clear cut. As for the lend lease , yes that was critical but for the long war. In this case Russia started with an overwhelming material advantage. I think this eventually would be considered one of the biggest wastes of resources in the modern warfare history.Ukraine is defending, where as the Wermacht overextended itself and stupidly split up.
Also Germany was fighting on two fronts. Double also, the USSR was heavily supplied by the allies.
I think any kind of incursion into a NATO country or serious, attributable cyberattack would draw a pretty hard response from the EU. It wouldn’t be a good thing for Russia.I think the key terms here are "cyber attacks" and "limited incursions". I cannot see NATO launching cyberattacks on Russia and how do you respond tit for tat to a limited scale drone operation? Not saying they wouldn't retaliate, but I think there'd be excruciating discussions in NATO headquarters as to what the appropriate response would be.
It's much easier if the Russians just bombed something or sent tanks across the border because that would make for a more black and white argument as to how to respond.
I think any kind of incursion into a NATO country or serious, attributable cyberattack would draw a pretty hard response from the EU. It wouldn’t be a good thing for Russia.
You realise you are conflating the term "EU" with NATO and/or the European militaries, right?
I think so as well. Putin doesn't have the ability to use nukes, so there's little value to him in getting involved with EU states when the Ukrainians are already hitting him hard at home. Seems like a final act of desperation than anything else.
Its because "what needs to be done" is literally a death sentence for them and probably their family if the plan fails which is the most likely outcome.Everything seem "final", but nothing ever happens in Russia, nobody in the government have any courage to deal with the problem that is Putin, they'd rather all go down with the ship than to do what needs to be done.
I said EU because I don't think Trump would participate, therefore it would likely be one or two countries like Poland or the like addressing the issue.
The Russian Arena-M active protection system (APS), which recently began being used on the front line, has reportedly managed to intercept FPV drones.
https://militarnyi.com/en/news/russ...-drones-on-the-front-line-for-the-first-time/During another attempt by Russian forces to launch a mechanized assault on Ukrainian positions, the Russian military once again deployed a T-72B3M tank, vehicle number 133, equipped with the Arena-M active protection system. According to him, Ukrainian defenders used seven drones to deplete the APS’s interceptor munitions, while the total expenditure amounted to 15–20 FPV drones per vehicle.
But isn't that the thing with cyberattacks? With an airstrike or a ground incursion it's a lot more black and white how things have occurred whereas cyberattacks get hidden under layers and layers. Even if/when you present clear technical evidence identifying the aggressor, the Russians would just obfuscate, deny, and generally find all sorts of ways to deflect from them.I think any kind of incursion into a NATO country or serious, attributable cyberattack would draw a pretty hard response from the EU. It wouldn’t be a good thing for Russia.
The footage suggests that the object ricocheted off the wing and fell to the ground. Marks on one of the Antonov's wings confirm this likely sequence of events. Why the explosive device did not detonate remains unclear.
https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2026-08/drohne-leipzig-flughafen-sprengstoff-kameraaufnahmenUntil now, one of the investigative hypotheses was that it might have been intended merely as a kind of warning. Armed, yes, but not designed to actually explode. This hypothesis is now hardly tenable. Leipzig Airport narrowly escaped a devastating attack.
Yeah and it has been happening for years already, coupled with other cyber warfare activities re misinformation, influencing elections etc. I read the intent as doing something a bit more blatant though.But isn't that the thing with cyberattacks? With an airstrike or a ground incursion it's a lot more black and white how things have occurred whereas cyberattacks get hidden under layers and layers. Even if/when you present clear technical evidence identifying the aggressor, the Russians would just obfuscate, deny, and generally find all sorts of ways to deflect from them.
