By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen is investigating a drone disruption at Copenhagen Airport, considering the possibility of Russian involvement due to similar incidents in Norway and airspace violations by Russia in Eastern Europe. Frederiksen noted the incident’s context within current European events, while Russia’s ambassador denied involvement. The article highlights rising tensions between Russia and NATO, including concerns of hybrid warfare and Article 5 of the NATO treaty, though the drones were not shot down due to safety concerns at the airport. Furthermore, recent accusations of Russian airspace violations by Poland and Estonia also contribute to the growing security concerns.
Read the original article here
**Russia Link Possible in ‘Serious Attack’ on NATO’s Denmark**
The possibility of a Russian link to the recent drone activity disrupting Copenhagen airport is a serious matter, as Denmark is a member of NATO. The Danish Prime Minister herself has stated she cannot rule out Russia’s involvement, labeling the situation a “serious attack” on critical infrastructure. This has raised significant concerns regarding potential escalation and hybrid warfare tactics.
The very idea that Russia could be behind such actions isn’t surprising. It’s a pattern of behavior we’ve seen before. The drone incursions are just the latest in a series of provocative moves, hinting at a larger strategy. Some observers feel this could be a calculated effort to test NATO’s resolve, probe for weaknesses, and potentially create opportunities for further destabilization. It’s easy to see how such actions fit a broader context of Russia’s ongoing efforts to challenge the existing international order.
What’s concerning is the potential long-term game Russia may be playing. The actions could be designed to manipulate a NATO member into a direct conflict, potentially leading to a situation where Russia could attack that nation. The aim may be to isolate and weaken a NATO member, making it vulnerable to annexation. The implications are that the myth of Russian military strength could grow. NATO could be weakened in both strength and resolve. The idea is that with a weaker NATO, Russia has more freedom to maneuver.
The fact that the drones appeared to be flown with some skill is a point to consider. This could indicate that they were operated by trained individuals. It’s hard to say what the specific type of drone or what the pilot was doing. But considering the airport’s disruption and the potential for military intelligence gathering, it’s clear that the incident should not be dismissed lightly.
The question of Article 5, NATO’s collective defense clause, naturally arises in this context. However, it’s unlikely this situation will trigger Article 5. But it raises the question of how NATO will respond. A strong response, the ability to convince the Russians that the activity isn’t worth the risk, will be required.
It’s important to remember that Putin’s strategy has often involved disruption and division within Western nations. The goal, as described, appears to be to create chaos, erode public trust, and make united defense against Russian aggression more difficult.
It’s important to consider that this is just a symptom of the overall conflict. As long as Russia’s aggression continues, these provocations will likely continue, regardless of the immediate outcome of a single incident.
The reaction to the attacks matters. Too often, critics say that the West’s response has been inadequate. Russia seems to be testing boundaries and trying to find a weakness. What’s needed is determination that the EU is willing to go as far as it takes to stop Russia’s activity.