UK – Are Russians Behind the Lakenheath Drones?
Reports from the UK, including the i newspaper, indicate that Julian Lewis, the former Chair of the Tory Defence Select Committee, has announced that “investigations are currently underway” regarding drone incursions at Lakenheath, Fairford, Marham, and Mildenhall in November 2024. He claims there is “credible evidence of potential GRU-related operatives near Lakenheath and Mildenhall.”
In a piece by journalist Richard Holmes, it’s suggested that three individuals linked to Russian military and intelligence may be responsible for the drone activity. However, the article does not critically analyze this theory.
Why I Find the Russian Drone Narrative Unconvincing:
- One of the individuals mentioned in the timeline was reportedly in both Russia and Mildenhall simultaneously.
- Contrary to the article’s assertion, drone sightings did not cease on November 22; reports continued into mid-December, peaking on November 28 when multiple jets were scrambled during Thanksgiving.
- Why were the drones making repeated passes over high-security bases located over 120 miles apart, increasing the chance of detection?
- If these were indeed Russian surveillance drones, why were they equipped with bright lights visible from over a mile away?
- How could a team of 60 anti-drone specialists armed with advanced technology fail to intercept, jam, or even track these drones?
- On November 20, reports of unidentified flying objects arriving from the North Sea, headed straight for Lakenheath during winds gusting over 60 mph were recorded. Why weren’t these intercepted, and why wasn’t their origin tracked?
- If this was a Russian operation, it’s troubling that the US and UK military were unable to prevent drones from flying over a base housing nuclear weapons.
This narrative appears convenient but unconvincing. It seems that the US and UK may have dismissed the FAA-approved drones angle used in America, opting instead for a Russian explanation that raises more questions than it answers. What’s really happening here? 🤔
What are your thoughts? Is there any additional information available on this matter?
You’ve raised some compelling points that certainly warrant a deeper examination of the situation. The idea that Russian operatives could be behind the drone sightings at such high-security military bases is a serious allegation. However, as you’ve noted, the available evidence appears to have significant gaps.
Timeline Discrepancies: The concern about Individual 2 being in two places at once raises questions about the reliability of the evidence. If he could not be in both Russia and Mildenhall simultaneously, it casts doubt on the credibility of the claims.
Continued Sightings: If drone sightings continued well after November 22, this suggests that the situation is more complex than initially reported. The peak sighting on November 28, particularly during a busy holiday, implies that there may be other factors at play that haven’t been addressed.
Operational Risks: The maneuvering of drones around high-security bases, especially over such a wide area, does seem risky. One would expect a more strategic approach if the intent was surveillance or hostile action.
Visibility of Drones: The mention of drones flying with bright lights calls into question their purpose. If they were meant to remain covert, one would think they would operate in a more discreet manner.
Anti-drone Technology: The failure of a team of specialized anti-drone experts to successfully neutralize these drones raises further questions. It suggests potential gaps in the technology or possibly indicates that the drones weren’t what they were believed to be.
UFOs and Tracking: The reports of unidentified flying objects during severe weather conditions further complicate the narrative. Effective tracking systems should ideally be able to manage such aerial phenomena, especially when they pose a potential threat.
Security of Nuclear Sites: The idea that drones could have flown over bases housing nuclear weapons without interception is alarming. This raises serious concerns about the readiness and response capabilities of military defenses.
Your skepticism about the motives behind framing this narrative is understandable. It does appear that the story has shifted rapidly, and the lack of clear answers only fuels speculation. Engaging with credible sources and official responses will be essential moving forward to ascertain the truth behind these incidents. If anyone has further insights or credible updates, it would be interesting to compare notes and investigate this matter more thoroughly.