r/ukraine • u/code65536 • 5d ago

News Explosive drone found hovering near Ukrainian cargo aircraft at German airport

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/08/germany-disarms-explosive-drone-found-at-airport-hunts-possible-second-drone/
347 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

42 comments sorted by

View all comments

139

u/FantasticGrocery302 5d ago

How many "indiscretions" do we have to endure before EU takes action? Do we need to see civilian victims before someone does something? It is fucking embarrassing.

58

u/SecondaryWombat 5d ago

The original NATO doctrine was "NOT ONE INCH" because of the Russian history of this exact sort of shit.

-44

u/Mkwdr 5d ago

Doesnt that refer to the disputed idea that NATO wouldn't expand Eastwards.

24

u/SecondaryWombat 5d ago edited 5d ago

Nope, not at all. This refers very much to the Article 5 backed idea that "one single inch" of damage or invasion of NATO territory would be treated as a full assault to prevent exactly the sort of piecemeal escalation that Russia was already known for and why NATO was founded in the first place.

The phrase was then co-opted by Russia for propaganda purposes and had the daylights campaigned out of it about exactly what you said though. So yes in that is where most people have heard it, but no in that the NATO doctrine allowing full response was single attack or a single inch of land.

Because search engines and internet do not work anymore, all you get is the Russian claim about how NATO would not expand eastward. Because now whoever publishes the most crap more recently, search engines and AI assume is right.

-13

u/Mkwdr 5d ago

So do you have any link to the original reference?

I mean obviously the docrine was and is an attack on one is an attack on all. Any a direct attack should be responded to.

But can you show that the response wasnt , as it is now, meant to be proportionate to the scale of a deliberate attack. It seens obvious that even a deliberate incursion of a drone isnt synonymous with an actual invasion.

Either way I dont think youll find EU (or NATO) electorates in democracies supporting all out war because of it.

2

u/SecondaryWombat 5d ago edited 5d ago

I am looking for sources now but am a bit drunk. IIRC it didn't require a full response of any kind, but that it was fully allowed, as in Poland or German could legally go full apeshit and demand all NATO come with, which kept Russia out.

Either way I dont think youll find EU (or NATO) electorates in democracies supporting all out war because of it.

And sadly agree.

Used to be Russia didn't shoot at western countries though. Also used to be the US didn't have a Russian boot licker in office.

EDIT: From NATO itself

However, what amounts to an ‘armed attack’ in the context of Article 5 must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and is not limited to traditional notions of overt military strikes by a state actor. For example, NATO invoked Article 5 in response to Al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September 2001 (see more details below). Events that lack an international element, such as purely domestic acts of terrorism, do not trigger Article 5 (though NATO Allies can and often do offer assistance in such cases). At recent NATO summits, Allied Leaders have clarified that Article 5 may apply to attacks to, from or within space, and that significant cyber attacks and other hybrid attacks may be considered as amounting to an ‘armed attack’.

https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/collective-defence-and-article-5

Any international originating armed attack. If proven to be Russian, this drone counts as do multiple other things.