. do let me know if this is becoming too spammy a thing to keep posting about
Drones have been seen near military facilities including Denmark's largest, following a series of incidents that caused air disruption earlier this week.
The devices were observed above Karup airbase, among others, forcing it to briefly close its airspace to commercial traffic. Possible sightings were also reported in Germany, Norway and Lithuania.
Some 3,500 people work at Karup airbase, which is home to all of the Danish Armed Forces' helicopters, airspace surveillance and parts of the Danish Defence Command.
.
do let me know if this is becoming too spammy a thing to keep posting about
I think invoking Article 4 is a needless formality when it has already been invoked in response to Russia repeatedly violating NATO airspace. Article 4 might be invoked per situation, rather than...
I think invoking Article 4 is a needless formality when it has already been invoked in response to Russia repeatedly violating NATO airspace. Article 4 might be invoked per situation, rather than per country, in which case they can't invoke Article 4.
What? Please don't take this the wrong way, but way too far-reaching and unwarranted claims like this sound like something straight out of Russian TV. I assume you are not spreading Russian...
This is very strange, and seems to be handing Putin an easy win on the eastern flank. What the larger strategy is I couldn't guess at, but showing NATO as dithering and fractured was a preventable own-goal.
What?
Please don't take this the wrong way, but way too far-reaching and unwarranted claims like this sound like something straight out of Russian TV. I assume you are not spreading Russian talking points intentionally (many Russian bots pretend to be on the Ukrainian side to spread fear and sow disunity); I hope you don't mind that I am going to post the advice of the Finnish president here, the advice I am (imperfectly) trying to follow myself: in times like these, it is important to stay "calm and collected".
But this is not what you were saying. You are moving goalposts and muddying the waters. Let me repeat what you said and what I was reacting to: You present not seeking an Article 4 consultation as...
I don't think it's 'far-reaching' or 'unwarranted' to wish NATO countries had have collaborated on a unified counter UAS strategy and responses in 2022, when the need was obvious. But, as the adage goes, the second best time is now.
leveling very mild criticism at NATO member states' inaction (until now) around a collective response to Russian hybrid tactics is not 'spreading Russian talking points'
But this is not what you were saying. You are moving goalposts and muddying the waters. Let me repeat what you said and what I was reacting to:
The fact that it's not seeking an Article 4 consultation makes it seem out of step with Poland at the time NATO needs to be presenting a united front.
This is very strange, and seems to be handing Putin an easy win on the eastern flank. What the larger strategy is I couldn't guess at, but showing NATO as dithering and fractured was a preventable own-goal.
You present not seeking an Article 4 consultation as a signal of disunity, an easy win for Putin, and showing NATO as dithering and fractured. This is simply untrue. It does not follow. Not seeking one specific action (an Article 4 consultation) does not mean inaction, it does not mean disunity, it does not mean NATO dithering and fractured. By implying it does, you are entering the field of unreality so common in Russian propaganda.
I am not a bot - nor have I been influenced by them.
I think we are all influenced by them. Those who think they are not are the most vulnerable, because influence that is assumed nonexistent is not reflected upon.
I am not accusing you of anything. I specifically said I just think that your claims which they honestly do to me (and I explained why). That does not mean you need to be offended. My best guess...
I am not accusing you of anything. I specifically said
I assume you are not spreading Russian talking points intentionally
I just think that your claims
sound like something straight out of Russian TV
which they honestly do to me (and I explained why). That does not mean you need to be offended. My best guess was that you were matching Russian talking points unintentionally, as can happen to the best of us. Information warfare works, and Russians often succeed in injecting their narratives into our discourse. I was trying to make you consider whether that happened to you. Clearly, I just made you defensive. Let me emphasize - I think it can easily happen to good and smart people that they unwittingly spread false narratives beneficial to Russia. Whether you choose to consider it or rather emit bad karma my way is up to you.
I think that they question of how they're handling the provocation is an open one. Are drones hanging around a response worthy of war? If there was a response in Russia, would we hear about it and...
I think that they question of how they're handling the provocation is an open one. Are drones hanging around a response worthy of war? If there was a response in Russia, would we hear about it and know it was related to this as opposed to another fuel refinery that just happened to have too many people smoking nearby? The responses can be varied, and not all of them will be visible to the public or publicly tied to the provocation.
This one they kept from the public for a while. It happened in the evening but they only announced it the next morning. So you're right there's definitely some of that going on.
not all of them will be visible to the public
This one they kept from the public for a while. It happened in the evening but they only announced it the next morning. So you're right there's definitely some of that going on.
I saw speculation that this could have been a misunderstanding ala new jersey drone sightings, just so people don't take it at 100% credence that drones actually did cause this
I saw speculation that this could have been a misunderstanding ala new jersey drone sightings, just so people don't take it at 100% credence that drones actually did cause this
It was actually drones. Yesterday night again. https://www.forsvaret.dk/da/nyheder/2025/droneobservationer-i-nat/ ETA: and tbh in general I'd trust news outlets + military announcements + ministry...
Speculatively, how are these drones just "appearing" over airports and military bases and etc. Are they flying in unseen, from outside of Denmark? Or are they being launched locally, somewhere...
Speculatively, how are these drones just "appearing" over airports and military bases and etc. Are they flying in unseen, from outside of Denmark? Or are they being launched locally, somewhere near the places they are being spotted?
I've always assumed/understood that countries (or at least, tech/militarily advanced countries) have extensive radar systems constantly monitoring the entirety of their national airspace, and "see" everything that's up there. Why aren't they seeing where the drones are coming from? Are drones too small for radar? Or are they just not reporting this info?
The drones that keep flying into Poland and Romania, the news reports certainly seem to indicate that those countries are seeing them come in on radar, and tracking them the whole time they are in their respective airspaces. Bigger drones? Better radar? Some other difference in circumstances?
.
do let me know if this is becoming too spammy a thing to keep posting about
I think invoking Article 4 is a needless formality when it has already been invoked in response to Russia repeatedly violating NATO airspace. Article 4 might be invoked per situation, rather than per country, in which case they can't invoke Article 4.
What?
Please don't take this the wrong way, but way too far-reaching and unwarranted claims like this sound like something straight out of Russian TV. I assume you are not spreading Russian talking points intentionally (many Russian bots pretend to be on the Ukrainian side to spread fear and sow disunity); I hope you don't mind that I am going to post the advice of the Finnish president here, the advice I am (imperfectly) trying to follow myself: in times like these, it is important to stay "calm and collected".
But this is not what you were saying. You are moving goalposts and muddying the waters. Let me repeat what you said and what I was reacting to:
You present not seeking an Article 4 consultation as a signal of disunity, an easy win for Putin, and showing NATO as dithering and fractured. This is simply untrue. It does not follow. Not seeking one specific action (an Article 4 consultation) does not mean inaction, it does not mean disunity, it does not mean NATO dithering and fractured. By implying it does, you are entering the field of unreality so common in Russian propaganda.
I think we are all influenced by them. Those who think they are not are the most vulnerable, because influence that is assumed nonexistent is not reflected upon.
I am not accusing you of anything. I specifically said
I just think that your claims
which they honestly do to me (and I explained why). That does not mean you need to be offended. My best guess was that you were matching Russian talking points unintentionally, as can happen to the best of us. Information warfare works, and Russians often succeed in injecting their narratives into our discourse. I was trying to make you consider whether that happened to you. Clearly, I just made you defensive. Let me emphasize - I think it can easily happen to good and smart people that they unwittingly spread false narratives beneficial to Russia. Whether you choose to consider it or rather emit bad karma my way is up to you.
I think that they question of how they're handling the provocation is an open one. Are drones hanging around a response worthy of war? If there was a response in Russia, would we hear about it and know it was related to this as opposed to another fuel refinery that just happened to have too many people smoking nearby? The responses can be varied, and not all of them will be visible to the public or publicly tied to the provocation.
This one they kept from the public for a while. It happened in the evening but they only announced it the next morning. So you're right there's definitely some of that going on.
I saw speculation that this could have been a misunderstanding ala new jersey drone sightings, just so people don't take it at 100% credence that drones actually did cause this
It was actually drones. Yesterday night again.
https://www.forsvaret.dk/da/nyheder/2025/droneobservationer-i-nat/
ETA: and tbh in general I'd trust news outlets + military announcements + ministry of defense over some guy on social media.
Speculatively, how are these drones just "appearing" over airports and military bases and etc. Are they flying in unseen, from outside of Denmark? Or are they being launched locally, somewhere near the places they are being spotted?
I've always assumed/understood that countries (or at least, tech/militarily advanced countries) have extensive radar systems constantly monitoring the entirety of their national airspace, and "see" everything that's up there. Why aren't they seeing where the drones are coming from? Are drones too small for radar? Or are they just not reporting this info?
The drones that keep flying into Poland and Romania, the news reports certainly seem to indicate that those countries are seeing them come in on radar, and tracking them the whole time they are in their respective airspaces. Bigger drones? Better radar? Some other difference in circumstances?