AP (“Germany blames Russia for last month’s attempted drone attack at Leipzig airport“):
The German government on Tuesday blamed Russia for an attempted attack at Leipzig/Halle Airport last month using a drone laden with explosives, and announced that it would shut down a Russian consulate among other measures.
The drone was found near a Ukrainian plane on Aug. 4 and the device was defused. German officials said at the time that the incident posed a new level of danger.
Moscow has been widely accused by Western officials of running a campaign of sabotage and disruption with the aim of undermining support for Ukraine and destabilizing European nations.
German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said authorities found elements such as the drone configuration, components, explosives and detonator that are “known to us from other Russian hybrid operations and its war against Ukraine.” He said the device pointed to “a high degree of technical expertise” and painstaking planning, but carrying out the plan appears to have been left to “low-level” agents.
Dobrindt told reporters that intelligence points to “people being involved who acted on behalf of Russian state entities,” though he didn’t specify which ones. “Taken together, the police investigations, the pattern and intelligence findings prove a Russian responsibility for the attempted attack at Leipzig airport.”
AP (“EU’s Kallas calls alleged Russian drone plot ‘state sponsored terrorism’ as Europe mulls a response“):
The European Union’s top diplomat said Wednesday that an attempted attack on a German airport blamed on Russia appears to be “state sponsored terrorism,” as EU countries weighed their response.
The German government on Tuesday blamed Russia for the attempted attack at Leipzig/Halle Airport on Aug. 4 using a drone laden with explosives and announced it would shut down a Russian consulate among other measures.
The drone was found near a Ukrainian cargo plane and the device was defused. The airport is a major international freight hub and is used for providing support to Ukraine. German officials said at the time that the incident posed a new level of danger.
“It is clear that it has all the hallmarks of state sponsored terrorism. The question is: what do we do about this?” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas told reporters before chairing a meeting of the bloc’s defense ministers in Ireland.
[…]
Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed Berlin’s allegations, instead claiming that Germany’s government wants to distract from its own failings and dissatisfaction among voters with “the need to counter an aggressive Russia.” He said that any proof being offered “has been planted.”
The EU had already been planning to impose sanctions on more people over Russia’s war on Ukraine and has “in the pipeline 1,600 listings for the military complex of Russia, and maybe there are more to be added,” Kallas said.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said the failed attack was part of “a long-term plan led by the Kremlin to destabilize the European Union, its democratic processes, but obviously also its support for Ukraine.”
Barrot said France has summoned Russia’s envoy in Paris to “protest strongly.”
“We won’t allow an act of such gravity without consequences,” he said, adding that France wants to impose more sanctions on shadow fleet ships illicitly transporting oil to fuel the Kremlin’s war on Ukraine.
The nature of the attempted attack and its attribution to Russia appear to warrant a new approach from the EU and perhaps NATO, but the member nations remain cautious about being dragged into open conflict with the nuclear armed country.
Whether this is “state sponsored terrorism” really depends on the nature of the attack. If it was simply aimed at a cargo plane transporting materiel to Ukrainian forces, it is a legitimate military target and any incidental loss of civilian life would be collateral damage. If, on the other hand, it was intended to destroy civilian infrastructure to send a political message, it’s terrorism.
Regardless, it represents an escalation in the proxy war with Russia. While we’ve supported—rightly, in my view—Ukraine against Russia’s illegal invasion, supplying intelligence support and ever-more-lethal weapons, we’ve been careful not to directly participate in hostilities against Russia. Until now, Russia has assiduously avoided kinetic attacks into NATO territory, although there have been violations of NATO airspace and some stray shots that have made it across the border into Poland.
A direct attack on a core NATO ally could certainly trigger enforcement action under Article 5. There will be little appetite for a direct war with Russia, but this may result in further lengthening of the leash put on Ukraine’s use of Western assets.
