In September, news feeds were filled with reports of unidentified drones appearing over Europe. They were seen over military installations in Denmark, Norway, and Germany, over a hydroelectric power station in Finland, and over Vilnius Airport. [1-4]
At the same time, cyberattacks on critical civilian infrastructure have increased in frequency. For example, on September 19, disruptions at several European airports were caused by an attack on Collins Aerospace, the company that operates passenger check-in and boarding systems. [5] German pilots reported hundreds of cases of GPS failures and glitches, which the country's authorities considered a "threat to the safe operation of civil aviation." [6]
What is most perplexing is the fact that the intelligence services of the affected countries have failed to identify the source of the threat, and the armed forces have not even attempted to shoot down the drones.
To understand the reasons for such astonishing helplessness, it is necessary to determine the goals of what is happening and the circle of its possible beneficiaries.
THE GOAL IS TO DRAW NATO INTO A WAR WITH RUSSIA
European military specialists and NATO experts make no secret of the fact that the main goal of such provocations is to escalate the conflict with Russia:
The Baltic region is becoming a key area amid the escalating standoff between Russia and Europe. Moscow is using hybrid attacks in the region, from military aircraft flights to drones. NATO and Eastern European countries are increasingly leaning toward a military solution to "any border violations." Russia warns that such actions will lead to war. [7-9]
The experts, however, presented neither the results of their investigations into the incidents nor even a single downed drone as evidence. Nevertheless, they confidently place responsibility for the events on Russia.
RUSSIA AND THE EU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN CONFLICT
However, as Politico magazine notes, the EU leadership is not interested in a military clash with Russia:
"This more dangerous phase of European politics is strewn with potential disasters. Privately, government officials have expressed worries about the prospect of a 'Franz Ferdinand moment,' where a sudden escalation threatens to drag the continent into conflict, like the 1914 assassination of the archduke that triggered World War I." [10a]
For its part, Russia also does not seek war with NATO, as confirmed by the head of the British Armed Forces, Admiral Tony Radakin:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin doesn't really want a conflict with NATO because in that scenario Russia would quickly lose." [11,12]
Exhausted by the protracted conflict on the Ukrainian front, Moscow is objectively not interested in a new confrontation with an adversary that significantly outperforms it in both the economic and military spheres.
THE BRITISH RULING CLASS AND THE UKRAINIAN LEADERSHIP AS BENEFICIARIES OF THE WIDENING CONFLICT
Who needs a new war in Europe?
I'd venture to suggest that the main interested party is Great Britain, whose leadership thwarted peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul in the spring of 2022. [13-16]
In November 2024, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, in an interview with the Daily Telegraph, effectively admitted that London was waging a war with Russia through proxies - Ukraine. [17]
In September 2025, The Guardian published an interview with former MI5 chief Eliza Manningham-Buller, which demonstrates London's interest in escalating the confrontation between the West and Russia:
"Britain may already be at war with Russia because of the depth and intensity of cyber-attacks, sabotage and other hostile activity orchestrated by Moscow against the UK, according to a former head of MI5.
Eliza Manningham-Buller, who led the domestic spy agency two decades ago, said she agreed with comments made by the Russia expert Fiona Hill, who argued in a Guardian interview earlier this year that Moscow was at war with the west.
'I think she may be right in saying we're already at war with Russia. It's a different sort of war, but the hostility, the cyber-attacks, the physical attacks, the intelligence work is extensive,' she said." [18,19]
The second party interested in NATO's direct involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is the Zelenskyy administration. Seeking to retain power, the president's office has effectively turned Ukraine into a proxy force for Britain and is demonstrating a willingness to wage war ad infinitum.
This convergence of interests led to the formation of a British-Ukrainian alliance. On September 17, the Verkhovna Rada ratified the 100-year partnership agreement with the United Kingdom. The document covers cooperation in security and defense, maritime affairs, economics, energy, justice (including international justice), as well as in the fight against disinformation, and other areas. [19]
For London, the new war presents an opportunity to lead Europe, becoming a leading supplier of military technology. This is confirmed by the words of British Defence Secretary John Healey:
"The British-Ukrainian drones developed under Project Octopus will be deployed along NATO's eastern flank as part of a "drone wall." We, along with our NATO allies, stand ready to demonstrate to Putin that his aggression and incursions-whether reckless or deliberate-will be challenged." [20,21]
CONCLUSION
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, Evgeny Gilbo predicted its spread to Eastern and Central European countries. He believed the conflict could end either along the "Yalta Line" or the Polish-German border - and that Great Britain would play a key role in this development. [22,23,24] At first, his prediction evoked incredulous smiles. Today, no one is smiling anymore.
Map of the division of Europe along the Yalta Line
Gilbo explains the logic of British strategy and its view of Russia's inevitability in advancing into Europe:
"Britain's goal is to prolong the military conflict in Ukraine as much as possible. British military analysts believe that Russia will sooner or later come to Europe. It's not intentions that matter here, but capabilities, as Churchill taught.
If you remove the American military presence from Eastern Europe, a power vacuum will emerge there that England will not be able to fill. This vacuum will lead to destabilization and inevitably draw Russia into the region.
How exactly Russia will be drawn into the region is not the main thing now. The main thing is that it is inevitable. Geography predetermine movement. Russia will move west, and England's task is to make sure that it moves as slowly as possible, with maximum losses. The more Russia wears out, the sooner it will stop. The weaker Russia becomes, the further east the border between Russia's and England's spheres of influence will be. There are many possible scenarios here." [25]
Thus, London needs to expand the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in order to exploit the Russian military threat to force EU countries to recognize Britain's leading military and political role. In return, London promises them protection.
Essentially, this is about Britain's desire to transform Western Europe into its own economic zone. Russia, preferably weakened, is needed as a constant source of threat, making European states more compliant.
In other words, Russia's final defeat is not in the plans at all. Perhaps both Putin and Zelensky are deliberately playing into the British strategy by stubbornly refusing to end the war.
We are witnessing an attempt to revive the Cold War model, but with a key difference: now the Western bloc is to be led not by America, but by Britain. Whether London has the resources for such an ambitious task remains to be seen.
