FACT-CHECK: 144 Russian drone incursions near NATO nuclear bases

Documented drone flights between November 2024 and early 2025

The report states that drone flights took place over Ramstein Air Base in Germany between November 2024 and early 2025. These drones were likely launched from Russian-linked ships, possibly operating from the North Sea or the Baltic Sea, according to IISS data cited by Stars and Stripes.

This point is confirmed with a reasonable degree of certainty, though the report itself uses conditional language regarding the exact launch location.

What the report cannot formally prove

The report does not provide irrefutable ballistic evidence linking each drone to a specifically identified Russian ship. It is an assessment based on open-source information and media reports—a rigorous method, but one that does not amount to formal legal proof.

This distinction does not diminish the report’s credibility, but it must be noted to remain honest about the nature of the available evidence.

I believe we must recognize that a serious strategic assessment is not judicial evidence, without, however, succumbing to paralyzing skepticism. The IISS is not a tabloid, and its work deserves to be taken seriously while respecting its own methodological limitations.

Three separate incursions, one incident involving ten drones

This is the best-documented section of the report. The Volkel base in the Netherlands was targeted on at least three separate occasions in November and December 2025. During one incident, up to ten drones were spotted directly above the site. Security personnel fired at them from the ground but did not hit the drones, and no wreckage was recovered.

This fact is confirmed with sufficient detail to be considered reliable: specific dates, approximate number of drones, and a documented military response. This is the kind of verifiable detail that distinguishes credible information from an amplified rumor.

Why Volkel Changes the Narrative of the Entire Affair

Volkel hosts dual-capable aircraft tasked with delivering U.S. B61-12 bombs under NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements. The report describes this episode as a “highly motivated and deliberate effort to monitor NATO’s nuclear deterrent infrastructure.” This phrasing, taken directly from the report, is the most solid factual core of the entire affair.

This fact alone justifies the serious tone used in media coverage of this story, regardless of the accuracy of the overall figure of 144.

I consider the Volkel case to be the strongest piece of evidence in this dossier, precisely because it is dated, geolocated, and corroborated by a documented military response. It is this kind of verifiable detail—rather than a round number—that should guide our collective judgment on the gravity of this campaign.

What “substantial impunity” really means

The report states that drones have flown with “substantial impunity” through European airspace. This phrase does not mean that no response ever took place. It means that the majority of documented incursions did not result in a successful interception or a formal identification of the aircraft or its operator.

There is a counterexample worth mentioning for the sake of balance: in September, NATO fighter jets shot down a swarm of drones heading toward Poland—an episode marking the first time in history that alliance aircraft opened fire on potential threats in allied airspace.

Verdict: Impunity is real but not absolute

This columnist considers this assertion to be generally true for the period under review, while noting the Polish exception, which proves that a forceful response remains possible when the threat is deemed sufficiently clear and immediate.

This nuance does not diminish the gravity of the overall finding; rather, it clarifies its contours.

I think it’s important to cite the Polish exception—not to downplay the overall finding, but to show that inaction is not a technical inevitability. If NATO was able to act in September in the face of a clearly threatening swarm, the question becomes: why not systematically elsewhere?

“Neither unity nor coherence,” a direct quote

The report states that European governments responded to the Kremlin’s campaign “with neither unity nor coherence,” and that NATO’s official position “exacerbated the inconsistency.” These are direct quotes attributable to the report, not loose interpretations by the press.

This accusation is therefore confirmed in its very wording, making it one of the most factually sound points in the entire document, on par with the Volkel case.

What this accusation does not claim

The report does not claim that every European government deliberately ignored the threat. It points to a lack of structural coordination, which is a different criticism from an accusation of individual negligence on the part of any specific country.

This distinction is useful to avoid turning a systemic critique into a personalized accusation that would go beyond what the document actually asserts.

I want to be clear on this point because the nuance matters morally: criticizing an incoherent system is not the same as accusing a specific country of complicity or willful negligence. The report targets a flawed system, not any particular government, and this distinction deserves to be respected.

The exact origin of each drone remains unclear

Neither this columnist nor even the IISS report, based on the available excerpts, can state with absolute certainty the exact origin of each drone identified. Russia has, moreover, denied its involvement in certain reported incursions, notably in Denmark and Norway.

This uncertainty is an integral part of the documented problem: it is precisely the difficulty of attribution that allows this type of hybrid warfare to thrive without triggering a direct and overt military response.

The exact total of 144 remains a figure that must be verified at the source

This columnist maintains his methodological reservation regarding the specific figure of 144, due to a lack of direct access to the full version of the IISS report that would allow for confirmation of this exact count, incursion by incursion.

This reservation in no way invalidates the overall gravity of the issue, which is largely corroborated by the specific cases of Ramstein and Volkel.

I prefer to acknowledge this limitation rather than claim a certainty I do not have. This is exactly the kind of honesty that this fact-check format requires, even if it means admitting that I cannot verify every single figure down to the last digit.

The Simplified Headline Versus the Nuances of the Report

Several news headlines have cited the figure of 144 incursions as if it were an exact and singular quote from the IISS report, without always specifying that it is a journalistic summary based on several elements of the document. This type of oversimplification, even if unintentional, undermines the credibility of an otherwise solid story.

This fact-check chooses to highlight this risk rather than silently perpetuate it, even if it slightly complicates the interpretation of a figure that, otherwise, seems perfectly round and attention-grabbing.

Why Nuance Does Not Serve Opposing Propaganda

Some might fear that a methodological nuance serves the interests of Russian propaganda by casting doubt on a damning report. This columnist believes the opposite: accurate and verified information withstands challenge better than inflated information that collapses under the first serious critical examination.

It is this conviction that guides this entire fact-check, from the first paragraph to the last.

I firmly believe that accuracy serves the cause it documents—never the other way around. A verified and nuanced figure withstands all attacks; an exaggerated figure always ends up backfiring on those who spread it without properly verifying it.

The overall conclusion of this fact-check

The substance of the allegation made in the IISS report is confirmed: an extensive drone campaign, documented over an eighteen-month period, targeted sensitive sites—including a base linked to NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement—with a European response deemed inconsistent by the institute itself. The specific figure of 144 incursions, however, should be attributed to its media source and treated with the usual caution reserved for statistical summaries.

This does not invalidate the story. It is a necessary clarification to ensure that this serious story retains its full credibility with a discerning readership.

I conclude this fact-check with the conviction that a nuanced truth serves Ukraine and the West better than a sensational figure backed by poor sources. This is the standard I want to apply to every story, even when the temptation to take a sensational shortcut is strong.

Why This Nuance Matters Going Forward

In a context where disinformation circulates on both sides of this conflict, methodological precision is not an academic luxury. It is essential to ensure that legitimate accusations against Russia remain indisputable rather than vulnerable to challenge over a minor numerical detail.

This fact-check therefore confirms the main points of the report, while refusing to succumb to the temptation of using a round number that hasn’t been verified at the source.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist