Dutch newspaper Trouw has found that the wave of recent drone scares across Europe has little to do with Russia.

Drawing on data from the Dronewatch platform, Trouw mapped roughly 60 drone-related incidents in 11 European countries over the past three months.

The picture that emerges: widespread confusion, significant uncertainty, and frequent false alarms. Despite claims made by some officials and experts, there is no hard evidence of Russian involvement in the overwhelming majority of cases.

In about 40 incidents, the source of the sightings remains unclear, or investigators found no proof that drones were present at all. In Oslo, for example, drone reports at the end of September halted air traffic and disrupted travel for thousands of passengers.

Police later determined there was no confirmation that drones had been flying. The same pattern held at Gothenburg Airport in early November, where reports also proved unfounded.

In at least 14 cases, the “drones” turned out to be entirely different objects. In Belgium, small aircraft and helicopters were mistaken for drones, while sightings in South Limburg and the Danish city of Billund were traced to stars. Norwegian police concluded that a suspected drone spotted near a North Sea oil platform was most likely a ship.

In several incidents, the drones were traced to hobbyists or tourists. In Warsaw, where a drone flew over government buildings, police arrested a Ukrainian man and a 17-year-old Belarusian girl. Authorities have found no indication of espionage.

A photograph circulated in the media as alleged evidence of damage from a supposed explosion along a Polish railway line also proved misleading.

According to the Polish outlet Super Express, a train driver passing the Mikołajówka (Mika) station reported irregularities in the tracks to traffic control at 7:39 a.m. An initial inspection

found roughly one meter of track damage, prompting the train to stop. No passengers or crew members were injured.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk later emphasized the gravity of the incident on X, writing:

“The blowing up of the track on the Warsaw–Lublin route is an unprecedented act of sabotage aimed directly at the security of the Polish state and its citizens. This route is also vital for delivering aid to Ukraine. We will track down the perpetrators, whoever they are.”

 However, nothing was “blown up.” Experts note that the damage visible in the photo does not resemble the aftermath of an explosion. For comparison, cutting an I-beam with C-4 produces a highly violent blast. Yet the ballast beneath the broken rail and the sleepers appears undisturbed. The most likely cause was a brittle fracture stemming from metal fatigue. The rail may not have been firmly secured to the sleepers and could have bent under repeated train loads until it finally snapped.

Claims of Russian “hybrid attacks” appear to be overinflated interpretations of routine failures and unrelated incidents. Using such events as justification for “preventive strikes,” whether cyber or otherwise, stretches the definition of defensive action.

According to the alliance’s top military officer, NATO is considering responding more “aggressively” to Russia’s cyberattacks, sabotage operations, and airspace violations.

Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone told the Financial Times that the Western military alliance is weighing whether to step up its response to Moscow’s hybrid warfare.

Some diplomats, particularly from Eastern European member states, have urged NATO to move beyond a purely reactive posture and strike back. Such a response would be easiest in the case of cyberattacks, where many countries possess offensive capabilities, but far more difficult when it comes to sabotage or drone incursions.

Dragone said a “pre-emptive strike” could be viewed as a “defensive action,” but added, “It departs further from our usual way of thinking and acting.”

He continued: “Being more aggressive than our adversary could be an option. [The questions are] the legal framework, the jurisdictional framework, and who would carry it out?”

Admiral Dragone employs what some critics describe as Orwellian language as he appears to advocate for 1,500 NATO-funded posts in his home country.

One problem, however, is that there is little evidence of such “hybrid attacks.”

And in any case, critics ask, what does Admiral Dragone intend to do if Russia chooses to respond?