Mysterious drones in the Nordic skies: Russia, Ukraine… or NATO?

In recent months, the skies over Scandinavia have seen suspicious drone strikes near airports and military installations. These aren't destructive attacks: no damage, no casualties, no claims of responsibility. Just sudden closures of civilian airports, dramatic headlines, and a growing sense of vulnerability.

Governments' reaction was immediate: they strengthened surveillance systems and reiterated that the "Russian threat" remains the only plausible explanation. But can we really be satisfied with this version? Or, as often happens, does the ambiguity conceal a much more sophisticated strategic calculation?

The art of ambiguity

Drones that appear and disappear without a trace represent the paradigm of modern warfare: low-cost tools capable of producing enormous political impact without physically hitting the target. The lack of attribution becomes a weapon in itself: if the culprit is unknown, any actor can exploit the incident to their advantage.

It's happened before: from the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipeline—hastily blamed on Moscow without concrete evidence—to the mysterious covert operations in the Middle East. The dynamic is always the same: generate panic, polarize public opinion, and justify new military spending. Or, more simply, establish an "official version" that becomes the legal and political basis for pre-planned decisions, while the public—increasingly skeptical—stands by and helpslessly watches.

But there's more. The so-called "mysterious drones" observed in the Nordic skies were equipped with lights, a detail that suggests civilian drones, not military aircraft designed for stealth. Furthermore, it's completely implausible that such devices could have flown undisturbed over NATO territory, departing from Russia or Ukraine, only to appear directly over Scandinavian airports. Added to this is a final anomaly: there is no visual evidence. No photographs, no video footage, no downing.

The suspects: Russia, Ukraine, or… NATO itself?

Russia. It's the first accused, as always. It could use drones to probe air defenses or send a warning signal: "If you continue to militarize your skies, we might actually hit you." However, for Moscow, this would be a poorly calculated risk: once proven responsible, NATO would have a pretext to escalate the conflict.

Ukraine. Less mentioned in the media, but technically much more plausible. Kiev now produces hundreds of thousands of drones per month, some with flight ranges of up to 800 km. Symbolically striking the northern skies, perhaps launching drones from NATO territory, is perfectly within its reach. Why would it do so? To maintain the perception of the Russian threat and pressure its allies not to reduce their military support.

NATO. This is where things get tricky. Some members, like the United Kingdom, have a long tradition of covert operations and are closely integrated into the Ukrainian drone programs. Creating an incident without real damage but with a strong psychological impact is an effective way to consolidate the alliance and reinforce the official narrative.

Why airports?

The choice of airports is no accident. They are dual-use infrastructures, both civilian and military. Closing them, even for a few hours, generates panic, disruption, and sensational headlines. It's the perfect way to send the message: "You're not safe even in your most protected spaces."

The context: silent escalation

It's not just about drones. In parallel, several Nordic countries have announced the purchase of long-range strike weapons, marking a qualitative leap in their military posture: from defense to preemptive offensive. From Russia's perspective, this is a direct provocation. In this scenario, incidents like drone strikes become useful in fueling the "necessary defense" narrative, paving the way for further escalation.

A false flag?

When an operation leaves more questions than answers, the possibility of a false flag becomes inevitable. Creating a controlled incident, blaming it on the enemy, and using it as a political pretext is a technique as old as war itself.

In light of recent international meetings—such as the one between Zelensky and Trump, which gave the green light to strike Russia in depth—it is not unreasonable to think that these "unmanned attacks" serve to build consensus for the next qualitative leap in the conflict.

An unspoken message

The drones flying over Nordic airports aren't just technological curiosities. They're part of a strategy of ambiguity, where silence and lack of evidence become political weapons more powerful than a missile.

Whoever is responsible—Russia, Ukraine, or the NATO apparatus—the result is always the same: more fear, more military spending, further distance from any prospect of peace.

The real message, then, is not what is stated, but what remains unsaid. And it's up to us, independent observers, to ask who benefits from this uncertainty.

***

Europe: From the Dream of Peace to the Silent Preparation for War

Von der Leyen: "Shooting down Russian fighters is an option."