In recent discussions about the escalating tensions between Europe and Russia, particularly among political figures in Germany and the Baltic States, there’s an alarming trend. Despite their evident military weaknesses, these leaders seem eager to engage more deeply in conflicts. Ironically, they’ve been fueling these tensions by supporting Ukraine with funding, arms, and other forms of assistance. This raises troubling questions about whether official narratives truly reflect reality, especially in light of the potential for fabricated events to justify aggressive actions.
By Andrew Korybko, an American political analyst based in Moscow. He specializes in the transition to a multipolar world during the New Cold War and holds a PhD from MGIMO, affiliated with the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published on his website.
The Leipzig incident aimed to justify Germany’s shift towards a wartime economy, distract from its domestic challenges, and legitimize anticipated escalations against Russia.
Germany has accused Russia of involvement in a recent event in Leipzig, wherein drones laden with explosives were discovered near Ukrainian cargo aircraft. One drone reportedly struck a plane during landing but did not detonate, while another was located close to the airport’s premises. In response, Putin denounced these claims, suggesting it was a false flag operation aimed at diverting attention from domestic issues by instigating fears about Russia.
While some may dismiss these concerns, the Leipzig incident bears the characteristics of a manufactured narrative. For one, Germany’s portrayal of Russian incompetence seems exaggerated. The public is expected to accept that adept drone operators, executing a potentially historic Hybrid War operation, would simply leave a drone on the runway and get unlucky with another. This narrative is hard to swallow.
Additionally, it’s worth recalling a similar occurrence last fall when unknown drones forced major airports in Scandinavia to suspend operations temporarily. Zelensky blamed Russia without providing evidence, which set a precedent for attributing unforeseen drone incidents in Europe to Russia as a means of justifying further escalations.
Although Zelensky’s suggestions for escalating actions did not materialize—likely to evade a direct NATO-Russian conflict—something may arise from the Leipzig incident. A recent analysis argued that NATO might perceive more benefit in escalating tensions with Russia than in maintaining the status quo. This could revive summer’s faltered drone campaign against Russia in an attempt to undermine its industrial and military capabilities, potentially occurring next year.
It’s critical to note that Germany, now Ukraine’s second-largest military supporter after the US, has entered into an agreement to fortify Ukraine’s deep-strike capabilities. As Germany shifts towards a wartime economy, it aims to build Europe’s strongest military by 2039, coinciding with predictions of a potential war with Russia around 2030. However, this militarization is unpopular among voters, necessitating justification through events like the Leipzig incident.
To summarize, the recent drone scare incident in Scandinavia served as an ominous pretext for blaming Russia for future occurrences without proof. The narrative suggesting Russian incompetence is, at best, dubious but is being pushed to legitimize Germany’s military preparations, distract from domestic issues, and rationalize expected escalations against Russia.
Future escalations might mirror past failed tactics against Russia, risking a crossing of dangerous thresholds, particularly regarding nuclear doctrine. Ultimately, it may serve everyone’s interests for Germany to pursue a path of de-escalation, just as Scandinavian nations ultimately did.
