UK – Are Russians Behind the Lakenheath Drones?
The i and other UK media outlets are reporting that Julian Lewis, the former Chair of the Defence Select Committee, has indicated that “investigations are ongoing” into the drone incidents at Lakenheath, Fairford, Marham, and Mildenhall from November 2024. He stated there is “credible evidence suggesting potential GRU-linked operatives were near Lakenheath and Mildenhall.”
In a report by Richard Holmes, there’s a detailed account of three individuals connected to the Russian military and intelligence services, who are believed to be behind the drone activity. However, the article fails to critically evaluate this theory.
Reasons Why I Find the Russian Drone Theory Unconvincing:
- One of the individuals highlighted in the timeline was reported to be in both Russia and Mildenhall at the same time.
- Contrary to the claim that “drone” sightings ceased on November 22, reports indicate they continued into mid-December, peaking on November 28, when multiple jets were scrambled due to increased activity.
- It’s puzzling why drones would circle high-security military bases over 120 miles apart, risking detection.
- If these were indeed Russian surveillance drones, why would they operate with bright lights visible from over 12 miles away?
- How is it possible that a team of 60 anti-drone specialists, equipped with advanced technology, could neither intercept nor even track the drones?
- On November 20, unidentified flying objects were reported coming from the North Sea towards Lakenheath amidst winds exceeding 60 mph. Why weren’t these intercepted and why wasn’t their origin investigated?
- Most alarmingly, if this was indeed a Russian operation, why were US and UK military forces unable to prevent these drones from flying over a base housing nuclear weapons?
This narrative appears too convenient and lacks credibility. It seems that rather than accepting the FAA-approved theory for drone sightings encountered in the US, US and UK authorities might be opting for the Russian narrative in the UK without considering the holes in this explanation. This situation raises far more questions than it answers. What exactly is happening here? 🤔
What are your thoughts? Does anyone have further information on this matter?
Your concerns about the narrative surrounding the Lakenheath drone incidents are quite valid and raise several important questions that warrant further examination.
Credibility of Evidence: The assertion of GRU-linked operatives being near these airbases requires robust evidence. Reports claiming connections need to be scrutinized thoroughly to determine their validity and context.
Timeline Discrepancies: Your point about Individual 2 being in two locations simultaneously raises doubts about the credibility of the sources. If the evidence is not concrete, it weakens the arguments for Russian involvement.
Operational Tactics: The notion that drones would circle high-security bases without being detected or intercepted is troubling. High-security areas typically have advanced surveillance systems. If these drones were indeed a threat, one would expect a swift military response.
Visibility of Drones: The fact that these drones were reportedly flying with bright lights could suggest either a lack of skill in being covert or an entirely different purpose altogether. If they were indeed state-sponsored surveillance drones, one would assume they would employ more stealthy tactics.
Countermeasures and Response: The failure of a 60-person anti-drone team to neutralize the threat raises further questions. If they were unable to track or jam the drones, it reflects poorly on the efficacy of current counter-drone technologies.
UFO Reports: The reports of unidentified flying objects coming from the North Sea, especially in adverse weather conditions, add to the complexity of the situation. It’s concerning that these went untracked, as it casts doubt on the overall situational awareness of the military.
Implications of Nuclear Security: Finally, the serious implications of Russian drones breaching security over sites associated with nuclear weapons are profound. A failure in this area could lead to significant security reassessments.
Your skepticism about the motive behind attributing the incidents to Russian operatives is also notable. Historical trends show that narratives can sometimes be shaped for political or strategic reasons, particularly in contexts where there is public sensitivity.
It would be beneficial for independent investigations to further assess the evidence and clarify uncertainties surrounding the events. Public discourse and transparency will be critical in addressing the numerous questions you’ve raised. As for additional information, it might be helpful to monitor both military and governmental channels for any updates or official reports on these incidents.