alt.hn

12/12/2025 at 8:24:22 AM

Young journalists expose Russian-linked vessels off the Dutch and German coast

 https://www.digitaldigging.org/p/they-droned-back

by harshreality

12/12/2025 at 9:09:25 AM

I don't know to what degree this is known to people outside Europe, but has been on the news over here for the last few months:

> drones aren’t just buzzing airports. They’re systematically surveilling military installations—often during sensitive operations

Now, if you live in the US or anywhere else outside Europe - please pause for a moment and see how it makes you feel to imagine having Russian drones hover over your military installations regularly, or other important places of your public infrastructure.

by kleiba

12/12/2025 at 11:25:17 AM

The political question here isn't why intelligence agencies aren't all over this but why politicians are deciding to not do anything about it.

A bunch of kids were able to figure out which ships were the source of these drones. Good work. I assume/hope this information wasn't new to intelligence agencies.

Relevant questions to ask here:

- were these ships not tracked and monitored 24/7 since they left Russian ports?

- in fact aren't all ships that leave those ports not tracked?

- isn't the journey of ships in the so-called shadow fleet documented in detail so that it is exactly known what's on board and who is buying it?

The answer to this is: of course that is all happening and known.

And the obvious one: why weren't these ships dragged to a port and completely dismantled to the last bolt?

Answer to that: that would be an escalation as these ships are in international waters and protected by maritime law. The obvious counter to that is that military aerial activity launched from foreign ships technically is an escalation in itself that could be considered a direct act of war.

I'm not going to speculate further on this. But it's obviously a highly political topic and not some kind of intelligence failure.

by jillesvangurp

12/12/2025 at 9:20:23 AM

There are plenty of people even inside Europe who downplay these events.

by TheChaplain

12/12/2025 at 10:31:21 AM

As someone who currently lives in Poland, I hope this will be a wakeup call for Western Europe, which has so far been living a medieval dream of "the aggressor is far away and there are countries between us and the aggressor, so we can carry on as usual". That used to be a valid assumption several hundred years ago, but now no longer holds.

I hope the lukewarm support for Ukraine will become at least a bit stronger. And I really hope the EU will stop funding the Russian military machine. Not everyone realizes this, but just in October 2025, the five largest EU importers of Russian fossil fuels paid Russia nearly 1 billion €. ONE BILLION EUR per month. Compare that to the military aid we are sending to Ukraine. (source: https://energyandcleanair.org/october-2025-monthly-analysis-...)

by jwr

12/12/2025 at 1:49:32 PM

> so far been living a medieval dream of "the aggressor is far away

As a Western European, I want to give you a different perspective on this. For us, everything behind the iron curtain was Soviet. Then the curtain fell and we saw all these countries like yours, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Baltic states, etc, transition into democracies. While doing that, they lifted their welfare significantly. We had no reason to think Russia wouldn't do the same (why wouldn't they?).

Plus, our neighbor Germany was not the nicest kid on the block in the past, and we also saw them transition into a normal, peace loving nation. So in the end, we had no reason to believe why Russia would stick to something that actually hurts their own lives.

It was very naive, I agree. But only recently, we realized that Russia has no intention to follow the path that central and eastern Europe took.

And yes, I'm ashamed of how little support Europe is giving. I'm sending money out of my own pocket, because I hope every bit helps.

by koonsolo

12/12/2025 at 11:25:12 AM

As I understand, if Europe stopped buying Russian natural gas, it would have to buy it at much higher prices elsewhere, which would raise things like electricity cost, logistics cost, which in turn might make voters unhappy and vote out the current government. That's the weakness of EU, it's made of many countries which put their interests first and have a democratic system.

Furthermore, there are suspicious things happening, like appointing former German chancellor for a Gazprom directors board [1]. Was he appointed for his exceptional skills and expertise, or for some other reason?

For comparison, Russia has no such problems; due to centralization and localization of economy, the prices and rouble value are kept under control; due to more authoritarian style of governing, nobody complains when utility bill raises every year, and sometimes twice a year. Russia also had tax increases for couple years straight, and again, nobody complained, unlike Europeans which tend to change the government every time they become unhappy with something. And obviously, West has no means to bribe or corrupt Russian leadership or finance any political movements.

[1] https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-former-chancellor-gerhard-sch...

by codedokode

12/12/2025 at 10:35:39 AM

It disheartens me to see how Polish opinion on the EU has been systematically dismantled, not sure if it's mostly Russian propaganda but EU skepticism is growing a lot over there, given that Poland is right at the footsteps of Russia it does not bode well it's starting to turn on the EU...

by piva00

12/12/2025 at 11:15:44 AM

Guess who else is very much interested in that happening.....

"Leaked files ‘show US wants to persuade four nations to leave EU’ The countries seen as targets to follow Brexit are Austria, Hungary, Italy and Poland, according to leaked details of the US national security strategy" https://www.thetimes.com/us/american-politics/article/us-meg...

by gambiting

12/12/2025 at 3:27:27 PM

Well, this was the case decades ago, too, just few people paid attention. The US made sure their interests are always put before Polish interests, and these were regularly reported by the US embassy in Warsaw. See e.g.:[0]

"Rozanski went on to explain that Polish food products are viewed in the EU as healthy and natural, and are competitive in their current state. Use of GM seeds could threaten this perception, and thus Poland's place in the market. When Spirnak and Embassy Agricultural Counselor noted that such an approach would be of great concern to the U.S. and would be contrary to EU as well as WTO commitments, Rozanski backed off and said that Poland must comply with EU and international commitments (Note: Rozanski softened this message further at a subsequent meeting that Agricultural Counselor attended)."

[0] https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06WARSAW107_a.html

The bright point is, since it's more or less clear that the US basically stopped caring much about Europe militarily, the "great concern to the U.S." cited above is not that relevant. Trump basically destroyed most of the soft power the USA had over Europe.

by benterix

12/12/2025 at 11:14:08 AM

>>I hope the lukewarm support for Ukraine will become at least a bit stronger

As a Pole, I think the nation as a whole doesn't recognize that we are already at war. By any estimate, Russia already uses thousands of people online to post false information about both the war and Ukrainians in Poland, trying to incite hatred towards them so that Polish support for them goes down, and so far it has been working. Just go to a comment section on any news article or(if you're brave) Facebook, it's dare I say infested with brand new accounts whose entire posting history is just "get those ukrainian vermins out of this country" or the variations of. The governments office that was meant to investigate and combat this had....2 employees until very recently. Our response to this is not just inadequate, we are literally being "attacked"(not in a physical sense) by another nation and we do very little about it. And it appears to be working too - outright xenophobia and actual physical violence against Ukrainians is up on the raise in Poland, and political stance of "you know maybe Putin isn't such a bad guy" is coming out of the fringes and entering public conversation too. For a country such as Poland which has suffered first hand at the hands of Russians, this is an insane position to take.

by gambiting

12/12/2025 at 11:18:17 AM

The Netherlands (population 18 million) has an annual budget of 350 billion.

Russia is in reality a poor country.

The strategy of the Netherlands is to just keep the war going by sending money. The reality is that we're actually WINNING but some people don't want that.

by expedition32

12/12/2025 at 10:40:38 AM

> As someone who currently lives in Poland

Same here.

> I hope this will be a wakeup call for Western Europe

It has been a wake up call for Poland for sure. EU will not wake up, sadly.

by egorfine

12/12/2025 at 11:22:53 AM

I definitely hope it will, but you know, the further remote from Russia the safer and less interested they can afford to be. Because the cyber war is here, there's lots of messages with "Russia is not my enemy" on the Romanian Facebook as well. This even when Putty's goon just said they're at war with Europe.

by soco

12/12/2025 at 9:56:42 AM

Often enough that coincidences with an unexplainable increase of wealth.

by GuestFAUniverse

12/13/2025 at 1:32:44 AM

Ramstein is like 400 km from the sea, Munich is 800 km.

I am puzzled that the alleged ship-launched drone swarms were allegedly able to penetrate this far undetected.

by D_Alex

12/12/2025 at 7:46:21 PM

It would certainly make me feel motivated to fund my military, and send military aid and seized Russian assets to Ukraine.

by BobaFloutist

12/12/2025 at 11:48:18 AM

plays world's smallest violin

Here in the First Island Chain we've had Chinese drones buzzing our military installations since before COVID.

In Afghanistan, Yemen, or Somalia, the sound of drones buzzing overhead usually means an entire family is about to get murdered because ONE guy's pattern of behaviors pegged him as a "terrorist" in some computer system.

Europeans are just finally being shaken out of their false sense of security and don't know how to handle it.

by CapricornNoble

12/12/2025 at 9:21:46 AM

>Now, if you live in the US or anywhere else outside Europe - please pause for a moment and see how it makes you feel to imagine having Russian drones hover over your military installations regularly, or other important places of your public infrastructure.

Something like that has happened in the US recently but Americans believed they were alien spacecraft as they tend to do and the whole thing got swallowed up in memes and Reddit threads.

Also apparently the US is ride or die with Putin now so Russia can't have done anything of the sort. Must have been aliens.

by krapp

12/12/2025 at 9:27:04 AM

Are any of those drones being shot down? Is anything being done about it besides (AI-assisted) fear-mongering? That is the real question. If the drones are a problem, shoot/neutralize them and thank Russia for the free target-practice exercise.

It seems like the danger even bigger than Russia is government incompetence and the system of broken incentives where everyone does everything to appear busy but actually solving the problem.

If there's a drone there, and you don't want it there, the solution is obvious. It's obvious enough to any nutcase in the US with access to a shotgun (with various degrees of success, but at least they're got the right spirit). If nobody's taking out the proverbial shotgun then I have to assume the drones are not an actual problem and merely yet another excuse for busywork.

Edit: I am not saying to literally use a shotgun against them. But offensive solutions need to be developed and put to use; otherwise if we sit helpless now, what will we do when those drones evolve and start carrying offensive payloads? Fear-mongering and finding endless excuses about not doing anything is not going to help.

by Nextgrid

12/12/2025 at 10:41:56 AM

The drones here aren't your neighbor's kids' quadrotors. Some sightings over airports have been large (>2m) fixed wing aircraft travelling at 200 km/h. Even the quads are pretty fast. And they can appear out of nowhere, taking off from the ground near the target.

Shooting them down from the ground is next to impossible. They don't hover around waiting for someone to come by with a shotgun in their hand, catching them by land (ie. chasing them in a car) is not feasible.

Just to give an idea how hard it is to hit airborne targets from the ground with traditional guns: I once spent an afternoon shooting at a slow moving fixed wing target drone with tracer rounds from a 12.7mm anti-aircraft machine gun. There were about 50 of us taking turns, each with a few hundred rounds to shoot at the damn thing and the target aircraft didn't get a single hit.

My guess is that the drones are conducting signals intelligence, listening to radar signals and radio comms around sensitive installations (airports, military bases) and surveying the response time to a sighting.

by exDM69

12/12/2025 at 12:01:57 PM

We need interceptor drones like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m-xH6OLY_Y

something that could help Ukraine would be to make thousands in the EU. There's already a factory going up in the UK.

by tim333

12/13/2025 at 1:49:18 AM

Actually a couple of drone factories (https://thedefensepost.com/2025/11/24/stark-uk-drone-uav-pro... and https://militarnyi.com/en/news/ukrspecsystems-in-the-united-...)

but the interceptors are Project Octopus:

>The initial pilot batch, consisting of up to 1,000 drones, will be built in the UK at state-owned facilities. The Octopus drone will become the first Ukrainian combat drone to be serially produced in a NATO country, with Ukraine retaining full intellectual property and technological control. https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/10/26/uk-to-build-pilot-bat...

and they are being secretive about the design.

by tim333

12/12/2025 at 11:32:41 AM

If you watch some videos from Ukraine, you will see, that shotguns can hit them with much increased chances. So if possible without endangering civilians around the place where drones are sighted, I say get finally started, take the shotguns out and take out Russian resources. Just for the time of war make private drone flying without special permission and preflight registration illegal, then take down any drone that moves and is not registered to have a flight at the time. This also won't be giving away very critical military knowledge either.

One thing I don't know about shotguns is, how dangerous falling projectiles are. How much velocity they accumulate. That could be a real problem with this approach.

by zelphirkalt

12/12/2025 at 11:40:00 AM

I've seen my fair share of frontline combat videos from Ukraine.

The hard part isn't shooting a drone when it is in shotgun range. It's getting the shooter close enough to the drone to have a chance of taking the shot in the first place.

For example the drones mentioned in the article can fly at 2.5km altitude at 140km/h.

by exDM69

12/12/2025 at 11:59:25 AM

I guess the only solution then is to already have people in places where it counts. I would suspect military bases have more than enough people. But then again the drones can just fly too high, at which point it becomes a cost/benefit tradeoff, or futuristic laser weapons.

by zelphirkalt

12/12/2025 at 12:25:53 PM

Anything involving people on the ground is just too slow.

It takes radars, interceptor drones, sensor networks, etc. Stuff like this is in active development but not widely deployed yet.

by exDM69

12/12/2025 at 10:01:57 AM

> any nutcase in the US with access to a shotgun

It's actually not easy to shoot down a drone with a gun if it takes any measure to evade interception. It's not like shooting ducks taking off from a lake.

That said, last week the French navy did shoot at drones around the Île Longue nuclear submarine base, but as far as I understand just one drone came within close enough range to be targeted by radio jammers (which means maybe a few hundred meters at sea) and either it went away on its own or sunk but it apparently wasn't retrieved. It's very unlikely they could shoot it down with conventional firearms.

by seszett

12/12/2025 at 9:42:32 AM

How would you 'shoot them down' over densely populated areas without endangering civilians, genius?

In reality it's a bit more complicated, e.g. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/germany-a...

Also it's not like the US did any better when their airports and military bases had those massive drone sightings a little while back, except in that case it wasn't the Russians but "aliens" (lol).

by flohofwoe

12/12/2025 at 9:43:36 AM

The Dutch military fired on drones. However, they are all over Europe and generally not shot down for various reasons. First, shooting at them can be very dangerous. Debris and whatever is used to shoot at them (usually bullets) can hit civilians. Second, the laws tend to not allow military and police to shoot at drones that don't pose an immediate threat to life. A new police law has been passed in Germany to fix this issue, but it was only passed very recently. I suspect other countries have similar legal issues that first need to be fixed.

by jonathanstrange

12/12/2025 at 10:51:50 AM

The solution is only obvious if you're naive and/or don't know what you're talking about. They can't reliably shut down drones in active war zones with complete disregard for any kind of safety and you think we could do this in populated areas ?

Do you realise some drones can fly hundreds of meter above the site, even a few kilometres ? Do you realise that what you send up must come down eventually ? Do you realise that you need to send massive amount of projectiles to take down an object that size ? Do you think you're smarter than everyone on the ground and in the command chain ? If shotguns were the solution you'd see much more videos of them being used on the front line, but they're only sporadically used, and from videos circulating online you can clearly see they're barely better than useless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mORdXxZ2uKU

by lm28469

12/12/2025 at 7:36:00 PM

For short range, a shotgun with birdshot is pretty safe. The pellets aren't going to have much velocity on the way down to do any harm.

For longer range, there are a lot of options, but an interceptor drone is probably pretty good. You do have to worry about the drone pieces hitting something, most drones aren't that heavy but I would not want to be hit by one.

Still this is much safer than firing explosive shells.

by cameldrv

12/12/2025 at 9:16:41 PM

The reality doesn't match all these armchair specialists takes on HN though. Neither Russia nor Ukraine can defend their critical infrastructure... and they're all in, at war, with 0 regards for safety and side effects.

What happens if you interceptors locks in on the plane behind the drone, of falls down on the school behind the naval base ? Planes are shot down all the time, even military planes by friendly fire. I even doubt European countries have legal ways to start shooting down aircrafts during peace time

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1p9scu3/turk...

by lm28469

12/13/2025 at 1:09:44 AM

I guess I'm talking about drone defense in more of a "Coast Guard" scenario than a "Navy" one. If there is some mass drone swarm coming at your cities you probably want to take a Navy approach and shoot them down by whatever means necessary.

In the case we're talking about though, the Russians are just able to fly their drones over European countries with impunity. Now these may not yet be armed, but you can't just let another country violate your sovereignty. If a drone is operating very close to a commercial aircraft, or there's a good chance of collateral damage, you may choose not to shoot it down, but you do need to demonstrate that you have some defense and that there's a good chance that they will be shot down.

by cameldrv

12/12/2025 at 11:41:09 AM

I have seen videos of shotguns working on the frontline. Recently, there even circulated a video showing a super lucky one shot hit. However, what those videos have in common is, that they are targeting drones maybe 100m or at most 300m away. Obviously, the further away the drone, the more difficult it will be to align the barrel sufficiently precise to hit anything.

by zelphirkalt

12/12/2025 at 11:44:30 AM

Shutting down a drone with a machine gun is difficult, there are lot of videos where you can see it. There is even video of a Russian-Iranian drone destroying a car with a machine gun which cannot even protect itself. What is efficient against drones, are Soviet ground-air missiles (which might be dangerous to use around airports), and interceptor drones (which Europe doesn't have). Jamming the radio/GPS probably won't help because drones have antennas on top which form a simple phased array, to ignore the signal from the ground. Drones might also use mobile networks, and there were reports that Russia used Starlink antennas on some drones.

by codedokode

12/12/2025 at 10:42:56 AM

> Are any of those drones being shot down?

Of course not. Because reasons. Because it's illegal to shot drones. Because let's not provoke putin. Because they pose no threat. Because the debris can hit civilians. russians will continue observing military installations with full impunity.

by egorfine

12/12/2025 at 10:51:44 AM

... and Russians will find new reasons not to shoot their drones, which they will happily share with EU residents via social networks. They are the masters of excuses.

by yetihehe

12/12/2025 at 9:50:02 AM

[flagged]

by mytailorisrich

12/12/2025 at 11:27:39 AM

So you have an invader trying their best (which is luckily not much) to grab a neighbor's land, just at your border, and you call that "murky and overblown"? Sorry this is not the Facebook grandmas knitting group giving likes to a carrot horse, we refuse to accept such bs.

by soco

12/12/2025 at 11:44:00 AM

That's a strawman argument reply...

The "Russian scare" in Europe is not about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, that's just the premise, it is the narrative that the EU (and Western Europe at large) is next to be invaded and that we should be ready for WWIII against Russia.

> trying their best (which is luckily not much)

I think you've just proven my point.

by mytailorisrich

12/13/2025 at 2:32:55 AM

Russia hasn't stopped invading their neighbors ever since the fall of the soviet union. To state they will stop doing so while Putin is in power is either naive or on purpose to propel some agenda.

by spookie

12/13/2025 at 10:16:35 AM

That's both a logical fallacy and a strawman argument, not to mention an ad hominem attack. I did not claim that Russia would stop anything and even if Russia did attack several neighbours it is irrelevant. Reasoning and trying to see through the haze is not "having an agenda".

My claim is that Russia is not going to invade or start a war with the EU/NATO/Western Europe (and that, consequentially the "Russia scare" is mostly fearmongering). I don't think that they ever had a plan to, but in any case their campaign in Ukraine has shown that they don't have the capability.

by mytailorisrich

12/13/2025 at 10:58:44 PM

> I did not claim that Russia would stop anything and even if Russia did attack several neighbours it is irrelevant. (...) My claim is that Russia is not going to invade or start a war with the EU/NATO/Western Europe (and that, consequentially the "Russia scare" is mostly fearmongering). I don't think that they ever had a plan to, but in any case their campaign in Ukraine has shown that they don't have the capability.

The only thing that matters is that they have invaded several neighbors over the last few decades. Failing to accomplish their goals hasn't stopped them. Just look at how divided Georgia is, or how the first Chechen war went.

Also, within the context of "fearmongering" you state, the fear is that they wouldn't stop in Ukraine. Yes, you are trying to say Russia will stop, that they won't invade anyone else. But history shows otherwise. That is why I did state above "The only thing that matters is that they have to invaded several neighbors... ".

> Reasoning and trying to see through the haze is not "having an agenda".

I applaud you trying to see through the fog, but I fear you are overcomplicating things and being naive at the same time. Not necessarily having an agenda.

by spookie

12/14/2025 at 8:04:07 AM

> The only thing that matters is that they have invaded several neighbors over the last few decades.

Obviously that's not the only thing that matters...

> you are trying to say Russia will stop, that they won't invade anyone else

Another strawman. I never claimed that.

by mytailorisrich

12/14/2025 at 3:19:48 PM

Look, I'm talking from the point of view that Russia will continue to invade others within Europe unless they're stopped. Which is, from what I gathered until now, your fearmongering scenario. I think my responses will make a lot more sense like that.

Maybe the difficulty in conveying thoughts into text struck again. I don't know. I haven't been trying to be malicious or distort your take, really. As I see it we have just been talking past each-other. Perhaps my fault.

Were you saying all this time they won't stop in Ukraine itself? Agreed, if that's the case.

> Obviously that's not the only thing that matters...

Of course it's not all that matters, I have just exaggerated it in an attempt to convey how much their past actions paint that picture. That they will continue doing the same even if absurd. Again, not that clear.

by spookie

12/14/2025 at 11:37:10 PM

Sometimes you have just to give up participating in internet arguments when you notice the other keeps trying to gaslight you. Yeah whether I'm a good debater or not, one fact is there's a cyber war now _declared_ against Europe, a real war against the Ukraine, and there's also a history of wars against every one of their neighbors, so the fear is totally justified even when pure logic might say correlation is not causality and other ivory tower nonsense. So thank you for your arguments, but I'm sure they fall on deaf ears - whether willingly so or not I don't really care.

by soco

12/12/2025 at 9:22:55 AM

[flagged]

by derelicta

12/12/2025 at 9:27:05 AM

Thank you for your service.

by sonorous_sub

12/12/2025 at 9:53:55 AM

Try giving Ukraine more drones, maybe that will fix your problem.

by otabdeveloper4

12/12/2025 at 9:21:53 AM

Of course the Russians will do this we helped Ukrainians attack the Russian nuclear fleet with drones they are most definitely organising some payback actions.

Be glad stuff isn't exploding yet, we are at war with Russia. Did people expect no damage would happen inside Europe?

by dragonelite

12/12/2025 at 10:45:56 AM

Unfortunately this is not going to make a dent in the current policies. First of all, russia surveying military bases with drones, really? What else is new? Second, currently there is no way to shoot drones in EU due to variety of bullshit legal reasons.

So this article will change nothing. russia will continue blocking airports and EU won't do anything about it.

by egorfine

12/12/2025 at 12:06:18 PM

In headlines today

>EU set to indefinitely freeze Russian assets

https://www.rte.ie/news/europe/2025/1212/1548621-eu-russia/

You don't have to respond to provocations in a simplistic way that doesn't really effect the enemy

Shooting the drones would probably have Russia laugh and send twice as many next time. Financial actions can help. Blocading their oil might finish things.

by tim333

12/12/2025 at 12:09:03 PM

And this is precisely what EU is known for. Deliberating for years and coming up with an empty inconsequential legislation instead of, you know, actions.

This legislation does not make any difference nor to putin nor to the russia in general.

Drones will continue flying over NATO bases with full impunity.

by egorfine

12/12/2025 at 11:00:18 AM

Germany has passed legislation to permit the police and I believe the Bundeswehr to shoot down or disable unauthorised drones.

Denmark is also (I believe) looking into this.

I suspect that over the next year more and more EU countries will follow suit.

by codeduck

12/12/2025 at 12:02:55 PM

There could be years between looking into it and passing a legislation. There could be years between passing a legislation and actually shooting drones. It's EU, we won't do shit until the comprehensive environmental impact study is finished.

But we are slowly waking up.

by egorfine

12/12/2025 at 10:50:19 AM

> currently there is no way to shoot drones in EU due to variety of bullshit legal reasons

Citation?

by davedx

12/12/2025 at 10:51:53 AM

Literally any news media in the EU in the last 4 weeks. Drone sightings everywhere, action equals none.

by littlecranky67

12/12/2025 at 10:52:00 AM

Statistics! Nobody took any action during hundreds of drone incidents in many countries.

by lnsru

12/12/2025 at 10:54:27 AM

bullshit citation reasons

by blitzar

12/12/2025 at 8:55:46 AM

This just shows how amateurish the German state apparatus is when it comes to things like this. Maybe they're playing a game one level deeper and show them only what they want the Russians to see or see it as inevitable, I don't know. But I don't have high trust in our defense.

by RamblingCTO

12/12/2025 at 11:41:07 AM

This is not just a German topic (several NATO countries had drone sightings) but a NATO topic. And probably also a US topic (some 'alien' activity recently).

And you are forgetting that there are still US troops in Germany. The US is not some passive bystander in this conflict but a very active part of the decision process here. And given that some of those military installations probably have US military in them, it's very much a topic that concerns them.

I don't think anyone believes an attack is imminent. But that kind of intelligence gathering is a pretty serious breach of security.

This weakness is a NATO wide problem and you can't ignore the role of the US in this apparent weakness. It's apparently pushing for de-escalation rather than further escalation. I think we'd know of Trump felt strongly about this. He'd be tweeting about this. His silence on this is suggestive.

by jillesvangurp

12/12/2025 at 9:18:38 AM

From the article:

---

European intelligence services assess the three documented ships as operating “with high confidence“ on behalf of Russian interests. Their movement profiles are “very conspicuous” and show “little evidence of commercial activity.”

---

...of course they know, but for whatever reason they didn't find a smoking gun so far (e.g. drones on the ships or drones taking off/landing) - or maybe they did but keep it to themselves.

> Official inspections were “symbolic”—not all containers opened

...this might to be the core of the problem.

by flohofwoe

12/12/2025 at 9:58:26 AM

> or maybe they did but keep it to themselves.

Yes agree. There is no incentive that intelligence services would communicate their findings, in fact it's the opposite lol

by roflmaostc

12/12/2025 at 10:05:01 AM

Of course European countries' intelligence and military know about this.

The question we should ask ourselves is why they let it happen... My take is that the "Russian scare" serves the EU's agenda. You'll notice how European leaders and the EU are stroking fear at every opportunity.

by mytailorisrich

12/12/2025 at 10:15:58 AM

Eh, no matter what is done about the drones there would be people who complain about 'fear- and war-mongering', and most likely it would be the exact same people who now complain that the government is 'letting this happen' ;)

Imagine the German military would shoot those drones down over Germany, the self-proclaimed 'pacifists' would be all about 'escalation', 'war-mongering' and 'militarization'. There are clear and very restrictive rules what the military and police are allowed and not allowed to do in cilivized countries, and those restrictions are in general a good thing and shouldn't be changed on a whim.

by flohofwoe

12/12/2025 at 10:24:43 AM

> the self-proclaimed 'pacifists' would be all about 'escalation', 'war-mongering' and 'militarization'.

They have a right to protest and the government is free to ignore them and do its job. This is not a serious argument and the kip about "civilized countries" is ridiculous, frankly.

Drones don't fly from Russia. They are launched more locally. The vessels mentioned in this article could be taken over by special forces today if the neighbouring governments decided to. So again why don't they? I can't find any sensible answer to that apart from "because they are useful".

by mytailorisrich

12/12/2025 at 10:53:27 AM

I don't know if they can seize those vessels - I'm no maritime law expert, but just to give you an idea how tricky the legal topic can become once a vessel is seized:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-court-blocks-...

We're now basically stuck with an old Russian shadow-fleet rust-bucket anchored at our coast which we cannot get rid of.

by flohofwoe

12/12/2025 at 11:00:35 AM

Of course they can. This is military in international waters, you can do what you want and worry about being sued by whomever later (good luck with that). The French special forces took over an oil tanker and brought it to France no later than October [1].

Again, trying to find too many excuses why it is not possible usually indicates that in reality they don't want to for whatever reasons (alreayd mentioned my theory). Or ask the French to do it as they seem to at least have a working defense chain of command...

Generally, whatever happens, or not happens, in those situations has been decided, and we should never take any public narratives at face value.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2j1gynjddo

by mytailorisrich

12/12/2025 at 12:25:56 PM

How trustworthy is a medium/ substance article versus a reputable newspaper?

by pacifika

12/12/2025 at 9:17:36 AM

These young journos are legends.

by shermozle

12/12/2025 at 10:03:26 AM

Neat.

Amazes me that the Russians always seem to have the capacity for this sort of, I can't think of a clean word, let's inadequately say gamesmanship. When I'd have thought they have enough on their plate in Ukraine.

by cs02rm0

12/12/2025 at 2:11:41 PM

They have a strange attitude to the world and have had government funded people dedicated to attacking much of the world for decades. See this book review:

>“This must be the essence of our greatness. . . enemies everywhere” (p.20). The central thesis of Russia’s War on Everybody is that the Kremlin defines its enemies sweepingly, such that only a fraction of these “enemies” consider Russia to be their enemy. As Giles documents, “the Kremlin’s daily business” includes what some in the West would consider “acts of war” – poisoning dissidents, shooting down planes, election meddling, cyberattacks, and blatant political assassinations. Giles describes the Kremlin’s zero-sum worldview, in which anything benefitting others is a threat to Russia, and demonstrates that the Kremlin’s ambitions are far broader, and its methods more pervasive, than most realise. https://www.e-ir.info/2025/11/18/review-russias-war-on-every...

by tim333

12/12/2025 at 11:12:48 AM

Anything necessary to keep up the sharades and appearance. He likes to play in the league of the big. Let's see for how long, until more cracks start showing up.

by zelphirkalt

12/12/2025 at 10:34:17 AM

Good job! OSINT rules. And regarding drones, surely any state actor may be doing this, however doing surveillance by drones over military bases is just so noob. That just points out they don't have a capacity to do reconnaissance with satellites, or they are doing something completely different. Probably making sure the target knows someone is watching, saying "We know where you have your sensitive spots".

by secult

12/12/2025 at 11:59:38 AM

They don't need satellites, they can surveil us close up with £200 drones and we don't do anything about it. It's like the story about the astronaut and the pencil.

by adammarples

12/12/2025 at 9:48:37 AM

I don't read every news source internationally however I always wonder just how often UK, German, US linked vessels, drones, etc are found within close proximity of Russia/China/Iran and how often they get reported.

by ktallett

12/12/2025 at 9:56:53 AM

If the same thing would happen to Russia you can be sure that Medvedev and Peskov would whine about it for months, including the occasional nuclear annihilation threat towards the 'collective West'.

by flohofwoe

12/12/2025 at 10:02:33 AM

Authoritarian regimes don’t act aggressively because they’re provoked; they act aggressively because projecting power and testing limits is part of how they survive internally. History is full of cases where no meaningful provocation existed at all.

Nazi Germany didn’t need Allied ships near its coast to invade Poland. Saddam Hussein didn’t need US aircraft nearby to invade Kuwait. Argentina didn’t need British naval pressure to seize the Falklands. Russia didn’t need NATO forces near Kyiv to annex Crimea in 2014 or launch a full invasion in 2022.

Tyrannies tend to frame any foreign presence as “provocation” after the fact, because it’s politically useful at home. Liberal democracies publish their movements precisely because they operate under scrutiny; authoritarian states act first and justify later.

Proximity makes for a convenient narrative, not a causal explanation.

by Protostome

12/12/2025 at 10:43:54 AM

When I think of liberal democracies, I am thinking of places like Estonia, I am not including the current US, UK, and Germany in liberal democracies, Considering the current state in every single one and the recent cases for spying on their own citizens illegally I sincerely doubt they are publishing openly.

by ktallett

12/12/2025 at 10:45:08 AM

Unfortunately Dutch MP Geert Wilders from PVV and German AfD are acting like Putin's puppet.

Both are still defending the action of Russia and blaming the EU and NATO for the Russian aggression.

by juliusceasar

12/12/2025 at 10:54:57 AM

Even after Malaysia_Airlines Flight 17 [1]?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

by sam_lowry_

12/12/2025 at 11:44:50 AM

Wilders received a Russia-Netherlands friendship pin, and posted the picture of him posing with it (in the Duma, IIRC) on this twitter account on Mar 1, 2018.

by tgv

12/12/2025 at 10:57:09 AM

It is at least 50% NATOs fault. Mexico and Canada are democratic and sovereign nations, but if either would decide to allow chinese or russian military bases to be built in their country, you can safely asume the US would not hesitate to brake international laws and take military actions on those sovereign countries. NATO expanded closer and closer to russias border, and you can't just expect for Russia to be okay with that, just as the US wouldn't be okay with that.

by littlecranky67

12/12/2025 at 11:14:45 AM

NATO didn't expand, those countries DECIDED to join. Why? Because they have lived under the cruelty of Russian aggression.

Just like countries DECIDE to join the EU and not the Warshaw pact.

But, I see that Russian propaganda is doing its job.

by juliusceasar

12/12/2025 at 12:17:10 PM

My point is, Mexico and Canada could DECIDE to become allies of China and Russia. And then you would see the very same, how the US doesn't give a s** about their free decisions and invades.

by littlecranky67

12/12/2025 at 12:33:28 PM

Cuba once wanted to partner with USSR in hosting nuclear missiles (purely for defense purposes; you cannot invade with a missile) and US cared very much about it.

by codedokode

12/12/2025 at 3:42:02 PM

... cared only about the nukes. Conventional weapons remained in Cuba, and the USSR continued supplying them until the end in 1991. In 1978, for example, the USSR gave Cuba the newest MIG-27 fighter jets, and the United States did nothing about it, which proves the opposite of what Kremlin trolls are trying to argue.

The USSR's support for Cuba went far beyond anything any NATO member has seen since the end of the Cold War, yet there was no war against Cuba.

by mopsi

12/13/2025 at 1:24:50 AM

Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Türkiye all host U.S. nuclear weapons.

Incidentally, US nukes in Turkey in 1960s was the starting point of the Cuban missile crisis.

https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_arsenals

by D_Alex

12/12/2025 at 5:13:31 PM

At that time the US hat nukes that could be shot at Cuba, too. Hipocracy again...

by littlecranky67

12/12/2025 at 5:37:11 PM

Yes, but nukes were removed from Cuba and that was the end of the military confrontation. Conventional weapons like fighter jets, air defense missiles, tanks, etc still remained and were upgraded over time.

Meanwhile, Central and Eastern Europe has seen no deployment of even conventional weapons beyond purely symbolic gestures like a few thousand lightly armed soldiers scattered across a region of more than 100 million people.

If Cuba is the blueprint, then NATO allies could arm Eastern Europe to the teeth.

by mopsi

12/12/2025 at 5:14:51 PM

Russia's war and invasion of Ukraine have brought NATO along more Russian border with new voluntary NATO members. And Russia claims it doesn't care about that/it isn't an issue.

You're argument is just a way to work backwards from the outcome Russia wants, not a reality.

Russia has said it is about Russian speakers. Russia has said it is about nazis. Russia will say anything to try to validate their war.

by _DeadFred_

12/12/2025 at 2:19:33 PM

I'd go 25% NATOs fault. You'll note Ukraine didn't apply to join NATO, was not invited to join NATO so Russia saw it as easy game and invaded.

A problem with the west is they persuaded Ukraine to give up its nukes in return for a bit of paper saying the west would help protect it and then when push came to shove they were wimpy about it.

by tim333

12/12/2025 at 11:14:57 AM

For decades the West, and Germany in particular, tried to turn Russia from an enemy into a trading partner and eventually an ally. Naive, in hindsight? Sure thing. But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s absolutely no reason for Russia to be enemies with the West other than Putin’s imperialist ambitions.

by skrebbel

12/12/2025 at 11:59:55 AM

US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev (The Guardian, Nov2004) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

Do you think fomenting revolution in Russia's near-abroad sphere of influence was helpful or harmful for turning Russia into an ally?

by CapricornNoble

12/12/2025 at 12:38:10 PM

The linked article is long on opinion, short on facts. The content does not support the headline. This is likely part of a Russian influence campaign (they did not start yesterday), aimed at de-legitimizing the protest movement and denying that Ukrainian citizens had any agency.

Besides, did you know that the Kuchma government sent Ukrainian soldiers to Afghanistan and Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_involvement_in_the_I...)? Why would the US government want to overthrow a sympathetic regime?

by af78

12/12/2025 at 5:00:10 PM

Are you suggesting that the Russians were using __ The Guardian __ as part of an influence campaign....in 2004? That's an extraordinary claim, for which you present no supporting evidence while blasting the article for being "short on facts". Pot, kettle, black. Here's Radio Free Europe on the subject:

https://www.rferl.org/a/1058543.html it specifically calls out amounts paid to organizations in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine via the National Endowment for Democracy, which is funded via Congress and the State Department.

>Besides, did you know that the Kuchma government sent Ukrainian soldiers to Afghanistan and Iraq

Yes, I know that. I bring it up anytime somebody says "Ukraine never invaded anybody!"

> Why would the US government want to overthrow a sympathetic regime?

To replace a sympathetic leader they DON'T control with an even more sympathetic leader they DO control. Wresting control of the political apparatus in a state often outlasts any singular "elected" Executive.

by CapricornNoble

12/12/2025 at 6:19:04 PM

> Are you suggesting that the Russians were using __ The Guardian __ as part of an influence campaign....in 2004?

Definitely! Because they did the exact same thing in France, where I lived at that time, and probably other countries. I remember op-eds in French newspapers, Russia-friendly politicians on TV with the same talking points.

My wife and I go married on Oct 31st, 2004, the day of the first round of this election. These are things I can't forget, like her voting in Kyiv in her wedding dress.

Thinking the US ambassador could gather crowds of hundreds of thousands during long winter weeks all by himself, even with a few million USD is ridiculous, especially when you know the country. This is not at all how it works.

There was massive fraud during the second round, evidence of it was abundant, election monitors and independent organizations like OSCE witnessed it.

Yushchenko, controlled by the US government? There is no indication of that. And when his term ended, power was transferred peacefully to Yanukovych.

Ukrainians are educated people and just like anywhere else do not like to be told what to do from abroad, be it from Washington or Moscow. Now that the US government sides with that of Russia and Ukrainians continue to resist the pressure, it is even more obvious that these narratives were completely false.

by af78

12/13/2025 at 3:10:04 AM

We can debate the scale/scope/impact of the US's influence campaigns, but the outcomes are clear: they definitely contributed to souring US-Russian relations.

Here's why I consider this whole issue important, and it has very little to do with self-determination in Ukraine:

China is the greatest adversary the US has ever faced. Greater than the Soviet Union, IMO. We will need help from every major nation on the planet if we really intend to remain the hegemonic superpower. We had a narrow window circa 1999-2007 where we could have integrated an Authoritarian Russia into a security and economic framework that would put China in a vulnerable strategic position. We failed because we went full-bore on the ideological "Liberal democracy uber alles!" agenda, which was doomed to fail in Russia and has now wasted the monumental accomplishment of the Sino-Soviet Split. The Eurasian landmass is now dominated by China-Russia-Iran, three powers with internal lines of communication. Read Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard, and what we've done is exactly how to LOSE the game.

https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/36/36669B789... Potentially, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an "antihegemonic" coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances. It would be reminiscent in scale and scope of the challenge once posed by the Sino-Soviet bloc, though this time China would likely be the leader and Russia the follower. Averting this contingency, however remote it may be, will require a display of U.S. geostrategic skill on the western, eastern, and southern perimeters of Eurasia simultaneously.

Well golly-gee-willikers, I daresay we've thoroughly punted that into the stands.

Note that ZBig goes on to prescribe solutions that I heavily disagree with. But he was able to cogently articulate the problem.

by CapricornNoble

12/13/2025 at 11:45:39 AM 

  > We had a narrow window circa 1999-2007 where we could have integrated an Authoritarian Russia into a security and economic framework that would put China in a vulnerable strategic position.
Says who?

Top Russian diplomats, starting with some of the former foreign ministers themselves, maintain that the disintegration of Russian democracy is the fault of the former KGB and military power structures, which enjoyed privileged positions in the Soviet system. They were sidelined when the USSR fell apart, but by the mid-1990s, had crawled back and consolidated enough power to begin wiping out all other competition, from political parties to the free press.

If any blame lies with external actors, they say, it is for failing to support and pressure Russia enough to develop into a modern European state. Instead, the US and the EU continued to butter the KGB-military faction well into the 2010s, doing their best to ignore war crimes, human rights abuses, attacks on political freedoms, the suppression of political rights, and the outright murder of political opponents.

There was no "narrow window" in 1999-2007. The window for keeping Russia on a path toward becoming a normal European state closed around 1995. 1999 marks the year Putin rose to the highest levels of government, and by that point the outcome was pretty much decided. By spring 2000, Putin had openly raided and taken over NTV, the last major independent television channel in Russia. In 2002, the powers of the security services were expanded and notorious "extremism" laws were adopted, which have been used to suppress everything from opposition parties to NGOs. In 2003, Putin took over oil and gas company Yukos and arrested and imprisoned its owner, the richest man in Russia, Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

By the end of 2003, Russia had no independent national media, no effective parliamentary opposition, and instead had laws enabling repression under legal cover and security services embedded in political governance. Property rights, even for the richest and most influential people in the country, had become conditional on loyalty to Putin.

Russian democrats, who had lost their influence by the mid-1990s, could have become partners of the US and EU, but the KGB-military elite - never. Even suggesting this signals an absolute lack of understanding of who they are and where they come from. For them, challenging the US and expanding Russia through coercion and war to the full territorial extent of the former Eastern Bloc is the endgame. They don't give two shits about China. They want a return to the privileged heyday of the KGB-military elites in the 1970s, when Europe was divided by the Iron Curtain and the USSR was believed to be an equal to the US. This is the "normal state of the world" of his youth that Putin desperately wants to return to.

Antagonism toward the US lies at their very core, and no amount of buttering will change that. The possibility of cooperation is merely an illusion they sell you to blind you to the next move they make against you.

by mopsi

12/13/2025 at 3:55:36 PM

>There was no "narrow window" in 1999-2007. The window for keeping Russia on a path toward becoming a normal European state closed around 1995.

Expecting Russia to ever become a "normal European state" is the main mistake. My entire point is to accept that Russia is authoritarian. Consider the examples of Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan, especially Egypt: nobody preaches liberal democracy as the solution to getting Egypt to do what we want. Instead we came to an understanding with the military elite, who we've essentially bribed (via foreign aid and other ways) to keep a lid on their population and avoid direct conflict with Israel. Figure out what the KGB-military elite want, and give it to them in exchange for a shift in their security posture. The Soviet dinosaurs want to suck the Baltic states dry? Go for it....but we want them to step up their mobilization exercises in Siberia for the next decade. And we want them to start doing joint US-Russian nuclear submarine patrols in the East China Sea. Otherwise we can't be friends....and the last time we weren't friends, it didn't end well for Russia. More carrot, less stick...but still some stick.

If it gets us one step closer to Russia's nuclear arsenal (the largest in the world with the most capable ICBMs) possibly pointing at Chinese cities instead of the West, it's worth it. The price might include "fluffing the Russian national ego". Instead US think-tankers and statesmen have done their best to trample on it....with predictable results.

One of the best opportunities for improving US-Russian relations was 9/11 and especially the 2004 Beslan school attack: there was recognition of a mutual problem of "Islamic terrorism", and coordinating to fight it was a part of thawing the adversarial relationship between the security apparatuses of the two powers. Read the joint statement from Bush and Putin from 2002:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/joint-declaration-...

then read this piece by F William Engdahl from 2006, skip to the section on US nuclear primacy:

https://apjjf.org/f-william-engdahl/2256/article

then finally read Putin's speech from the 2007 Munich Security Conference (which is when the window for improving relations closed):

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034

> For them, challenging the US and expanding Russia through coercion and war to the full territorial extent of the former Eastern Bloc is the endgame.

The former Eastern Bloc should have been Finlandized: economic intermediaries between Russia and Western Europe, with just enough domestic military capability to discourage Russian hard power, but no actual US military alliance integration to keep the Russians from getting jittery either.

> They don't give two shits about China.

Which is why after the Sino-Soviet split Russia and the Soviet Union before it always kept high-readiness divisions on the Chinese border. The Russians know that China isn't really their friend. Russia is a European country, they shouldn't be bosom buddies with the Far East.

> They want a return to the privileged heyday of the KGB-military elites in the 1970s

They were on that path, printing money selling natgas and oil to Europe.

> Antagonism toward the US lies at their very core, and no amount of buttering will change that. The possibility of cooperation is merely an illusion they sell you to blind you to the next move they make against you.

The Russians didn't unilaterally pull out of the ABM Treaty in 2002, the US did. Then we went and followed that up by announcing we wanted ABM sites on Russia's doorstep to protect Europe from "errant Iranian nuclear missiles" which was obvious bullshit.

https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/americas-abm...

Look, I understand that everyone in Eastern Europe has a well-earned eternal hatred of the Russians since you are barely a generation removed from their oppression, but do you guys not notice all the ridiculous antagonistic shit we Americans do that is entirely optional?

by CapricornNoble

12/14/2025 at 12:35:30 AM 

  > Expecting Russia to ever become a "normal European state" is the main mistake. My entire point is to accept that Russia is authoritarian.
This is exactly the mistake that the US and the EU made: treating Russia not as an ordinary European country from which respect for human rights, free elections and other political, social, and economic rights should be expected, but as a special country entitled to do more than others. The KGB-military circles have ruthlessly exploited this naivety to destroy Russian democracy. They are happy to play uncivilized savages if that means that the US and EU give them freer rein to plunder and subjugate their neighbors and beyond.

  > Figure out what the KGB-military elite want, and give it to them in exchange for a shift in their security posture.
In their wildest dreams, they want total world domination, to assume the role of the Third Rome and the shining beacon of the entire humanity. In practical terms, this means Central and Eastern Europe directly incorporated into Russia and the entire Western Europe turned into anti-American pawns, like East Germany was and Belarus currently is. The Middle East would be divided with Iran, and Asia with China, leaving countries like the Philippines and Australia for China to take over, while others like Japan are turned anti-American through subversion. In the US, they want to fuel instability and separatism through ethnic, social and racial conflicts to keep Americans busy with holding their country together while Russia rules the world.

Dugin's "Foundations of Geopolitics" from 1997 sums the Russian attitude very well and much of that has already been put into action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

In short, they want you dead. They want an endless "Los Angeles '92" across the entire US while the Russian kleptocrats plunder the world. The bare minimum they are openly demanding now with ultimatums like the one presented in 2021 is a return to Europe as it was in 1989, half of Europe victimized, the other half terrified that they will be next.

  > The former Eastern Bloc should have been Finlandized: economic intermediaries between Russia and Western Europe, with just enough domestic military capability to discourage Russian hard power, but no actual US military alliance integration to keep the Russians from getting jittery either.
... because neutrality worked so well in the 1930s, and for Belarus and Ukraine in the present day as well? Neutrality allowed Germany and the USSR to pick off their neighbors one by one without fear of a broader response. It has enabled Russia to do the same in the present era, minimizing the risks it faces when attacking a country. Essentially, it all boils down to the fact that your mental image of Russia is wrong. You believe they are scared of their European neighbors and focus on appeasing Russia by castrating their neighbors, whereas Russia is playing up its security concerns solely to shape the battlefield in its favor for its expansionist ambitions.

  > Then we went and followed that up by announcing we wanted ABM sites on Russia's doorstep to protect Europe from "errant Iranian nuclear missiles" which was obvious bullshit.
The problem that Russians had with the US ABM site in Romania was due to deepening US-Romanian defense cooperation which reduces Russia's opportunities to turn Romania into another puppet state like Belarus at the very least, not because the site posed any danger to Russia. The Romanian ABM site lies on the direct flight path between Iran and large US military bases in Germany and makes perfect sense that the US would want to have an ABM site there. The missiles at the Romanian site are unable to reach Russian missile launching sites, nor are they on their flight path.

Examples like this clearly show that you have been consuming Russian propaganda without pulling out a globe and a measuring tape to check whether there is any actual credibility to the prepackaged narratives.

by mopsi

12/14/2025 at 1:43:04 AM

> In the US, they want to fuel instability and separatism through ethnic, social and racial conflicts to keep Americans busy with holding their country together while Russia rules the world.

If they want it they can have it. Not that Russia makes enough babies to have the manpower necessary to achieve their megalomaniac dreams. Most Americans are quite isolationist; I rate Woodrow Wilson as the worst US President ever because he violated the Monroe Doctrine and dragged us into Europe's problems...which still costs us blood and treasure a century later. We have the advantage of geography: two gigantic oceans protect us East/West, a frozen forest wasteland to the North, and a stretch of desert to the South. Our homeland is unassailable by conventional means (especially if we keep our Navy well-funded) and we can also sit behind our nuclear arsenal.

>Asia would be divided with China, with countries like the Philippines and Australia left for China to invade and take over

This is a good indication someone isn't a serious thinker and is likely stuck in a WW2-ish mental framework when populations were much smaller and it was easier to "paint the map". Nobody in their right mind would genuinely attempt to invade the Philippines in the 21st century, with its population over 100 million and a history of violent insurgencies. The juice isn't worth the squeeze.

I'm familiar with the basics of Dugin's ideology but I haven't read his work yet. As I understand it, all the English translations are unofficial but I suppose they are better than waiting for a formal one.

>Arguments like this clearly show that you have been consuming Russian propaganda without pulling out a globe and a ruler to check whether there is any actual credibility to the prepackaged narratives.

I would challenge you to do the same. Not once in this discussion have you made any critical analysis of the US's actions, statements, or motivations. NOT. ONCE.

>The Romanian ABM sites lies on the direct flight path between Iran and large US military bases in Germany and makes perfect sence that the US would want to have ABM site there. The missiles at the Romanian site are unable to reach Russian missile launching sites, nor are they on their flight path.

So ABMs in Romania make perfect sense to you based on a forecast future threat of Iranian nukes (which they don't have) on Iranian missiles with ranges of 3,000km+ (which they didn't have at the time). This was a proactive, preventative measure for the US.

ABM sites in Romania could also, forecasting into the future, be home to hypersonic missiles which could engage Russian launch sites with little or no warning and completely destabilize their MAD capability. Very similar to when we stuck missiles on their doorstep in Turkey in the 1960s....ya know, that stupidly provocative decision that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis? That is a far bigger security concern for Russia than the destruction of bases in Germany is for the US. So applying your logic for justifying the US action, why shouldn't the Russians ALSO take proactive, preventative measures against that?

Here's a simple sanity check:

Does the US have legitimate national security concerns? Does Germany have legitimate national security concerns? Does Romania have legitimate national security concerns? Does Russia have legitimate national security concerns?

If your answer to the first three is "Yes" and your answer to the fourth is "No", you probably think everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian propagandist.

by CapricornNoble

12/14/2025 at 2:44:15 AM 

  > Our homeland is unassailable by conventional means (especially if we keep our Navy well-funded) and we can also sit behind our nuclear arsenal.
Unless you intend to nuke the White House, the nuclear arsenal remains entirely useless against the political subversion that Russia has very successfully used to destabilize and isolate the US. The official US envoy was recently caught advising Russians on how to manipulate the US president. Who needs tanks and missiles when you have reach like this? Without a single bullet being fired at the US, the sitting president is rolling out red carpets for Putin and praising him as genius while verbally attacking the Canadian prime minister and openly undermining Canada's sovereignty.

  > I would challenge you to do the same. Not once in this discussion have you made any critical analysis of the US's actions, statements, or motivations. NOT. ONCE.
My entire initial reply was a criticism of the US and EU naivety in thinking that buttering the KGB-military circles could lead to long-term positive outcomes, an idea you seemed to share. Overall, when it comes to Russia's relations with its European neighbors, the US is simply not an important factor. It is a question of sovereignty, enlightenment and other European values versus Russian imperialism, which is focused on finding ways to suppress them both at home and abroad. The people of Europe want to mind their own business, but Russia will not leave them alone. For 80 years, the US was a partner in this. Nowadays not so much, but the long-standing confrontation continues nevertheless.

  > ABM sites in Romania could also, forecasting into the future, be home to hypersonic missiles which could engage Russian launch sites with little or no warning and completely destabilize their MAD capability.
Russian ICBMs are primarily in the Urals, Siberia and the Far East, many thousands of kilometers from Romania. Not even hypersonic missiles would pose a threat. The danger from such sites is political in nature: closer US-Romanian defense cooperation directly threatens Russian ambitions in Romania, because the US would then be more likely to assist Romania if it comes under Russian political, economic or military attack.

  > Does the US have legitimate national security concerns? Does Germany have legitimate national security concerns? Does Romania have legitimate national security concerns? Does Russia have legitimate national security concerns?
Yes, yes, yes, yes. But focusing on Russia's overplayed "security concerns," when Russia has been the main aggressor in the region for centuries, is out of balance and unjustified. It is like writing about fire safety by centering the narrative on the inconvenience suffered by the arsonist.

by mopsi

12/13/2025 at 10:09:40 AM

I am now convinced that Russian complaints about supposed US influence campaigns, “NATO expansion” etc. were never sincere. Russia has conducted info-ops in the West forever, during the Cold War and after. If there's an expansionist power here in Europe, it's Russia. Liberal democracy stands in its way so it's no wonder Russia fights against it in every way, both at home and abroad. Authoritarian regimes are notorious for using grievances, real or made-up, to justify their authoritarian rule and hostile actions toward other countries. Nazi Germany: Versailles treaty, supposed oppression of Germans in Sudetenland; Hungary: Trianon treaty; Serbia: Ottoman rule; China: opium wars. I could go on but the last example is interesting: Russia took land from China in the 19th century, yet China only talks about the actions of Western nations. Which shows IMO that these grievances are a mere tool to advance geopolitical interests and should not be taken too seriously. Many moves were made to bring Russia and West closer: Russian leaders showed repeatedly by their actions that they were not interested.

There is not shortage of narratives Russian propagandists disseminate via influencers or useful idiots, tuned for the appropriate audience. You identify as a pacifist? Russia is a peaceful nation, it's its adversaries that are the warmongers! (Don't ask how Russia became so large.) You oppose colonialism? Russia stands against US hegemony, demands a multi-polar world! (In reality Russia behaves as a colonial empire and has a long history of oppression of the nations it has conquered.) You identify as a conservative? Russia is the main defender of order and traditional Christian values! (Well, the Russian Orthodox Church is just an arm of the state security services; church attendance is low; crime and divorce rates are high; Russia has no problem with Islamic regimes like the Taliban, Iran, Hamas or Kadyrov's Chechnya.)

I do not deny the threat China poses and that the way the West approached globalization was naive. Indeed, China has close ties with regimes of Russia, Iran and North Korea. Given this reality, what I don't understand is the policies of the current US administration. China is churning out missiles, warships etc. at an alarming rate, yet the US reduces military spending. China's reach via TikTok is growing yet the US administration does next to nothing about it. The US sided with Russia and North Korea on UN votes about Ukraine (https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/02/1160456). Trump antagonizes traditional EU allies, except those with authoritarian tendencies like Orban's Hungary. On the other hand, he has only kind words for Putin, Xi, Kim; his only complaint seems to be that he's not a member of their club.

by af78

12/13/2025 at 4:31:47 PM

> Trump antagonizes traditional EU allies, except those with authoritarian tendencies like Orban's Hungary.

Trump in his first term warned Europe about sucking on the teet of Russian natgas, and those "traditional allies" laughed in his face. He told Europe to meet its NATO treaty obligations and increase military spending, and they dragged their feet.

Now Europe's industry is struggling under substantially-increased energy input costs, and has been caught flat-footed with its armories empty while trying to subsidize the largest land conflict on the continent since WW2. An economic and quasi-military bloc with 500+ million people is begging 350 million people on another continent to protect them from a mere 140 million drunk & corrupt Russians.

....and you don't understand why Trump, who has a fragile ego and is well-known for holding grudges, is antagonistic to the feckless idiot empty-suit bureaucrats who manage Europe? He's a thin-skinned bully and now he's gonna walk all over Europe to do whatever is most advantageous (in his perception) for the US....but it's only possible because European leadership is just as weak as he thinks it is.

Plus he's trying to dump The Ukraine Problem in their lap because the US doesn't really have the capacity to square off against China and manage...well, possibly ANY other additional conflict. If our actions to counter China don't make any sense or seem incongruent, that's because most of the administration is simply too incompetent to get the results needed, even if they understand the nature and scope of the problem.

by CapricornNoble

12/13/2025 at 9:04:01 PM

European leaders are far from blameless. I fully agree European countries should have weaned themselves from Russian gas and ramped up military spending much sooner. Meanwhile for a long time the US retained control of NATO military structures in Europe. And recently Trump granted a waiver allowing Hungary to continue importing Russian oil. And there is talk from the US about reviving Nordstream, that both Trump and Biden harshly (and fairly IMO) criticized.

Trump being thin-skinned does not explain much. The latest strategy document where the US administration explicitly says it will do its utmost to bring far-right parties to power in Europe goes far beyond that. It's clearly not just Trump. And again, it definitely does not help keep friends to face China. Neither does twisting Ukraine's arm to accept a disastrous deal in exchange for vague promises of riches for Trump and his clan. History shows appeasing an aggressor invites more aggression. Russia's partner, China, is watching, will sense weakness and draw conclusions neither Europe nor America will like.

by af78

12/12/2025 at 12:19:15 PM

To be fair, in 90s-10s the West invaded multiple Soviet and Russian allies (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, as an example) using weakness of Russian economy an inability to help the allies at the time. That was not a friendly act. USSR withdrew from Eastern Germany in the end of 80s as a gesture of good will in hope to improve the relations, but it was never reciprocated.

by codedokode

12/12/2025 at 4:00:16 PM 

  > To be fair, in 90s-10s the West invaded multiple Soviet and Russian allies (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, as an example) using weakness of Russian economy an inability to help the allies at the time.
The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars lasted only a few months, killed fewer people than the Serbs executed on some of their most productive single weekends, and brought a definitive end to a decade of civil wars. Please explain how this is negative and what reason Russians have to bitch about it all the time.

If anything, the intervention should have taken place far sooner. Many, many civilian lives could have been saved while NATO allies spent years merely watching people in Europe being murdered for their ethnic background.

  >  USSR withdrew from Eastern Germany in the end of 80s as a gesture of good will in hope to improve the relations, but it was never reciprocated.
Gesture of goodwill, gimme a break. The USSR ran out of money and ceased to exist entirely (1991) before the last Soviet forces left Germany (1994).

by mopsi

12/12/2025 at 11:35:16 AM

So what? Everyone acts in to further their interests. NATO expands because it's in NATO's interest to do so. Russia says that this expansion is not in Russia's interest. Why only say the Russian part and leave out the NATO part?

Furthermore, if having an interest in something gives the right to use military power to achieve that interest then the argument applies to everyone.

The point about foreign bases in Canada or Mexico gets repeated a lot online, but what is the ultimate point? The USA would not like it, but it's also not a political reality. On the other hand a NATO build out IS a political reality.

So I think rather than focusing purely on what one country wishes it's better to analyze things in terms of what the political realities are and which is better.

In that sense NATO is meant to be a deterrence. Russia doesn't like that. If you ask yourself whose vision of the future is better then the answer is clear. A world of where rule of law is the norm and invasions are deterred is preferable. There has been tremendous peace and prosperity in the EU because of NATO and people have just gotten used to it. They have taken for granted the cost and sacrifice that this peace came from.

However, simply saying that Russia has an interest in not having NATO on their border is almost tautological. Of course they don't want that, but so what. Peace only works if it's enforceable.

by asimpletune

12/12/2025 at 12:23:42 PM

> The point about foreign bases in Canada or Mexico gets repeated a lot online, but what is the ultimate point? The USA would not like it, but it's also not a political reality.

The point is, that the US would do actually the very same as russia, and break international law. And regarding political reality, this already happened in history with the Cuba crisis. The point is actually, that the west uses a moral highground to condemn russias aggression, while it would be doing the very same. It falls in the "rules for thee but not for me" category. And if you hold somebody accountable on standards that would you wouldn't be able to hold up for yourself, your are - by definition - a hipocrite.

by littlecranky67

12/12/2025 at 1:02:17 PM

Hypocrisy? I said each side acts in their interest: NATO and Russia. My point was only to ask whose interest would readers on HN prefer prevail?

It's a simple question. Do we want to live in a world where Russia achieves their strategic goals or do we prefer to live in a world where NATO achieves their strategic goals?

NATO expansion doesn't happen illegally. It's completely voluntary. It's a defensive alliance meant as a deterrence. And countries in NATO all enjoy much higher standards of living than non-NATO countries. NATO countries all have laws to protect their citizens and they enjoy peace from invasion.

I get that Russia doesn't want that. But my point was so what? I never really denied that issue. Everybody is acting in their best interest. It's just that NATOs interests and values are also the same as my own.

There's no hypocrisy here. There's just a good and bad guy in this case. I don't see the problem here.

by asimpletune

12/12/2025 at 1:30:06 PM

The problem is you thinking you are the good guy, while it humbles oneself realizing you are just as bad as the next person.

by littlecranky67

12/12/2025 at 1:37:38 PM

> The problem is you thinking you are the good guy

No, the problem is the bad guy the Eastern European countries all want protection from.

I just choose to believe them when they've tried to warn the west about how bad Russia really is.

by asimpletune

12/12/2025 at 11:56:52 AM

>NATO expands because it's in NATO's interest to do so.

I highly recommend reading the 1997 US Senate debate about NATO expansion. There were a number of experienced statesmen who vehemently disagreed that NATO expansion was in NATO's interest.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46832/html/C...

> A world of where rule of law is the norm and invasions are deterred is preferable.

Except we don't have that world. From Iraq in 2003 to especially the NATO air campaign in Libya in 2011, we've long since demonstrated that there are no rules, and invasions have no consequences.

by CapricornNoble

12/12/2025 at 1:08:02 PM

> There were a number of experienced statesmen who vehemently disagreed that NATO expansion was in NATO's interest.

That's fine and they're lucky to live in a country where they can express any new they wish. Maybe they're right or maybe they're wrong, who knows?!

> From Iraq in 2003 to especially the NATO air campaign in Libya in 2011...

The west is still the preferable choice to support despite these mistakes.

by asimpletune

12/12/2025 at 11:26:21 AM

And yet when Finland actually joined NATO, Russia said they had no problem with that. Something doesn't add up in your story - and it happens to be the same story told by Russian trolls and useful idiots.

by discreteevent

12/12/2025 at 9:22:24 AM

[flagged]

by derelicta

12/12/2025 at 9:33:02 AM

[flagged]

by paganel

12/12/2025 at 9:41:33 AM

I don't know, the solution to that seems fairly simple, no?

Russia withdraws to pre-2014 borders.

by TheChaplain

12/12/2025 at 10:17:01 AM

[flagged]

by GuestFAUniverse

12/12/2025 at 10:28:05 AM

There is a massive anti-western infiltration operation being driven by Russia and it's allies, like Iran, Qatar and China. The biggest tragedy of the Russia-Russia hoax of Trumps first term is that people have become numb to something which was not really happening, but now is happening at an unprecedented scale.

I can only really speak for the media in Norway, but they spend almost no time covering this anymore and instead just print partisan American political things as if we are the 51st state and also a deep blue state. The media in Western Europe needs to stop acting like this, and start focusing on Europe and our challenges.

Just another example of the total insanity of Western Europe is that there is some expectation that USA will defend Europe when the majority of people in almost every single western European country has no interest in defending themselves. People expect US to send troops when there is no political support in any western European country to send troops. I love Europe, it's my home, but that is also why I don't think it's helpful to ignore the truth. Europe is the sick and dying man of the world. We need to turn this around.

by flanked-evergl

12/12/2025 at 2:31:01 PM

The "Russia-Russia hoax" wasn't that hoaxy. Form Wikipedia on the Muller report:

>The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion", and was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. It also identifies multiple links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

I guess the US people just decided they were ok with a Russian backed president?

Europe is the sick and dying man is maybe overstating things. They've been understandably a bit anti-war following the centuries of war culminating in WW2.

by tim333

12/14/2025 at 4:09:41 PM

I guess the Europeans have to ask themselves if they are okay being entirely useless and always crying to daddy USA when the Russians push their shit in while also crying that daddy USA is not kind enough to them. It's honestly pathetic and I don't want this anymore.

We either need to squash Russia like the toxic vermin it is, or accept that we are too useless to even do that.

by flanked-evergl

12/12/2025 at 9:38:46 AM

A lot of these drone scares remind me of UFO flaps. There was one over London Gatwick not long ago and no one ever managed to photograph the thing as far as I can remember.

I'm sure NATO has drone swarms all over Russian bases right now, but that's the bit they miss. Part of a long tradition of trying out each other's defences.

by nephihaha

12/12/2025 at 10:57:00 AM

> I'm sure NATO has drone swarms all over Russian bases right now

I'm pretty sure NATO doesnt have drone swarms all over Russian territory right now.

by blitzar

12/12/2025 at 8:30:25 PM

NATO has been buzzing the borders of Russia all my lifetime with aircraft erc and beyond (Gary Powers anyone?) I doubt they ever stopped and have moved onto drones by now.

Even in Cold War Berlin each side tried to test out the limits of the other although the Red Army was allowed into a couple of places in West Berlin by agreement like a war memorial.

by nephihaha

12/12/2025 at 12:30:26 PM

They don't even fly close to Russia in the Black Sea, I think, after an expensive US spy drone was involuntarily landed into the sea.

by codedokode

12/12/2025 at 1:29:57 PM

I would hazard a guess the last time a NATO member flew missions over Russia was when a miision went bad in 1960.

by blitzar

12/12/2025 at 8:34:01 PM

Both sides have been chancing their arm most of my lifetime. We get reports of Russian planes and ships round here all the time. The west does it to them as well... and it is no secret that British and American folk have been involved in the Ukrainian conflict. It allows both militaries to justify their spending so it is mutually beneficial as well as being brinkmanship.

by nephihaha

12/12/2025 at 10:30:52 AM

NATO has satellites and spies. Why would they need to use drones?

Russia OTOH has an aging fleet of spy satellites, and drones serve to intimidate as much as gather intelligence.

by sam_lowry_

12/12/2025 at 11:03:17 AM

Does NATO have satellites, or do the Americans? With the recent threats to the ICC and more and more American politicians turning against NATO, it's getting quite hard to take American NATO membership seriously.

However, I doubt the drones are part of any kind of spying operation. They're trivially detectable, have limited range, and I very much doubt these journalists found anything that European intelligence agencies haven't found already. If the Russians want to map out European bases, they can just look at the data leaked by Fitbit/Strava and "data broker" companies.

Instead, I firmly believe this is a power move intended to spread fear. They're saying "look at what we're capable of", and _maybe_ measuring anti-drone response strategies, but any competent military wouldn't let themselves get baited into showing their hand too much. The Dutch army has stated that there's no need to panic and that the anti drone measures we currently have is perfectly capable of taking action if necessary.

Russia showing off their capabilities is hardly news, either. Russia likes taunting its enemies by flying fighter jets and sending nuclear subs through shipping channels. The same way America likes to send war ships through shipping lanes in Asia, and during the cold war by flying spy planes awfully close to borders.

by jeroenhd

12/12/2025 at 11:41:14 AM

NATO doesnt use small cheap drones. Why would they?

The only reason iran and russia do is because theyre too broke to stack mq9 reapers.

by Xss3

12/12/2025 at 8:47:26 PM

Drone swarms are seen as a more cost efficient way of gathering intel than one or two larger ones. Not all the drones reported are cheap according to some reports and may have been perceived as UFOs by civilians.

I take the point about satellites. That is completely valid. However, one thing military industrial complexes are good at is creating jobs and gobbling up money. Russia's is no different from the west's in that regard.

There is evidence China does this too.

by nephihaha

12/12/2025 at 12:28:20 PM

If you can take out the target using less resources, how is this bad? If a drone cost as much as 1/100 of an air defense missile, it means that you can have more drones than your enemy has missiles given the equal budget.

by codedokode

12/12/2025 at 3:42:03 PM

The f35, the growler, awacs, etc. Mean there will be nowhere close enough to launch low cost fpvs against the west in a war. Air dominance is what we do.

Look what happened to iran and all their air defences when f35s showed up lol.

So then youre left with shahed style drones that have range but are still fairly slow, loud, lack good guidance in jammed environments and will be shot down easily.

So you put better guidance on them so they dont need satellite connections and make them stealthy...oh wait now its just a regular ass cruise missile.

by Xss3

12/13/2025 at 6:45:13 PM

> Mean there will be nowhere close enough to launch low cost fpvs against the west in a war

Electric power plants, arsenals and bridges cannot fly like F35 though.

by codedokode

12/14/2025 at 3:36:30 PM

No point in responding to you, you have no clue what a modern LSCO looks like. itd be nothing like Ukraine.

by Xss3